Sunday, September 30, 2007

Smiling Faces Sometimes

Clarence Thomas has a new book coming out entitled "My Grandfather's Son". He was interviewed by Washington Post, and one of the things he said in this interview inspired me to write this diary. Here is part of what he said:

Racial imagery abounds in "My Grandfather's Son," a continuation of his description of the Senate hearings as a "high-tech lynching."

"As a child in the Deep South, I'd grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult, I was starting to wonder if I'd been afraid of the wrong white people all along," he writes. "My worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony."

Thomas writes that he did not watch Hill's televised testimony against him at his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and so he does not respond in detail to her charges except to call them lies. He describes Hill as "touchy and apt to overreact" and says: "If I or anyone else had done the slightest thing to offend her, she would have complained loudly and instantly, not waited for a decade to make her displeasure known."

He writes that Hill did a "mediocre" job at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he was chairman, and misrepresented herself at the time of the hearings as a "devoutly religious Reagan-administration employee." "In fact, she was a left-winger who'd never expressed any religious sentiments" and had a job in the administration "because I'd given it to her."

Thomas has particularly caustic comments about the Democratic senators who opposed his nomination. He compares then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) to the lying hypocrites in the old song "Smiling Faces Sometimes" by Undisputed Truth. About former senator Howard Metzenbaum (Ohio): "It would be kind to describe him as unlikable."

And Howell Heflin, the late senator from Alabama, was described by the press as "courtly," Thomas says, but his manner "made me think of a slave owner sitting on the porch of a plantation house."

What Clarence Thomas describes in his book is not a new phenomena, but it is important to address it instead of ignore it. An appropriate criticism toward Pres. Bush is that, in the name of NewTone™ , he chose to ignore it instead of address it.

These smiling faced liberal zealots draped in flowing sanctimony have been busy lately pursuing Gen. Petraeus, Marsha Blackburn, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh just to name a few. I admire Clarence Thomas and Rush Limbaugh especially because they do not choose to simply ignore it. More Republican leaders need to follow their example.

Friday, September 28, 2007

The Man With The Wooden Cross

Recently I wrote a diary about how in Brussels they deal with a 9/11 memorial event. I just read a blog by a German Christian, Hajo J., about his personal experience that day in Brussels. He published his account on the 'Politically Incorrect' blog in German. An English translation of his account is here. Here is a portion of what he wrote.

On 11 September 2007, at 11.30 o’ clock, I arrived at Place du Luxembourg. There were lots of policemen and armoured vehicles. I met an acquaintance with two other like-minded people at a pub. There was only meant to be a “meeting of tourists” and no coordinated action. I then went to another part of the square. Stephen Gash of SIOE was giving many interviews as he sat quietly in a pub, i.e. he was not demonstrating.

A short while later several people were taken away in a prison-van, without there having been any indication that they had “demonstrated” or done anything in particular (I was to hear the same observation again and again). It was almost 12 o’ clock. A murmuring went through the crowd, we had to do something , now was the remembrance moment for the 9/11 terror victims in the USA.

I decided there and then to take out the wooden cross I had brought and to hold it high – defying any kind of unknown. In remembrance of the victims, as a sign of protest against the threatening, creeping islamization of Europe, the lack of resistance and the increasing appeasement. And of course in spontaneous protest against the unjust banning of the demonstration by the mayor of Brussels, Mr. Thielemans. All this accompanied by a prayer and in remembrance of many Catholic saints, who resisted the same danger of Islamic rule centuries ago. Think only of Saint Marco d’Aviano, a Capuchin friar who encouraged the troops as the Muslim hordes of the Ottoman Sultan descended upon them at the battle of Vienna on 12 September 1683.

My gesture was a purely individual act, I had freedom of speech according to Article 5 of the constitution and Article 11 of the European Charter of Human Rights. My action consisted only of holding up a wooden cross, praying silently and answering the questions of about 50 journalists in English, French and German as I walked.

At 13.00 hours the Brussels police grabbed hold of me, pushed me violently into a van...

At 7.30 pm I was set free, after a superficial procedure to retrieve our belongings. Nothing was taken from me, except for a while the contents of my bag, which were placed in a plastic bag and then everything was given back to me. I asked for a written confirmation of my detention but did not get one.

When one considers that the Place Royale in Brussels has a statue of the first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Godfrey of Bouillon, who died in Palestine on 17 July 1100 during the first Crusade, I can only say: poor Belgium – how far you have drifted from your fundamental values and traditions...

