Tuesday, July 29, 2008



As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram, Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.

As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service.

So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.

I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States . I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

In service,

CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier

American by birth
MARINE by the grace of God

Semper Fi

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Labels: , , , , , ,


From the Israeli Insider.

BARACK OBAMA MAY BE ON A WORLD TOUR surrounded by a fawning media, but Sunday an expert in electronic document forensics released a detailed report on the purported birth certificate—actually a "Certification of Live Birth" or COLB—claimed as genuine by his campaign. The expert concludes with 100% certainty that it is a crudely forged fake: "a horrible forgery," according to the analysis published on the popular right-wing Atlas Shrugs blog.

The purported birth certificate was published by the left wing Daily Kos blog on June 12 in response to unconfirmed reports that Obama was not in fact born in the United States (Canada and Kenya were suggested as the possible locations of his actual birth). Since he would in that case not be a natural born US citizen (his mother was not present in the US sufficiently long as an adult to pass American citizenship on to him automatically), he would not be eligible to be president. Israel Insider has followed the story in five previous articles (the previous one here) and uncovered evidence, most recently, of admitted forgery among Daily Kos bloggers, tolerance of electronic forgeries on the blog site, as well as efforts by a blog administrator to conceal the admission of forgery.

The latest examinaton of the purported documents is by far the most detailed and technically sophisticated to date.

Atlas Shrugs publisher Pamela Geller reports that the expert analyst, who goes by the screen name "Techdude", is "an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association—the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer-based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then."

Perhaps the outspoken Israeli press corps will be able to do what their fawning American counterparts have failed to do so far. Obama's visit this week to Israel will be an opportunity to begin asking the tough questions—however unpolitically correct—about his apparently forged birth certificate and what that means for his citizenship status and Constitutional fitness to be the next leader of the free world.

The pseudonym was apparently inadequate to prevent Techdude's identity from being exposed. He reports that last week one or more persons "decided to track me down and vandalize my car and hang a dead mutilated rabbit from my front door in a lame attempt to intimidate me from proceeding with releasing any details of my analysis. They did succeed in delaying the report by a few days but instead of deterring me they just really pissed me off. To their credit, if I had not taken a few days off from the analysis I would have missed the most damning piece of evidence—the remnants of the previous security border."

Read it all.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, July 26, 2008


NOW HE IS PRAISING CHINA. Big mistake. Who just happened to perpetrate the tainted dog food, the lead painted toys, and other pseudo-corporate scandals against us. Oh, "It was a mistake." I believe that just like I believe that donkeys have wings and fly. When American companies purchase items from abroad each give their suppliers detailed specifications. Therefore it is only too convenient and absolutely false to suggest that a Chinese overseer "forgot" that U.S. doesn't allow lead paint or that we would embrace poisoned dog food to be shipped and sold in our country.

It doesn't take a Merlin to connect the dots on this deliberate act by the government to hit the U.S. citizens, raise the bar on terror. As for Taiwan and China? That threat is far from gone. All it takes is one nuclear bomb to wipe Taiwan from the map. It is immoral to lull the Taiwanese into a feeling of security before they are attacked. China is a brutal and rigid country and cannot be trusted. I was extremely upset when the United States gave it most favored nation status, exiling Taiwan to isolation without proper allies. That never should have happened.

What's more, China should never have been awarded the Olympics. I, for one, will not watch one minute of them, and will miss the swimming competition with great sorrow. Yes, I feel sorry for all the athletes, but boycotting the games for their host nation's human rights abuses is the only way to make a personal impact. All this talk of changing brutal regimes into milquetoast if only we are nice to them has never and will never work on the historical stage. Let's see some backbone, America.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, July 25, 2008


WHILE ONE IMAGINES THE ITEM is enough to bring down the whole house in Memphis, Tennessee any day of the week, this stone cold 'Elvis' bust is estimated to make between £25,000 and £30,000, not all that much dough really when considering the sculpture was created around 1,800 years before 'The King' ever crooned his first song. The Roman ornament, called an acroterion, is carved in marble on the corner of a sarcophagus dating from the second century AD.

The sculpture is among a collection of ancient art owned by the Melbourne-based dealer Graham Geddes, which is estimated to sell for more than £1m. Mr. Geddes' collection, which includes more than 50 classical Greek vases and 30 pieces of marble sculpture, will be auctioned by Bonhams in October.

