Thursday, November 29, 2007

Bush's Religion Is 'Ideology'

Over lunch, a liberal friend expressed puzzlement. Citing the title of Tom Oliphant's new book about the Bush administration, "Utter Incompetents," he wondered aloud.

Like him or not, he said, Bush is not an unintelligent man, and he is a principled and energetic executive. As for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the others, almost all had long resumes of accomplishment in politics, government and business.

Why, then, do they seem to have failed so dismally? In my new book, "Day of Reckoning," published this week, I offer an answer. If there is a one root cause to the Bush failures, it has been his fatal embrace of ideology.

Ideology is substitute religion, a belief system based on ideas that are often contradicted by history and common sense. Yet men will adhere to ideologies with a zealotry that borders on fanaticism.

Marxism, fascism and socialism were; are ideologies - gods that failed. So, too, is democratism, the Gospel of George W. Bush. Democratism is a belief that all men are equally endowed with a desire for freedom and an aptitude for democracy. All can be uplifted, and all brought to see that democracy is the one true path to peace in our world. In democracy lies our salvation.
( This is nonsense, of course! - Tiger )

This conviction lay behind the invasion of Iraq, Bush's crusade to democratize the Middle East and his "global democratic revolution" to "end tyranny in our world." And, as Woodrow Wilson's crusade "to make the world safe for democracy" gave us Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, Bush's crusade for democracy is leaving us with ashes in our mouths.

Yet, Wilson's heart was pure, and he ever exhibited the serenity of the True Believer, the unmistakable mark of the ideologue. One imagines Bush will be preaching the dogma of free trade long after the last U.S. factory has closed and the dollar has reached parity with the Mexican peso.

Bush's "compassionate conservative" appears grounded in the ideological conviction that all children are endowed with the capacity to learn through the high school level. No Child Left Behind was going to raise the test scores of all our children above the national average, as in Lake Wobegon.

Why was it fated to fail? Because reality is otherwise. All children are not equal in their innate ability to learn English or math, as they are not equal in their ability to play sports, music or chess. A second-grader knows that, but our elites reject it as bigotry and blasphemy against the egalitarian dogmas that define who they are.

... I don't always agree with Pat Buchanan, but he's making sense here! - Tiger

Garner - Washington Times : A Scrapbook of Failure

All From Not Knowing Your Enemy !

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Saudis Calling Shots at Annapolis Peace Conference? - The Capitulation Continues

Israel recognizes plan calling for exit from Golan, Temple Mount, Jerusalem, West Bank

JERUSALEM – In exchange for Saudi Arabia attending this week's U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian conference in Annapolis, the Israeli government agreed to recognize the importance of a Saudi-sponsored "peace initiative" in which the Jewish state is called upon to evacuate the strategic Golan Heights, the entire West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, WND has learned.

WND obtained a draft Israeli-Palestinian declaration to be presented at the Annapolis conference and to serve as an official outline of a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority .

The wording is still being negotiated by both sides, but according to Israeli diplomatic sources, Israel agreed to a Saudi request that the declaration document include reference to a Saudi-backed Arab Peace Initiative, first presented in 2002 and reissued earlier this year at a meeting of the Arab League, an umbrella association of Mideast Arab states.

When it was first revealed, the Arab Initiative was heavily criticized by the U.S. and Israel because the text requires the Jewish state to withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and allow for the creation of a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, including the evacuation of the Temple Mount - Judaism's holiest site.

The Initiative also called for a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights, strategic mountainous territory that looks down on Israeli population centers and that was twice used by Syria to launch ground invasions into the Jewish state.

But now Israel has recognized the Arab Initiative as a precondition for Saudi Arabia to attend the Annapolis summit, according to diplomatic sources in Jerusalem.

While Israel doesn't commit itself to the Arab Initiative's requirements, a clause in the current draft of the Israeli-Palestinian declaration slated for the Annaplis conference and obtained by WND reads: "We recognize the critical supporting role of Arab and Muslim states and the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative."

The draft declaration is subject to final changes up to Tuesday's summit.

Saudi Arabia announced yesterday it would send its foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, to the Annapolis summit after the Arab League decided to back the Israeli-Palestinian conference.
Syria has not yet officially decided whether to attend but has made clear it would not send a representative to Annapolis unless the Golan Heights was placed on the agenda.

Syria is in a military alliance with Iran and is accused by the U.S. of supporting the insurgency in Iraq and generating instability in Lebanon. Israel says Syria regularly ships Iranian rockets and weaponry to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia. The chiefs of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad Palestinian terror groups are based in Damascus.

The U.S. extended an invitation to Syria without any preconditions.

While many in Washington have high hopes for Annapolis, recent polls here show Israelis are less optimistic.

A survey sponsored last week by the Israel Policy Center for Promoting Parliamentary Democracy and Jewish Values in Israeli Public Life found 77 percent of Israelis believe Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas lacked the power to prevent attacks from the West Bank.

Sixty-one percent of the general Israeli public opposes a withdrawal from most of the West Bank and handing the strategic territory to the Palestinians.