This is a German Christian who knows world history, and he knows his rights under EU law. It does not matter. Here is an excellent quote from Bruce Thornton about this sickness:

He was arrested after he took out a wooden cross and started praying to himself. There you have the terminal sickness of EUtopia: publicly exercising your right of free speech and displaying the symbol of the faith that created Europe in the first place will get you arrested, even as the E.U. elite bend over backwards to profess their admiration for and to indulge the intolerant, imperialistic faith that for fourteen centuries their ancestors fought and defeated. That’s how EUtopia will end: with the terrorist’s bang followed by the appeaser’s whimper.

I can't say it any better than Bruce did.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Don't Know Much About History

Bill Clinton spoke on the Charlie Rose show about Iran. Here is what he said.

Clinton: ... Iran's a whole different kettle of fish—but it's a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back in and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government, because he was in Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of the parliamentary democracy back in the '50s; at least, that is my belief.

I know it is not popular for an American ever to say anything like this, but I think it's true, and I apologized when President Khatami was elected. I publicly acknowledged that the United States had actively overthrown Mossadegh and I apologized for it, and I hope that we could have some rapprochement with Iran. I think basically the Europeans' initiative to Iran to try to figure out a way to defuse the nuclear crisis is a good one.

I think President Bush has done, so far, the right thing by not taking the military option off the table, but not pushing it too much. I didn't like the story that looked like the military option had been elevated above a diplomatic option. But Iran is the most perplexing problem ... we face, for the following reasons: It is the only country in the world with two governments, and the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami. It is the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: two for President; two for the parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralities.

In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.

So, as POTUS, he apologized to Iran for the US doing mean things to Mr. Mossadegh in the 1950's. Maybe if Bill Clinton knew about world history he would know what the Iranians think of Mr. Mossadegh. Amir Taheri spells out Mr. Clinton's lack of knowledge in this article.

Duped by a myth spread by the Blame-America-First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran. The truth is that Iran in the 1950s was not a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed, and dismissed, the prime minister. Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed. In what way that meant that the US “got rid of parliamentary democracy” that did not exist is not clear.

There are at least two things that Clinton does not know about Iran and Iranians.

The first is that the claim that the US changed the course of Iranian history on a whim would be seen by most Iranians, a proud people, as an insult from an arrogant politician who exaggerates the powers of his nation more than half a century ago. The second thing that Clinton does not know is that in the Islamic Republic that he so admires, Mossadegh, far from being regarded as a national hero, is an object of intense vilification. One of the first acts of the mullas after seizing power in 1979 was to take the name of Mossadegh off a street in Tehran. They then sealed off the village where Mossadegh is buried to prevent his supporters from gathering at his tomb. History textbooks written by the mullas present Mossadegh as the “son of a feudal family of exploiters who worked for the cursed Shah, and betrayed Islam.”

Apologizing to the mullas for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadegh is like begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy toward Alexander Kerensky.

Clinton does not know that it was President Harry S. Truman’s energetic intervention in 1946 that forced Stalin to withdraw his armies from northwestern Iran thus foiling a Communist attempt to dismember the Iranian state.

Clinton does not know that if anyone has to apologize it is the mullas who should apologize to both the Iranian and the American peoples. He does not appear to remember images of American diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras, blindfolded, and threatened with summary execution every day — images that did lasting damage to the good name of Iran as a civilized nation.

Speaking of apologies, Clinton also ignores the fact that Iranian agents in Lebanon, led by the “ liberal progressive” Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Mohtashami, organized and carried out a string of terrorist attacks in the 1980s that cost the lives of over 300 US citizens, including 240 Marines.

And does Clinton remember the dozens of American citizens who were held hostage by the mullas’ agents in Lebanon, sometimes for more than five years?

Mark Steyn also has some historical information about the Islamic Republic of Iran.

If you dust off the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Article One reads: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Iran fails to meet qualification (d), and has never accepted it. The signature act of the new regime was not the usual post-coup bloodletting and summary execution of the shah’s mid-ranking officials but the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by “students” acting with Khomeini’s blessing. Diplomatic missions are recognized as the sovereign territory of that state, and the violation thereof is an act of war. No one in Washington has to fret that Fidel Castro will bomb the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Even in the event of an actual war, the diplomatic staff of both countries would be allowed to depart.

Yet Iran seized protected persons on U.S. soil and held them prisoner for over a year—ostensibly because Washington was planning to restore the shah. But the shah died and the hostages remained. And, when the deal was eventually done and the hostages were released, the sovereign territory of the United States remained in the hands of the gangster regime. Granted that during the Carter administration the Soviets were gobbling up real estate from Afghanistan to Grenada, it’s significant that in this wretched era the only loss of actual U.S. territory was to the Islamists.