Many of these items will sell for up to £90,000 each, and the bust, which even the collector has nicknamed 'Elvis', is estimated to make between £25,000 and £30,000. A spokesman for Bonhams said:

"Fans of the King of Rock 'n Roll, seeing this face from the distant past will be forgiven for thinking that their idol may well have lived a previous life in Rome. Looking at this face with its Elvis-like quiff, strong jaw and nose, one is inevitably led to the thought that the human face for all is diversity and subtlety has after all an ability to repeat itself."

Labels: , , , ,


The following article was authored by John Perazzo originally published at Frontpage Magazine on Friday, July 25, 2008.

Last week, columnist Paul Weyrich reported that there is credible evidence that Osama bin Laden has acquired twenty suitcase-sized nuclear bombs from Chechen rebels in the former Soviet Union and smuggled them into the United States by way of the Mexican border. If that is true, the al Qaeda kingpin has laid the groundwork for an “American Hiroshima” plan that he intends to carry out in the very near future. Once bin Laden gives the signal, his henchmen will proceed to detonate their explosives in a number of separate U.S. cities, leaving them in irreparable ruins and killing tens of millions of people in the process.

In other words, while the Left, ever since 9/11, has argued passionately against sealing the southern U.S. border on grounds that such an initiative would constitute “racism,” “xenophobia,” a violation of “human rights,” a repudiation of “American values,” and a “threat to the environment,” bin Laden has quietly and happily exploited our national insanity and set the stage, from his cave somewhere in the remote mountains of Pakistan, for the cataclysmic end of the most powerful nation in world history.

If bin Laden indeed has been able to set in motion this nightmare scenario, he succeeded for one very simple reason: America’s military might has been offset by a weakness of spirit that has become a hallmark of the modern Western world. It is a frailty that derives entirely from the leftist worldview that has infected America over the past half-century. This view identifies Western (especially American) culture as a uniquely evil, exploitative player in the story of mankind, and depicts all acts of barbarism against the U.S. as wholly understandable reactions to American transgressions. It is a mindset that has gradually, incrementally, and inexorably made its “long march through the institutions,”—the schools, the seminaries and churches, the media, the entertainment industry, the courts, and the political sphere—just as the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci prescribed in the 1920s.

Gramsci understood that by poisoning the culture from within, and by so degrading and undermining the culture’s faith in itself, the American people could be compelled to believe, to their very marrow, that their heritage was in fact unworthy of defending against those who would destroy it under the banner of so-called “multiculturalism.” Gramsci and his successors were patient enough to allow this time-consuming process to unfold, knowing that the American way of life could be bled to death ever-so-slowly, almost imperceptibly, without the firing of a single shot until the time was just right.

The fact that the person who ultimately may fire that shot is a seventh-century-style savage whose fanatical “religious” worldview bears no resemblance whatsoever to the ideals of Gramsci and his fellow Marxists, is not as strange as one might think. As bin Laden himself declared in a fatwa issued on Al-Jazeera Television just before American and British troops entered Iraq in March 2003: “The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.”

Given that bin Laden’s agents of nuclear holocaust apparently were smuggled into our country by way of the Mexican border, it is worth recalling what some of the luminaries of the Left have had to say, in recent years, vis a vis defending that border by means of increased surveillance and the construction of a fence to repel illegal invaders:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser attributes the concerns that many Americans have about illegal immigration to a “wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.” Wade Henderson of the ACLU’s Washington, DC office claims that the desire to regulate immigration can be traced directly to “hostility motivated by nativism, racism, and red scare.” In May 2008, the ACLU produced a tearjerker advertisement lamenting how a fence somewhere along the U.S.-Mexico border had ruined Mother’s Day for a Mexican woman and her daughter by keeping them apart.

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC):  Viewing the United States as the world’s primary agent of evil and exploitation, this group has posted on its website a detailed list of strategies by which illegal aliens—in the event that they are interrogated, detained, or arrested—can avoid cooperating with immigration authorities or police. According to AFSC, a border fence would “disrupt” area residents’ “way of life” and “has never proven to be a long-term, practical solution to the immigration dilemma.” The organization further contends that such a fence would constitute “a form of violence to the environment” because “it is expected to cause irreversible damage to the Tijuana River Estuary environs as well as cause erosion and flooding in Tijuana.”