If Israel indeed evacuated the West Bank, some 55 percent of Israelis believe Palestinians will use the territory to fire rockets into Jewish population centers, and 65 percent believe there is a high or very high chance Hamas would take control of the area, according to the new poll. Hamas leaders in recent days warned their terror group would take over the West Bank if Israel withdrew.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Americans Get Fed Up With 'Happy Holidays' - But Democrats Can't Stomach 'Merry Christmas'

A new poll finds Americans overwhelmingly prefer that stores use the phrase "Merry Christmas" in their seasonal advertising rather than "Happy Holidays.

The Rasmussen survey found 67 percent favor "Merry Christmas" while just 26 percent prefer "Happy Holidays."

Rasmussen said the poll results were the same for males and females, and there were few demographic differences.

A sharp difference, however, showed up between Republicans and Democrats.

While 88 percent of Republicans prefer "Merry Christmas," just 57 percent of Democrats favor the saying.

Rasmussen also found 57 percent of respondents say they will attend a Christian service on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day this year.

About 30 percent won’t go to a special service. Women are more likely to attend a Christmas service than men, the survey found.

Several activist groups have launched campaigns in the last few years to encourage stores to acknowledge that their biggest retail season of the year is about Christmas, not winter or simply "holidays."

As WND reported, a group called the Committee to Save Merry Christmas launched a successful boycott against Macy's then targeted Sears for eliminated references to Christmas in its advertising.

The home-improvement retailer Lowe's dropped references to "Holiday Trees" in favor of "Christmas Trees" just one day after a WND story brought national exposure.

Scientist Who Ignited Stem-Cell War Says It's Over - He Now Uses Ordinary Adult Skin Cells

The scientist who helped ignite cultural and political controversy with the use of embryos in stem-cell research believes his new discovery – using ordinary adult skin cells – means the war is virtually over.
"A decade from now, this will be just a funny historical footnote," James A. Thomson told the New York Times in an interview.

Thomson's laboratory at the University of Wisconsin was one of two that announced Tuesday a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without using a human embryo.

The technique involves adding four genes to ordinary adult skin cells.

... critics of stem-cell research using human embryos have continued to point out that all of the clinical trials yielding success in the past several years have used adult stem cells.

As WND reported in January, Christian leaders from around the world hailed the announcement of research concluding stem cells could be derived from amniotic fluid.

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson said at the time that the study "provides more evidence that there is no need to destroy human embryos in order to treat disease or otherwise benefit mankind. In fact, there are no clinical trials anywhere in the world where embryonic stem cells are being used in patients."

At least 70 conditions already are being treated with stem cells from bone marrow and cord blood, and similar prospects are likely for stem cells from amniotic fluid, he said.

( Photo: NY Times )

Friday, November 23, 2007

Cardinals Discuss Threat From Christian Sects

VATICAN CITY — The Roman Catholic Church must figure out what it is doing wrong in the battle for souls since so many Catholics are leaving the Church to join Pentecostal and other evangelical movements, a top Vatican cardinal said Friday.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, who heads the Vatican's office for relations with other Christians, told a meeting of the world's cardinals that the Church must undergo a "self-critical pastoral examination of conscience" to confront the "exponential" rise of Pentecostal movements.

"We shouldn't begin by asking ourselves what is wrong with the Pentecostals, but what our own pastoral shortcomings are," Kasper told the gathering, noting that such evangelical and charismatic groups count 400 million faithful around the world.

The Vatican has been increasingly lamenting the rise of Protestant evangelical communities, which it describes as "sects," in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere and the resulting flight of Catholics. In Brazil alone, Roman Catholics used to account for about 90 percent of the population in the 1960s; by 2005 it was down to 67 percent.

Kasper's comments came on the eve of Saturday's ceremony to elevate 23 new cardinals. As he did during his first consistory in 2006, Pope Benedict XVI asked the world's cardinals to come to Rome early for a meeting to discuss church concerns.

This year, Kasper briefed the cardinals on relations with other Christians, focusing on the church's relations with the Orthodox, Protestants and Pentecostal movements.

Kasper said the rise of independent, often "aggressive" evangelical movements in Africa and elsewhere had complicated the church's ecumenical task. Nevertheless, Kasper told reporters that "ecumenism is not an option but an obligation."

Kasper opened his remarks by updating the cardinals and cardinal-designates on an important new document approved by a Vatican-Orthodox theological commission that has been working to heal the 1,000-year schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

In the document, Catholic and Orthodox representatives both agreed that the pope has primacy over all bishops — although they disagreed over just what authority that primacy gives him.

The development is significant since the Great Schism of 1054 — which split the Catholic and Orthodox churches — was precipitated largely by disagreements over the primacy of the pope.

Castro For Strohs

: )

Here's The 'Special Interest' Reason Democrats Will Win - Democrats Party Of Rich, Study Finds

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

... it also explains why Republicans have gone CapitaSocialist BIG TIME! ( Tiger )

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts."

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Supreme Court Will Decide Meaning of Second Amendment

The American People Already Know What the Second Amendment Means, So, Really We Will Find Out If the Supreme Court Is Still A Valid Institution or Has Been Bought!

On November 20, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Finally, the Court will decide whether the Second Amendment secures to individual citizens the right to keep and bear their private firearms or whether it merely recongizes that an individual may use firearms for the collective purpose of participating in a state-sponsored militia.