Yet Iran paid no price. They got away with it. For the purposes of comparison, in 1980, when the U.S. hostages in Tehran were in their sixth month of captivity, Iranians opposed to the mullahs seized the Islamic Republic’s embassy in London. After six days of negotiation, Her Majesty’s Government sent SAS commandos into the building and restored it to the control of the regime. In refusing to do the same with the “students” occupying the U.S. embassy, the Islamic Republic was explicitly declaring that it was not as other states.

We expect multilateral human-rights Democrats to be unsatisfactory on assertive nationalism, but if they won’t even stand up for international law, what’s the point? Jimmy Carter should have demanded the same service as Tehran got from the British—the swift resolution of the situation by the host government—and, if none was forthcoming, Washington should have reversed the affront to international order quickly, decisively, and in a sufficiently punitive manner. At hinge moments of history, there are never good and bad options, only bad and much much worse. Our options today are significantly worse because we didn’t take the bad one back then.

It's not just the historical 1980 embassy siege, but many examples are listed by Steyn of actions showing Iran does not respect other states.

Iran’s supreme Leader instructed Muslims around the world to serve as executioners of the Islamic Republic—and they did, killing not Rushdie himself but his Japanese translator, and stabbing the Italian translator, and shooting the Italian publisher, and killing three dozen persons with no connection to the book when a mob burned down a hotel because of the presence of the novelist’s Turkish translator.

Iran’s de facto head of state offered a multimillion-dollar bounty for a whack job on an obscure English novelist. And, as with the embassy siege, he got away with it.

In 1994, the Argentine Israel Mutual Association was bombed in Buenos Aires. Nearly 100 people died and 250 were injured—the worst massacre of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust. An Argentine court eventually issued warrants for two Iranian diplomats plus Ali Fallahian, former intelligence minister, and Ali Akbar Parvaresh, former education minister and deputy speaker of the Majlis.

Why blow up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires? Because it’s there. Unlike the Iranian infiltration into Bosnia and Croatia, which helped radicalize not just the local populations but Muslim supporters from Britain and Western Europe, the random slaughter in the Argentine has no strategic value except as a demonstration of muscle and reach.

Now there are some who think this diary is unfair because, after all Bill Clinton makes a distinction between the religious mulla hotheads and the moderate Iranians. Steyn offers this tidbit about this distinction.

What’s the difference between a hothead and a moderate? Well, the extremist Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” while the moderate Rafsanjani has declared that Israel is “the most hideous occurrence in history,” which the Muslim world “will vomit out from its midst” in one blast, because “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.” Evidently wiping Israel off the map seems to be one of those rare points of bipartisan consensus in Tehran, the Iranian equivalent of a prescription drug plan for seniors: we’re just arguing over the details.

And let’s not forget Bill Clinton’s extraordinary remarks at Davos:

Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.

He should hear what an Iranian woman, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi told Glenn Beck about Iran.

BECK: OK. Women are respected more and families are ten times happier.

ZAND-BONAZZI: Yes. Well, you know, when respect becomes synonymous with control, then I guess, of course, it is a matter of happiness for the controller.

You know, as you know yourself and you`ve said it, as well as so many of your other experts and pundits have said here, in Iran a woman is 50 percent of a man. A woman is not allowed to do anything without her husband`s permission or her male family members.

Women have been prostitutes, basically, because there`s no jobs, because everybody is in an economic situation where, if they have to feed themselves and there`s no way to earn a living, they become prostitutes. And most often a lot of these days -- recent days women have been abducted and murdered and/or sold in slavery.

BECK: Is it true that you can be traded off or whatever as a woman and married off as early as 9?

ZAND-BONAZZI: Yes, indeed.

BECK: See, you don`t have that right here in the United States.

ZAND-BONAZZI: I think I`m happy about that.

BECK: Are you? Tell me about -- this is what he said about homosexuals. Let`s roll the tape on homosexuals and then you set us straight on the reality.


AHMADINEJAD (through translator): In Iran, we don`t have homosexuals like in your countries. We don`t have that in our country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon.


BECK: It`s incredible on a couple of levels. First, this was really the only time that he got a reaction, you know, talking about wiping off -- you know, wiping people off the face of the earth really didn`t get a negative reaction from Columbia students, but this did.

Tell me the truth about homosexuality and how they`re treated in Iran.