Border Action Network (BAN): This neo-Marxist group seeks “to ensure that those who are most impacted [i.e., illegal aliens] by border and immigration policies are at the forefront of movements calling for human dignity and civil rights …” Advocating the dissolution of American borders, BAN calls for unchecked, unregulated migration into and out of the United States. The organization has filed lawsuits against what it calls “an ugly movement of armed, militia-style civilian groups” and “anti-immigrant, white supremacist groups” -- such as American Border Patrol and Ranch Rescue—for their practice of detaining illegal aliens and calling government border agents to arrest them. BAN co-director Jennifer Allen said in 2002: “They [illegal immigrants] have civil rights and human rights that take precedence over defending the country.” Former BAN spokesman Chris Ford, for his part, expresses concern that “this [fence] plan will cause massive environmental destruction” affecting in particular the Sonoran Pronghorn, an animal that resembles an antelope and is considered an “endangered species.”

National Council of Churches (NCC): A longtime enemy of the United States, NCC in the 1950s and 1960s, under the rubric of charity, provided financial assistance to the communist regimes in Yugoslavia and Poland. In the 1970s it helped finance Soviet-sponsored guerrilla incursions into Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, and Angola. It the 1980s it contributed large sums of money to the Marxist Sandinista Party in Nicaragua and communist guerrillas in El Salvador. Moreover, the organization has supported Fidel Castro’s (and now his successor’s) regime in Cuba for decades.

In April 2008, NCC co-signed an interfaith letter to Congress expressing “grave concern over the environmental destruction currently occurring in the U.S.-Mexico border region” as a result of the “hasty construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the border.” “The current path of the border fence,” NCC explained, “cuts through places like Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, home to over 500 species of plants, 50 species of mammals, and nearly 300 species of birds. Construction of the fence is severing migration routes and destroying thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. In Arizona alone, 39 species protected or proposed to be protected under the Endangered Species Act are being adversely affected by Border Patrol activities, including construction of the fence….”

Defenders of Wildlife (DOW): This environmentalist group has warned that the erection of a border fence will have “serious and lasting” effects on the region’s wildlife, water, and air. According to DOW associate Jenny Neeley, such a fence will significantly impact biological diversity along the border by preventing desert animals from moving around freely. “Right now,” she says, “on the U.S.-Mexico border there are 47 endangered species, including the jaguar, the ocelot, the lesser long nosed bat and numerous bird species.” Neeley further complains that the bright lights used by border patrol officers during overnight hours can cause great harm to “nocturnal animals.”

National Council of La Raza (NCLR): This organization favors amnesty for illegals already residing in the U.S., and open borders henceforth. In NCLR’s calculus, any restriction on the free movement of immigrants constitutes a violation of their civil liberties, and any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers is “a disgrace to American values.” Thus NCLR supports continued mass Mexican immigration to the United States, and hopes to achieve, by the sheer weight of numbers, the re-partition of the American Southwest as a new state called “Aztlan”—to be controlled by its alleged rightful owners, the people and government of Mexico. In October 2006, NCLR President and CEO Janet Murguía said that the prospect of a border fence “doesn’t solve the immigration issue, it makes it worse.”

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF): Over the course of its 40-year history, MALDEF has undertaken numerous legal campaigns to abet the cause of illegal immigration. In 1994, for example, the organization condemned Operation Gatekeeper, a U.S. government program intended to restore integrity to a particularly porous stretch of the California-Mexico border. Claiming that this initiative was callously “diverting” illegal border-crossers “from California to the harsh and dangerous Arizona desert,” MALDEF charged that Americans opposing unrestricted immigration were motivated largely by “racism and xenophobia.”

In 2006 MALDEF’s Interim President and General Counsel John Trasviña called the prospective border fence “a travesty” that “will take years to complete and does nothing to address America’s immigration or labor needs.” An official MALDEF statement said that such a fence would “make illegal crossings more deadly and dangerous” and would cause hardship for “American families who want to be reunited with loved ones.”