This day has been a long time coming. The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment was almost 70 years ago in the case of U.S. v. Miller, which resulted in a controversial opinion that raised more questions than it answered. The case hinged on whether a short-barreled shotgun was the type of weapon used for military purposes and thus protected by the Second Amendment. The Court never heard evidence on this issue and before it could, Mr. Miller was killed and the case died with him.

As a board member and officer of NRA, I’ve been a vocal critic of gun bans and the D.C. gun ban in particular. It’s not just because such laws violate our Constitution but also because 25 years ago, before I became a gun owner, I was almost the victim of a home invasion. I learned first hand that the right of self-defense means nothing unless you also have the means of self-defense.

When this case challenging the D.C. gun ban was filed in 2003, it was called Parker v. District of Columbia. Shelly Parker lived in a high crime area of D.C. She and five other plaintiffs sued to overturn the D.C. law because it deprived them of their right to keep operable firearms in their homes for self-protection.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

AG Must Investigate Ramos-Compean Case, Senator Says

( - Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) wants to know why it took so long to charge the drug dealer -- used as the star witness in putting two ex-Border Patrol agents in prison -- with a second smuggling offense.

Critics of the prosecution of former border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively, have long asked why the drug smuggler wasn't prosecuted.

The indictment and arrest of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila last week for smuggling drugs into the country in the fall of 2005 did not alleviate criticism of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of the Western District of Texas. (See Indictment)

Rather, some critics say it affirms their suspicion that Sutton, who prosecuted the border agents and is now prosecuting Aldrete-Davila, delayed bringing charges against Aldrete-Davila because he feared prosecuting him would jeopardize a conviction in the jury trial of Ramos and Compean.

The two agents were convicted for shooting Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks in February 2005 when he tried to evade arrest.

Further, the alleged smuggling occurred after Aldrete-Davila was granted immunity for attempting to smuggle more than 700 pounds of marijuana into the U.S. the day he was shot and also at a time when Aldrete-Davila had a "humanitarian pass" from the government to enter and exit the country unsupervised.

Though Cornyn did not make any specific allegation against Sutton or the Justice Department, he does want the matter explored.

"The recent arrest of Aldrete-Davila raises serious questions about decisions that were made in the trial and incarceration of the two agents," Cornyn told Cybercast News Service. "The attorney general should review the circumstances of this case immediately and forward a recommendation to the president."

Robert Spencer: The Next Moves of Radical Islam

GOP Facing Huge Losses in 2008 - No Longer A Party of Principle

Republicans in the Senate and House are in such deep trouble that they may not only see their numbers decrease in next year's election, they may even find the Democrats with a veto-proof majority in the Senate, a Newsmax survey finds.

One year after voters routed Republicans in the midterms, many in the GOP have all but abandoned the goal of re-claiming majority status. Privately, insiders concede, they’d be happy just to hold their ground.

“We’re completely realistic over here. We see the mountain in front of us,” said Rebecca Fisher, communications director for the Senate GOP’s campaign committee, which has struggled to raise money and recruit top candidates this year. “When you look at the big picture, it seems very daunting.”

Indeed, the Senate landscape looks particularly troublesome for Republicans, who are defending 21 seats to the Democrats’ 12. All 12 Democratic incumbents are seeking re-election, while five (and maybe six) Republicans are retiring.

The GOP needs to pick up one or two seats to reclaim the majority; strategists think they’re more likely to lose three or four.

But, Fisher said, there are a few bright spots. “State by state, our vulnerable list is getting shorter.”

She points to moderate GOP incumbents in Maine and Oregon who look safer today than they did six months ago. Nonetheless, she says, the party is concerned about open seats in places like New Mexico and Virginia, which she calls “our toughest seats overall to hold.”

In the House, the picture is just as grim for Republicans, who need to pick up 16 House seats to knock Nancy Pelosi from the Speaker’s chair. Citing a large number of retirements, House watchers say Republicans are more likely to lose a handful.

“The loss of power is really what discourages them from sticking around,” says Tim Sahd, editor of the National Journal’s House Race Hotline.

... Democrats; Republicans - Equally Bad! To associate with them is to accept Anti-Americanism!

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Islam and the Nation-State

The End of National Sovereignty?

Throughout the world, one of the most prevalent causes of war, terrorism, and political instability is the ongoing weakening of the nation-state system. There are several reasons that the nation-state as a political unit of sovereignty is under threat. One of the most basic causes of this continuous erosion of national power throughout the world is the transformation of minority-dominated enclaves within nation-states into ungovernable areas where state power is either not applied or applied in a haphazard and generally unconstructive manner. ( illegal immigration - Tiger )

While domestic strife between majority and minority populations has been an enduring feature of democratic and indeed all societies throughout history, the current turbulence constitutes a unique challenge to the nation-state system. This is because much of the internal strife between minority and majority populations within states today is financed and often directed from outside the country. ( Saudi Arabia - Tiger )

Traditionally, minorities used various local means to engage the majority population in a bid to influence the political direction or cultural norms of the nation state. The classic examples of this traditional minority-majority engagement are the black civil rights movement in the US in the 1960s and the labor movements in the West throughout the 20th century. By and large, these movements were domestic protests informed by national sensibilities even when they enjoyed the support of foreign governments.