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC): In December 2005 LULAC created a website titled “WeAreRacists.com,” which portrayed the Minuteman Project—a nonviolent organization of U.S. citizens who alert the Border Patrol to the presence of unauthorized border-crossers in the American Southwest—as “an anti-immigrant group” composed of “racists, cowards, un-Americans (sic), vigilantes, [and] domestic terrorists” who are “often affiliated with white supremacy groups.”

LULAC opposes border-patrol policies that would authorize the U.S. military to prevent illegal immigration, on grounds that “military personnel are not trained for border patrolling and might easily violate the civil rights of those they intervene with.” José Velez, who headed the League from 1990 to 1994, has said that the U.S. Border Patrol is “the enemy of my people and always will be.” In 2006 LULAC National President Hector. M. Flores condemned the prospective security fence as “an affront to immigrant communities [that] will create a permanent scar in the relationship between the United States and our southern neighbors.” “Building a ‘Berlin’ style wall between ourselves and our neighbor,” he added, “is un-American, undemocratic, and unacceptable in a free society.

Democrats: In April 2008, fourteen House Democrats, including eight committee chairmen, said they would file a brief supporting a legal challenge to the Bush administration’s plans to finish erecting nearly 500 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year. Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said, “Our responsibility to be stewards of the earth cannot be thrown aside for the sake of an ill-conceived border fence.”

If indeed Osama bin Laden’s nuclear holocaust looms just over the horizon, life as we have known it in this country will soon be gone forever. All that remains to be seen is how far the Islamists will go to humiliate and degrade us before striking their lethal blows. And we can trace this awful fate directly to the imbecilic, catastrophic policies of organizations and individuals like those listed above. While they have lectured us on stupidities like the “rights” of “undocumented” border-crossers and the plight of “endangered” long-nosed bats, our enemies were not nearly as timid as we were.

What distinguishes a large proportion of the American population from bin Laden's Islamists goes far beyond the genocidal ambitions of the latter. The most vital distinction is that the Islamists believe, with every fiber of their being, in the legitimacy (indeed, the supremacy) of their culture and the nobility of their mission. Nothing can deter them from their single-minded quest to conquer and murder in the name of Allah.

By contrast, many tens of millions of Americans have been conditioned, by decades of leftist assaults on the legitimacy of their history and traditions, to doubt that those traditions even merit a stiff defense. Only in such a culture would so many people—from anonymous men and women on any street corner to the occupant of the Oval Office—be so preoccupied with reiterating, ad nauseam, the notion that authentic Islam is, at its essence, a “religion of peace” that unfortunately was “hijacked” by a “small minority of extremists.” Only in such a culture would it be widely understood, as it is in America, that any deviation from these absurd talking points opens one up to charges of “Islamophobia” and “bigotry.”

Thus Americans have voluntarily placed themselves in a rhetorical and ideological straight jacket, fearing to admit that they can even perceive the plain reality that Islam’s predominant teachings and emphases—as set forth in the trilogy consisting of the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira—differ greatly from those of Western religious traditions.

Their fear of stating this simple, inarguable truth closely parallels their fear of demanding that our nation strengthen its border security to the point where illegal entry is made impossible—lest they be smeared as “racists” and “nativists” who are unconcerned with the “dignity” and the “common humanity” of “impoverished undocumented workers,” blah, blah, blah.

This type of trembling population—echoing dutifully the cacophony of empty platitudes uttered by all manner of America-hating, know-nothing leftists in the political arena, in the media, in the pulpit, and in the university classroom—have provided Osama bin Laden with more than enough assurance that he is facing an enemy ripe for slaughter on a scale never before seen.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, July 21, 2008


A MAN, WHOSE FAMILY was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and ! to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on—before it's too late.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, July 18, 2008


THE SIZZLING B&M OBAMA FAMILY CARTOON points out the total fraud that is known in the media ghettos as Political Correctness. Political Correctness is NOT about tolerating diverse viewpoints; it is actually a ploy by stealth fascists to push their agenda without being questioned about said agenda. And this agenda quite obviously does not include tolerance but is a totalitarian fixed idea, a hardline agenda with zero tolerance for opposing viewpoints.

The lynchpin of the "politically correct" belief system insists that the white male dominated culture is responsible for EVERY misdeed that society has committed. It's a metaphysical relief to watch the liberals get gored with their own ox. They created this monster, now they have to sit there and take it without complaint.

What the American people need (and should want) is a President who is confident and decisive in the face of adversity, not someone who whines, points fingers and responds defensively to mistakes and criticism with "that's not what I meant" or "stop picking on me and my wife."

Obama looks good and sounds good when he's well prepared, but his off-the-cuff performances get worse as time goes on, which explains why he rejected unscripted townhall meetings with John McCain in favor of unchallenged, prepared speeches in large-capacity venues. There's no doubt that our darling Obama is young and hip, so if the American people want a rock star standing between them and the bad guys, he's the candidate for whom to vote.

I'd like to see another New Yorker front page. The one that would top the Obama front page would have a picture of Yeshua the Nazarene on the left side and a picture of Mohammad on the right side.

It is hard to imagine that we might be on the verge of electing a president that everyone will be afraid to criticize. As a candidate we have already seen everybody tip toe around Obama it can only get worse if he is elected. Everyday the list gets longer of things that are off limits to discuss when it comes to Obama. If he is elected it will be like living in a nation with a Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein as president whom no one dares to challenge or criticize. God help us!

I would leave it to the New Yorker editors to decide the degree of clownish representation of both individuals. It would be very interesting to see the response from Christians vs Muslims. These are the two largest religious groups in the world. How would each respond? How many Christian terrorists are in the US? How many Muslim terrorists are in the US? Would this bring them out? It's worth the test.

Obama talks about his love and respect for basic American beliefs, like working hard and loving one's country, in one of his TV ads. As the New Yorker flap illustrated, authenticating that claim is one of his biggest challenges.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 15, 2008


IT IS ONLY A MATTER of time before the confrontation between the world and Iran’s mullahs, with the U.S. leading the charge, sets off a catastrophic conflagration. The present stand-off is bound to change, either by the U.S. use of force to make good on its threat that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable, or by the mullahs managing to make the unacceptable an accomplished fact.

Although the main adversaries are the U.S. and Iran, much of the world has a huge stake regarding this potentially catastrophic confrontation. Israel, the Persian Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq as well as nations farther away from the region are willing and unwilling parties to this unfolding crisis.

Amil Imani is located in Washington, DC, and has posted the previous two paragraphs today in the comments section of Pat Buchanan's latest essay published at HUMAN EVENTS.

The two paragraphs were originally published as part of a large, informative essay Imani—an Iranian ex-pat— posted on his own website in February, 2007.

Read it all.

But lest we forget, let's remind ourselves that before Bush invaded Iraq, we heard similar appraisals by Ahmed Chalabi and a cadre of other Iraqi ex-pats who, we now know, were only serving themselves, and no one else.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, July 14, 2008


PMK is the nom de guerre. And here are a few comments he posted recently at Jihad Watch concerning candidate Barack Obama's most recent offerings with regard to the Iraqi situation (in italics):

NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY so many people swoon in Obama's presence. It IS his language. He goes around and around in circles and he just makes people dizzy.

But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.

How do we "engage" people who believe it is their divine right to rule over us? You can't have "bottom up economic growth" without foreigners in the country. Muslims don't welcome you into their lands. You are always an outsider, an infidel, a sinner. Your very presence offends them because you don't acknowledge their supremacy or their god. So who's vilifying whom? A tiny fraction of the Islamic world is still a lot of people.

How come the Asian downturn didn't turn the Japanese into terrorists? What about China?

And it is very hard, given the history of that region and the sense of grievance on both sides, to step back and say, let's be practical and figure out what works. But I think that's what the people of Israel and the people in the West Bank and Gaza are desperate for, is just some practical, commonsense approaches that would result in them feeling safe, secure and able to live their lives and educate their children.

That's a little hard to believe given that, even before Hamas was elected, the Palestinians followed Yasser Arafat and gladly responded to a genuine peace process with nothing but an intifada. Peace scares them.

Look, first of all, I have never talked about leaving the field entirely. What I've said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq.

So what is Obama's definition of "entirely"? You either leave the field entirely or you maintain bases in Iraq, don't you?

I've talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not re-form in Iraq, that we're making sure that we are providing logistical support and potential training to Iraqi forces.