Today while similar movements continue to flourish, they are now being superseded by a new type of minority challenge to national majorities.

This challenge is not primarily the result of domestic injustice but the consequence of foreign agitation. The roots of these minority challenges are found outside the borders of the targeted states. And their goals are not limited to a call for the reform of national institutions and politics. Rather they set their sights on weakening national institutions and eroding national sovereignty.

Muslim minorities throughout the world are being financed and ideologically trained in Saudi and UAE funded mosques and Islamic centers. These minorities act in strikingly similar manners in the countries where they are situated throughout the world. On the one hand, their local political leaders demand extraordinary communal rights, rights accorded neither to the national majority nor to other minority populations. On the other hand, Muslim neighborhoods, particularly in Europe, but also in Israel, the Philippines and Australia, are rendered increasingly ungovernable as arms of the state like the police and tax authorities come under attack when they attempt to assert state power in these Muslim communities.

Logic would have it that targeted states would respond to the threat to their authority through a dual strategy. On the one hand, they would firmly assert their authority by enforcing their laws against both individual lawbreakers and against subversive, foreign financed institutions that incite the overthrow of their governments and their replacement with Islamic governments. On the other hand, they would seek out and empower local Muslims who accept the authority and legitimacy of their states and their rule of law.

Unfortunately, with the notable exception of the Howard government in Australia, in country after country, governments respond to this challenge by attempting to appease Muslim irredentists and their state sponsors. The British responded to the July 7, 2005 bombings by giving representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood an official role in crafting and carrying out counter-terror policies.

In 2003, then French president Jacques Chirac sent then interior minister Nicholas Sarkozy to Egypt to seek the permission of Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi of the Islamist al-Azhar mosque for the French parliament's plan to outlaw hijabs in French schools.

In the US, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the FBI asked the terror-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations to conduct sensitivity training for FBI agents.

In Holland last year, the Dutch government effectively expelled anti-Islamist politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the interest of currying favor with Holland's restive Muslim minority.

... In the interest of defending the nation-state system, on which American sovereignty and foreign policy is based, the US should reassess the logic of its support for the establishment of Muslim-only states. It should similarly revisit its refusal to openly support the right of non-Islamic states like Israel, Serbia and even France, to assert their rights to defend their sovereignty, national security and national character from outside-sponsored domestic Islamic subversion.

Garner - Washington Times : When Lies Come 'Home' To Roost

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Yet Another Foreign Policy Screw-Up?; Or, Is It An Intentional Lie?

"... they are holes that the Bush Administration is not anxious to discuss. Repeated requests by FOX News to the Department of Commerce, Industry and Security to glean information on the high-tech exports and their legality were met with silence. And even though UNDP has freely answered questions posed by FOX News about the nature of the customs project and its history, sources within the organization report that UNDP staff have been grilled as to how FOX came to learn sensitive details of the project in the first place."

After years of harsh talk and escalating rounds of sanctions against Syria for supporting terror and seeking weapons of mass destruction, the United States is quietly supporting a United Nations program to supply the Syrian regime with sophisticated surveillance equipment and computers to monitor its borders.

That surreptitious support emerged in the course of a FOX News investigation that began after a surprise Israeli air strike on September 6 destroyed a mysterious Syrian facility that many experts believe was a North Korean-style nuclear reactor.

The gap between the Bush Administration’s anti-Syrian rhetoric and reality emerges in the book-keeping of the $5.2 billion United Nations Development Program, the U.N.’s flagship development agency, which has come under heavy fire for its improper funneling of cash to the regime of North Korean dictator and nuclear proliferator Kim Jong Il.

This time the issue is UNDP’s ties — and those of the U.S. and the European Union — to the Baathist regime of Syrian President Bashir Assad, which has been sanctioned by the U.S. for its sponsorship of international terrorism, destabilization of Lebanon and its shipping of terrorists and weapons to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Syria’s own ties to North Korea and its clandestine attempts to gain weapons of mass destruction were dramatically underlined on Sept. 6, when Israeli Air Force F-15s blasted the secret nuclear facility.

... Questions sent by e-mail to the European Union’s customs project supervisors in Syria went unanswered.

A Republican to Love, Perhaps one of the Last! - Ann Coulter

If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf has declared emergency rule in Pakistan, shut down the media and sent Supreme Court justices home. What's not to like about a guy who orders policemen to beat up lawyers? I bet he has a good plan on illegal immigration, too.

The entire history of Pakistan is this: There are lots of crazy people living there, they have nuclear weapons, and any Pakistani leader who prevents the crazies from getting the nukes is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all rolled into one.

We didn't hear much about Musharraf – save for B. Hussein Obama's threat to bomb Pakistan without informing Musharraf – until the last few weeks.

Musharraf has been a crucial ally of ours since Sept. 12, 2001. His loyal friendship to the United
States while governing a country that is loyal to al-Qaida might prove dispiriting to the terrorists. So, until recently, the media mostly confined stories about Musharraf to page A-18.

Now, with the surge in Iraq working, Democrats are completely demoralized. Al-Qaida was counting on them. (We know the surge in Iraq is working because it is no longer front page news.)

In a tape released in early September, Osama bin Laden bitterly complained, "You elected the Democratic Party for this purpose" – of ending the war in Iraq – "but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning."

... How might popular rule turn out in Pakistan? As Saul Bellow rhetorically said of multiculturalism, "Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulus?"

Pakistan is a country where local Islamic courts order women to be raped as punishment for the crimes of their male relatives. Among the Islamists' bill of particulars against Musharraf is the fact that he has promoted the Women's Protection Bill, which would punish rape, rather than using it as a device for social control.

According to the Boston Globe, the most common form of homosexuality in Pakistan – punishable by death – is pederasty.

Pakistan doesn't need Adlai Stevenson right now. It needs Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to impose military rule and drag a country of Islamic savages into the 19th century, as Ataturk did in Turkey. Pakistan's Ataturk is Gen. Musharraf.

To try to force democracy on the differing "I hate America" factions in Pakistan at this stage would be worse than Jimmy Carter's abandonment of the shah in 1979. It would result in what former Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian called: "one man, one vote, one time."

The difference is: Instead of scimitars, this den of al-Qaida-supporting pederasts will have nukes.

... are you listening, George and Condi?

A Grim Milestone Ignored

Ten thousand reported attacks by Islamic terrorists and militants since 9/11

The establishment media is seemingly obsessed with “grim milestones” in the War on Terror, as the Associated Press reminds us this past weekend. But in the next week those same establishment media outlets will probably stand mute when yet another “grim milestone” is reached – the 10,000th attack by Islamic terrorists and militants since 9/11, which is responsible for approximately 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured.

The chronicler of this bloody tally is Glen Reinsford, editor of, who began compiling and updating daily a detailed list of reported incidents of violence and terrorism around the world targeting non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Because of space limitations he only posts the past two months worth of attacks on his websites main page, though he has archived all of the incidents from past years (2001-2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). He also maintains a banner graphic with the updated number of attacks, which people can post on their own websites.

When asked what prompted him to begin such a labor-intensive undertaking, Reinsford identifies the tepid response to Islamic terrorism by otherwise outspoken Muslim groups, with one organization particularly in mind:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations.

After 9/11, I kept an eye on them and was quite disgusted by their lack of moral perspective. They complain about issues that affect Muslims which are quite trivial, on average, compared to what is happening in the name of their religion. They do occasionally denounce terror in a general, somewhat ambiguous, sense but there is an obvious lack of passion. Their real interest is themselves.

... Meanwhile, the deadly toll continues to roll unnoticed by the establishment media. But Glen Reinsford is still there continuing his grim task keeping us all aware of how pervasive and unrelenting the problem of Islamic terrorism really is.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Dick Armey Says Hillary Will Win - The Cowardly Capitulation of the Republican Party

If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Hillary Rodham Clinton would win.
Hillary’s minor stumbles in last week’s debate notwithstanding, she is simply running the most disciplined and effective campaign. She’s one of the most able politicians in America, and no one should underestimate her desire to be President and her calculating focus.
What you need to understand is that Hillary Clinton is, quite simply, craftier and more aggressive than the rest of the field. I know this firsthand, having battled with the Clinton Administration throughout the 1990’s while serving as a leader in Congress.

She’s only gotten tougher since then.

... No doubt, Hillary Clinton has the Democrat primary all wrapped up. A couple of one-term senators are simply no match for the political machine she and her husband have built. I won’t go so far as to say that it’s not possible for a Republican to defeat her in the general election. But as things stand today, the GOP has a very real set of problems that are larger than any of the party’s candidates.

First and foremost, the Republican brand as effective stewards of the taxpayer dollar is in tatters, and the shredding doesn’t look to stop any time soon. Just yesterday, 138 House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to override the president’s veto of a wasteful and pork-ridden Water Resources bill. That vote was a shameful display of personal politics over the national interest, and it contains the seeds of destruction of whatever conservative principles remain in the Republican party.

The callow accommodation to big-spending Democrats in Congress is one of the ways the Republican party will return itself to the days of serving as a compliant, permanent minority. Happy for table scraps, elected Republicans will simply abandon the ideas of their party in order to “get along”.

No wonder Americans prefer Democrats on the economy, taxes, and spending issues, according to recent polling data. When the choice is between Democrats, and the Democrat-lite ideas the GOP has become so comfortable offering, the Democrats will win every time.

The only way the Republican party will beat Hillary Clinton is to return to its limited-government roots. That’s the only way to rebuild a majority coalition.

... To counter Hillary Clinton’s perfectly oiled political machine, Republicans need to return to their Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan roots. They need to present an alternative vision for America—a positive vision that limits government and trusts individuals and leaves families, churches, and businesses free to make their own decisions, and not have bureaucrats and politicians calling the shots.

Right now, the country is headed toward a date with Hillary Clinton, and big government is on the agenda. The only way to change that rendezvous is for candidates to offer a clear, principled, limited government alternative.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Old Glory - Running From Hillary!

She has that effect on voters too!

Savage Gets Savage On Islam!