A residual force—for how long? How do you do that without bases from which to operate?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 10, 2008


We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole world's got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost...

—Steppenwolf 1969

Labels: , , ,


THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS SOON BEHIND US, and not a moment too soon. To transcribe the hypocritical nature of "the decider" is a long and arduous task, too daunting a task to deal with here, so let's just point a finger at all this, uh, trading with Iran during his administration. After nearly fifty years of tough sanctions against tiny, powerless Cuba, and no end in sight, what does America do in the face of a more challenging opponent, that oppressive yet boastful member of the axis of evil nations our president named in his very first State of the Union address—Iran, supposedly hamstrung with official policy sanctions issued from both the United Nations and the United States government?

Oh yeah, humanitarian aid.

Or so we thought. It turns out that the Bush Administration is even more hypocritical than even we knew—reversing a Clinton Administration stranglehold on Iran in trade. Motor City blogger Debbie Schlussel knows. In 2001 we exported only $8.3 million worth in goods to Iran. Last year it was $146 million. And, as with the Coke and the Pepsi, it wasn't just the "bare necessities" that the Bushies allowed to go to prop up this Crown Jewel in the Axis of Evil.

There are plenty of items on Iran's shopping list the United States is more than happy to supply: cigarettes, brassieres, bull semen and more. U.S. exports to Iran grew more than tenfold during President Bush's years in office even as he accused it of nuclear ambitions and sponsoring terrorists. America sent more cigarettes to Iran—at least $158 million worth under Bush—than any other product.

Other surprising shipments during the Bush administration: fur clothing, sculptures, perfume, musical instruments and military apparel. Top states shipping goods to Iran include California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of seven years of U.S. government trade data...

"I understand that these exports have increased. However, we believe that they are increasing to a segment of the population that we want to reach out to, we want to know and understand that the U.S. government, the U.S. people want to be friends with them, want to work with them to integrate them into the world economy and become partners in the future," Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said Tuesday when asked by reporters about AP's findings.

The government tracks exports to Iran using details from shipping records, but in some cases it's unclear whether anyone pays attention.

Sanctions are intended in part to frustrate Iran's efforts to build its military, but the U.S. government's own figures showed at least $148,000 worth of unspecified weapons and other military gear were exported from the United States to Iran during Bush's time in office. That included $106,635 in military rifles and $8,760 in rifle parts and accessories shipped in 2004...

Iran received at least $620,000 in aircraft parts and $19,600 worth of aircraft during Bush's terms. Iran relies on spare parts from other countries to keep its commercial and military aircraft flying. In some cases, U.S. sanctions allow shipments of aircraft parts for safety upgrades for Iran's commercial passenger jets. . . .

The U.S. government seems uncoordinated on efforts to limit trade with Iran.

Read it all.

Bush, oh Mr. Bush, why did you sell us out to the enemy? Tell us why. We know, you just wanted the money and the friends you made, and you just wanted things to go way the they were supposed to, we know, but we just want you to admit it, fair and square.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 08, 2008


Click image for larger, more complete depiction

THE NEWS JUST CAN'T GET MORE PUTRID than this. Consider the ugliest aspect of the terrorist memorial mosque that is now being built in Shanksville Pennsylvania. It does not just INCLUDE the terrorists in some kind of reductio ad absurdum of multiculturalist moral relativism. Actually, there is not a single speck of moral relativism in the entire design. Rather, the terrorists are explicitly championed, while the 40 infidels are again and again depicted as symbolically damned to Islamic Hell.

This is the evil genius of architect Paul Murdoch's use of the crescent and star layout. Everywhere the four hijackers are memorialized, they are symbolically placed inside the Islamic heavens (the crescent and star parts of the memorial). Everywhere the 40 infidels are memorialized, they are represented outside of the symbolic Islamic heavens, which in Islam signifies damnation.

In most instances, the immense scale of the design makes this theme difficult to grasp from ground level unless you know what to look for. The one exception is up at the Tower of Voices part of the memorial, where the symbolic damnation of the 40 heroes will be immediately visible to visitors.