CAIR Targets Another Conservative Talk Show Host

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is pressing advertisers to withdraw their sponsorship of Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio program because of Savage's alleged "anti-Muslim bigotry."

Savage, on his Web site, is fighting back, urging his listeners to protect freedom of speech: "Email your representative; investigate CAIR for manipulating the U.S. media," his Web site says.

On Nov. 1, CAIR urged "radio listeners of all faiths" to contact companies that advertise on "The Savage Nation" to complain about an "anti-Muslim tirade" on Savage's Oct. 29 program. (CAIR periodically issues "incitement alerts," urging its members to contact various media outlets to express their concerns about "Islamophobic attitudes.")

CAIR was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Muslim attacks," which it quoted as follows:

- "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

- "What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it."

- "What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."

... he's right ya know!

Friday, November 09, 2007

The Attacks On Christianity Continue - From the Bush Administration!

Feds ban grandma's angel ornament on Christmas tree

HUD orders residents to avoid Jesus in decorations

Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development officials have announced a ban on any decorations in HUD housing complexes that mention Jesus or represent religion for the Christmas season, and the American Family Association has responded with a petition drive to overturn the decision.

The AFA has set up a link to allow constituents to send e-mails to the HUD secretary or President Bush expressing their objections to the policy.

The issue arose at the Plant City Living Center in Plant City, Fla., where 85-year-old Mrs. Arnold was told that federal law now prohibits her from displaying anything that references religion – words, decorations and the like – in the common area of her apartment building, a HUD facility.

The grandmother told AFA she was instructed that even an angel decoration would be disallowed by the ban, which makes her think of the restrictions in Germany during World War II.

According to the center, HUD has issued a directive banning "any religious symbols or religious words associated with Christmas," which effectively prevents Mrs. Arnold from placing a small Christmas tree outside her door if it contains any religious symbols or words – "even an angel,"
AFA said in a special alert asking for e-mails.

A spokeswoman at the center who preferred not to give her name told WND the rules now prevent displays "like a manger, like a Christ child, any religious symbols."

David Horowitz

Haven't Been Attacked? - Islamic Terrorist Growth in Prisons

Bush Administration Says It Won't Act! - Supports Wahhabist Efforts!

AS REPORTED AT LENGTH in THE WEEKLY STANDARD--the latest commentary appeared here on September 16, 2007--federal, state, county, and city prison officials have wrestled since the horror of 9/11 with the presence of radical Muslim chaplains in our country's correctional systems. To the shock of most Americans, when they hear about it, missionaries of the ultrafundamentalist Wahhabi sect, financed by Saudi Arabia and supporting terrorism, have a monopoly on Muslim chaplaincies behind bars. Similar patterns of "authorized" prison infiltration by Islamists are visible in Britain, Russia, and other countries.

The U.S. Justice Department and related authorities are disinclined to take serious action about this problem, even though a jail is the last place Muslim radical recruiters should be allowed free access, much less employment under the pretext of religious services and counseling to inmates. As thoroughly established in the public record, Saudi-subsidized and Wahhabi-trained chaplains preach extremism, including contempt for Western law, to convicts. This contrasts rather obviously with the presumed role of prison chaplains in seeking rehabilitation of lawbreakers.

Moderate Muslim groups have collected stacks of letters from disgruntled prisoners describing sermons in favor of al Qaeda, discrimination and threats against dissident Muslims, confiscation of anti-radical Muslim literature, and similar abuse by Islamist chaplains in prisons. In the absence of relief from penal authorities, however, Muslim victims of radical Islam in America's jailhouses have been compelled to file legal complaints that, until a few weeks ago, were routinely dismissed.

... folks! if we don't wake up we're in REAL trouble!

It's Not Just the 'Socialist' Bush! - It's Condi Too!

Condoleezza Rice arrived in Foggy Bottom in January 2005 to a standing ovation.

With critics of the Iraq War still a marginal faction of the liberal left, the new secretary of state was an international star in an administration that had few. Supporters urged her to consider a 2008 run for president as chatter of “Condi vs. Hillary” filled the airwaves.

Three years and more than 60 global trips later, Rice’s profile has plummeted, even among the conservatives who once viewed her as their ideological savior and soulmate.

In light of her changing image, Newsmax decided to take a hard look at Rice’s performance and issue a report card on her efforts to date. Her results have been mixed at best, which is reflected in our overall grade of “C-.”

Gauging the clout of an official such as Rice, tasked with so many varied and subjective duties, isn’t easy. But consider these performance points:

- These days, Russian President Vladimir Putin keeps Rice waiting outside his Moscow office like a pesky salesman peddling office supplies.

- She's in a running battle with Vice President Dick Cheney and his neo-conservative allies over diplomatic efforts with Iran.

- In Iraq, Rice and her aides have yet to offer a real plan for political reconciliation.
Rice recently failed to keep Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf from rescinding his nation’s constitution – something he’d backed down from earlier this year. (as if she could! - Tiger)

“Look at the world. Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Russia. Venezuela. You have to search pretty hard to find some success,” says Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, who worked closely with Rice at the university and advised U.S. occupation authorities in Baghdad in 2004. “It’s a very intractable world she inherited in 2005. But, of course, it’s a product of the first term of an administration in which she served as national security adviser.