The 93 foot tall Tower of Voices is formed in the shape of an extruded crescent, cut at an angle at the top so that its crescent arms reach up into the sky:

As seen from the base of the tower, the top of the tower will be a clear Islamic-shaped crescent, projected against the sky above. Hanging down below these symbolic heavens will be forty tubular steel chimes, one for each of the murdered passengers and crew. In Islam, if you don't go to Heaven, you go to Hell, thus those forty symbolic souls, strung below the symbolic Islamic heavens like fish on a line, are symbolically damned.

The imagery could not be clearer. Here is what hundreds of thousands of visitors will see when they look up the crescent tower.

What are patriots going to do when they see that Islamic crescent in the sky, soaring triumphantly over those forty symbolic infidel souls? Is the Park Service trying to start a rebellion? We are talking literally hundreds of people every day being confronted by this outrage.

Never to rest in peace...

The crash site is a graveyard, from which the remains of our forty heroes can never be extracted. A cemetery is supposed to be a place for resting in peace, but these symbolic forty souls are to gong mournfully though the ages in their symbolic Islamic hell.

Over and over the defenders of the crescent design accuse us critics of seeing what we want to see in the design, as if we could see forty symbolic souls hanging down from an Islamic shaped crescent in the sky if the architect did not PUT these things there for us to see. Look at the architect's own drawings people. Do you not see the Islamic shaped crescent in the sky? Do you not see the forty wind chimes hanging below, specifically designated to represent the lives of the 40 passengers and crew? We are describing FACTS.

One of the most obvious facts is that it is the defenders of the crescent who are seeing what they want to see, or more precisely, who are choosing NOT to see what they DON'T want to see. It's like gate security, trying desperately NOT to see the bearded man in the suicide vest.

The irony is that Flight 93 is supposed to be the symbol of our woken vigilance. Those charged with the memorialization of Flight 93 are not just un-vigilant. They are relentlessly anti-vigilant, absolutely determined not to even consider the possibility of untoward intent.

We hosted an open design competition in time of war and literally invited the entire world to enter, yet the idiots who sent out this invitation cannot concieve that the enemy might have actually taken them up on it. They are outright hostile to anyone who points out the overwhelming evidence that this is in fact what happened.

Other places where the 40 heroes are depicted as symbolically damned...

In the sequence of 44 glass blocks that are to be emplaced along the flight path (equalling the number of passengers, crew AND terrorists), all four "extra" blocks are placed in the Islamic heavens.

The three that are to be inscribed with the 9/11 date will be placed on a separate upper section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the bisector of the half mile wide central crescent: exactly the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. Thus the date goes to the Islamic star. The date goes to the terrorists.

The 44th block is at the upper crescent tip, commemorating the spot where, in architect Paul Murdoch's description, the terrorists broke our circle and turned it into a giant (Mecca oriented) crescent, to be inscribed: "A field of honor forever."

In contrast, the forty blocks inscribed with the names of the forty heroes are placed just above the crash site, down below the star on the Islamic flag. They are outside of the symbolic Islamic heavens, which makes them symbolically damned.

Murdoch continues this theme with the 38 Memorial Groves. There CAN'T be 40 because the Memorial Groves are part of the giant crescent, which makes them part of the symbolic Islamic heavens, and infidels can't be depicted in the Islamic heavens. The full analysis of the 38 groves shows Murdoch's evil genius at its fullest flower. Sickening, but well worth comprehending, if you can stomach it.

Read it all. Alex Rawls has documented this disturbing infiltration of of our conscience by the enemy in great detail. Please check it out.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, July 07, 2008


"the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)"
-from the article

Could this be where Obama got his 57 states? A freudian slip?

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, July 05, 2008


1. Freedom of religion

What we must defend:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What we must defend it against:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." — CAIR co-founder and longtime Board Chairman Omar Ahmad (he denies saying it, but the original reporter stands by her story)

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." — CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper

The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” — Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991

2. Freedom of speech

What we must defend:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What we must defend it against:

"In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film 'Fitna', we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked." — Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference

"Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator..." — Daily Times, June 8, 2008

3. Equality of rights before the law

What we must defend:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

"The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim." — 'Umdat al-Salik, o4.9

"Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution...Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash....Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain...Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed....Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

4. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

What we must defend:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

Non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life." — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

Never surrender. Never submit. Never be silenced. Freedom and independence forever.

Republished from yesterday's Jiihad Watch.

Labels: , ,