By its own admissions, Rice’s department is struggling in its stated effort to improve the way the United States is perceived around the world.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

The 'Peace Process': Helping Hamas - How Delusory Diplomacy Advances the Cause of Terror

Americans, your secretary of state has been in Israel for the eighth time this year. The usual stuff is going on—plans afoot for mass releases of jailed terrorists, Israeli communities getting relentlessly shelled with only token military responses while Ehud Olmert waxes rhapsodic about “two states living side by side in peace and security.”

This time it was Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad who raised a demand that Israel release no less than 2000 of the 12,000 Palestinian security prisoners that it holds as a “bold move” ahead of the still-unscheduled Annapolis conference. The well-mannered Fayyad—who holds a PhD in economics from the University of Texas at Austin and has worked at the Federal Reserve Bank and the World Bank—is viewed by eager peace processors as someone who just has to fit the cherished image of the “Palestinian moderate.”

But there he goes, demanding a mass freeing of terrorists so that Israel can prove its peace mettle while getting absolutely nothing in return, not even a solitary “gesture” such as the freeing of its kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

What to do? Question Fayyad’s moderation and peace credentials? No, the answer is . . . comply!

... The moral of the story is that when an ostensibly conservative U.S. administration pursues a fictitious peace process based on liberal shibboleths of even-handedness and Palestinian virtue and moderation, the losers are Israel and Middle Eastern stability and the winners are the terror organizations and their patron the Tehran regime, which is successfully orchestrating the real “process.”

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Jeff Dunham - Achmed the Dead Terrorist


Capitulating to the Enemy - The Bush Doctrine

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

The first term of the George W. Bush presidency and what has come to be known as the “Bush Doctrine” were marked by a profound and forceful reaction to September 11, 2001. Determined to prevent further, murderous attacks on the United States, Mr. Bush and his national security team were determined to “drain the swamps” from whence terrorists received safe havens and other forms of support. Out went the sort of “stability” born of accommodations with totalitarians and favored by the foreign policy establishment’s so-called “realists.” In came a U.S. commitment to bringing down the “axis of evil,” in favor of a world ordered by liberty and democracy.

Today, we are seeing the emergence of what might be described as “Bush Doctrine 2.0.” It bears no similarity to the first edition. In fact, it pretty much repudiates everything Mr. Bush stood for during his first four years in office. Worse yet, it threatens to render his legacy not simply one of unrealized goals but of betrayed principles, abandoned friends and unscrupulous deals with tyrants sure to perpetuate their odious regimes.

Herewith a sampling of the unraveling of Mr. Bush’s policies:

Appeasing North Korea: Early in the first Bush administration, the President to his credit candidly revealed to Bob Woodward that he loathed Kim Jong Il’s brutally repressive police state. After the North Koreans acknowledged lying about their nuclear weapons program, he strove to intensify Kim’s isolation in the hope of neutralizing the threat thus posed and, with luck, to bring him down.

Mr. Bush was subsequently induced to believe that this goal could be advanced best by enlisting the North’s regional neighbors – including its enablers, China, Russia and South Korea – in so-called “six-party talks.” Even as it became ever more apparent that Pyongyang’s allies were using those negotiations to thwart the original Bush Doctrine, not advance it, the President clung to this approach and eschewed bilateral talks with, to say nothing of appeasement of, the North.
Now, however, the U.S. envoy to those talks, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has eviscerated the original Bush policy.
In the name of obtaining still more vacuous promises of nuclear disarmament from Kim Jong-Il, Hill is not only negotiating directly and bilaterally with Pyongyang. He has promised to remove North Korea from the list of state-sponsors of terrorism, despite mounting evidence that the North is actively engaged in the ultimate support for terrorism: proliferating nuclear weapons technology to the likes of two others on that infamous list: Syria and Iran.

A Palestinian state, no matter what: In June 2002, Mr. Bush declared that he would be willing to work towards a homeland for the Palestinian people only if certain conditions were satisfied. These included their rejection of terrorism, the elimination of its infrastructure and the emergence of a new generation of leaders unsullied by ties to terror.

Now, Mr. Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice is frantically pursuing the creation of a Palestinian state she hopes will be run by a man with lifelong ties to terror – Yasir Arafat’s crony and right-hand man, Mahmood Abbas. In the process, she is: whitewashing his record and current conduct; euchring Israel into surrendering more territory to its enemies; and ignoring the virtual certainty that any land thus yielded will become yet another safe-haven for terror (as with South Lebanon and Gaza before it).

Closing "Gitmo": For years, President Bush has recognized the need for a U.S.-controlled facility outside the United States capable of securely incarcerating international terrorists. He refused to capitulate to the often-hysterical calls, both at home and abroad, for the closure of the irreplaceable prison complex used for this purpose and located Guantanamo Bay.

Now, according to the New York Times, Mr. Bush’s administration is poised to shut down Gitmo, transfer its remaining occupants to U.S. territory and extend to them expanded rights to counsel and consideration of their cases in civilian courts. It is unlikely that this action will earn “W.” any kudos from his critics. It will, however, make it more difficult and vastly more expensive to keep such detainees off the actual or propaganda battlefields of this war.

Farewells to sovereignty: During his first term, Mr. Bush recognized the threat to U.S. sovereignty posed by unaccountable and generally hostile multinational organizations like the International Criminal Court. He went so far as to “unsign” the treaty that established that tribunal, rather than allow Americans to be subject to its prosecutions.

Now, President Bush is arguing in a case pending before the Supreme Court that the dictates of such tribunals must trump domestic law. He is also pressing the Senate to allow the U.S. to be subjected to a host of new tribunals authorized by yet another sovereignty-sapping multinational accord, the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

With the notable exception of Iraq – where George W. Bush has largely held firm in the face of relentless criticism, with ever-more-promising results – virtually every aspect, principle and objective of his security policy is being eviscerated on his watch. The problem is not merely that those adulterating his original Bush Doctrine by supplanting it with a 2.0 version will obliterate the common-sense and courageous approach made necessary in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. He will bequeath to his successor and his people a world made vastly more dangerous, not more stable, for his administration’s embrace of appeasement dressed up as “realism.”

... without ANY doubt, G.W. Bush has matched Jimmy Carter for the record of most incompetent President !

Monday, November 05, 2007

The State Department Response — Calling for Immediate Free Elections in Pakistan — is IDIOTIC!

Break down Pakistan's instability into just some of its component parts — Islamist militancy, tribal unrest, deep-seated ethnic separatism, feudal oppression, sectarian hatred, an incompetent and corrupt ruling elite, an ill-educated population, a paranoid and conspiratorial culture — and it's far from clear that dictatorship is the disease or elections the cure.


In the Punjab, far from the frontier there was a major suicide bomb attack against the Pakistani Air Force, killing eight officers and cadets (probably a reprisal for air strikes in Waziristan in October). There was intense fighting in the Swat valley, a popular vacation area on the edge of the tribal area, with Pakistani helicopter gunships striking militants of the TNSM, a.k.a. the Pakistani Taliban. Another suicide bomber exploded himself and seven other people in a high security area of Rawalpindi near General Musharaf's official residence (on the anniversary of a Pakistani missile attack on an extremist TNSM madrassa last year). Whatever Musharraf's actual motives, I can think of lots of countries where this level of violence might prompt a state of emergency....


More Madness! U.S. May Withhold Billions from Pakistan

... this is called: SCREWING YOUR 'ALLY' !!!

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Headlines That Make No Sense - P.C. Illustrated!

U.S. urges Islamabad to restore democracy
( Pakistan has never been a Democracy! )

Dead Runner Ryan Shay Had Enlarged Heart, Dad Says
( ... Dead Runner ? ... poor guy!)

Fog Leads to Deadly 100-Car Freeway Pileup in California
( Fog Leads? ... does SLOW DOWN have any meaning? )

... things like this are incredible! It's like Glenn Beck harping on about the MURDER of those poor innocent DOGS by Michael Vick! We're in trouble!

Friday, November 02, 2007

Huckabee Is No Conservative - Then Again, None of Them Are!

The problem with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee isn't his funny name, which brings to mind a character in a Hanna-Barbera cartoon. (What kind of a name is Mitt, anyway?)

It's not the fact that he strums a guitar or that, other than governing Arkansas for a decade, his principal claim to fame is losing 110-lbs.

What scares me about Huckabee is that he's a practitioner of the ghastly art of political compassion. He could even be one of those compassionate conservatives we've heard so much about -- except he's not a conservative.

Huckabee's stock is rising. Friday's Rasmussen Poll has him among the top tier candidates for the GOP nomination. With 12%, the former governor is behind Giuliani, Thompson and McCain (at 14%) but ahead of Deep-Pockets Mitt (with 11%).

Understandably, Huckabee wowed them at the recent Values Voter Washington Briefing, sponsored by Family Research Council. For those who attended the conference and voted (instead of voting online), Huckabee won with 51%.

Superficially, Huckabee looks like the ideal candidate for social conservatives -- pro-life, anti-gay marriage and a Baptist minister to boot. A friend of mine who's an evangelical and a Beltway pundit says a lot of it comes down to tribal politics. The religious right, which is dominated by evangelicals, looks at Huckabee and sees one of its own.

It is mistaken.

... During his years in Little Rock, Huckabee raised the state's sales tax by 37%, the gas tax by 16% and the cigarette tax by 103% (all fall particularly hard on the poor). State spending went up a staggering 65.3% -- three times the inflation rate. The state's workforce grew by 20% and Arkansas' general obligation debt increased $1 billion.

Conservatives most familiar with the man are the most skeptical of his conservative credentials. At its July convention, the Arkansas Republican Assembly, which represents the state party's right-wing, took a presidential preference straw poll. Thompson swept the field with 86%.

Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of Schlafly's Eagle Forum, says that outside of a few key social issues, Huckabee governed as a liberal. "Just like Bill Clinton, he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office," Hagan cautions.

Huckabee is a sucker for social spending. In April 2006, he raised the state's minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.25 an hour, levying yet another tax on businesses and consumers -- one that destroys entry-level jobs.

... Huckabee will not be the Republican nominee in 2008, for which we should be exceedingly grateful.

Garner - Washington Times : What No Energy Policy Means!