ZAND-BONAZZI: Well, homosexuality is punishable by -- by execution. As we have seen so many of -- so many occasions where especially a couple of summers ago two young men were executed publicly, unfortunately.

And it`s -- it`s a known fact among Iranians that a large majority of the mullahs themselves are bisexual in that they are married, but mainly their sexual preferences are, in fact, swinging towards the homosexual.

And the unfortunate thing is that, in a country where pannectomies and sex change have become a prevalent and very regular mode of operation, I have to say that Mr. Ahmadinejad, as usual, was doing the same old Islamic republic talk (ph), which again you have discussed, which is the -- the concept of dissimulation and lying in order to protect the rule and the lying being the lesser of the two sins of not -- let`s say lying versus not protecting the rule and the regime. And so if you lie it`s OK.

BECK: Banafsheh, thank you very much. Always good to talk to you.

ZAND-BONAZZI: Thank you.

Some people may think too many diaries are written about this. I disagree. This needs to be brought to people's attention again and again as long as they are trying to reoccupy the White House.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

My Order of Choice for POTUS




Pursuit of happiness

National Security


Fred Thompson






Sam Brownback






Mitt Romney






John McCain






Mike Huckabee






Rudy Giuliani






Here is how I arrived with these results. I gave everybody 1 full point for nat'l security because I believe any of these 6 candidates will serve much better than any D in this area. For the Liberty and Property columns I relied on some of the Club for Growth white papers categories on these candidates. The Liberty column is based on the categories 'political free speech', 'school choice', and 'regulation'. The Property column is based on the categories 'entitlement reform','free trade', 'taxes', and 'spending'. For the Life column I checked the National Right to Life website, and Rudy is the only 1 who is not pro life. Below are results of these candidates on this quiz.

Personal Questions: Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.

Economic Questions: Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.

Fred Thompson

Personal Score=15/span>

Economic Score=75

Based on the above score, the candidate is a Hard-Core Conservative.

Sam Brownback

Personal Score=8

Economic Score=93

Based on the above score, the candidate is a Hard-Core Conservative.

Mitt Romney

Personal Score=15

Economic Score=60

Based on the above score, the candidate is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.

John McCain

Personal Score=23

Economic Score=68

Based on the above score, the candidate is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.

Mike Huckabee

Personal Score=20

Economic Score=73

Based on the above score, the candidate is a Populist-Leaning Conservative

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Janet Reno Music CD on sale today...ARRRRGH

Oh my, On "Talk Like A Prate Day" Janet Reno releases a new boxed set music CD. I was looking at the list of song for "Burn Baby Burn" or "Momma Told Me Not To Come". I didn't see them, although maybe the song "This Land Is Your Land" was a tribute to Elian. It's on there. Possibly the song "Home on The Range" could have been a tribute to Koresh and his clan if you use a different definition for range. I just don't know what she was thinking. Now that the office of the US AG is a hot topic in the news it is nice to reminisce about "The Way We Were".

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Steyn Fisks Gov. Patrick...this could leave a mark.

Mark Steyn has an excellent article up at NRO. He tells of a trip he took through Massachusetts listening to a talk radio host talk about a speech Gov. Deval Patrick gave commemorating 9/11. In the speech the Governor said the 9/11 attack was 'mean and nasty'. The Governor later said "9/11, was also a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other.” Hearing all of this made Mark laugh so hard he lost control of the steering wheel, and the guy in the next lane had to swerve to avoid an accident. I won't paste the entire here, and I recommend the entire thing. Here is just a sample of Steyn.

Anyway I drove on to Boston and pondered the governor’s remarks. He had made them, after all, before an audience of 9/11 families: Six years ago, two of the four planes took off from Logan Airport, and so citizens of Massachusetts ranked very high among the toll of victims. Whether or not any of the family members present last Tuesday were offended by Governor Patrick, no-one cried “Shame!” or walked out on the ceremony. Americans are generally respectful of their political eminences, no matter how little they deserve it.

We should beware anyone who seeks to explain 9/11 by using the words “each other”: They posit a grubby equivalence between the perpetrator and the victim — that the “failure to understand” derives from the culpability of both parties. The 9/11 killers were treated very well in the United States: They were ushered into the country on the high-speed visa express program the State Department felt was appropriate for young Saudi males. They were treated cordially everywhere they went. The lapdancers at the clubs they frequented in the weeks before the Big Day gave them a good time — or good enough, considering what lousy tippers they were. September 11th didn’t happen because we were insufficient in our love to Mohammed Atta.

This isn’t a theoretical proposition. At some point in the future, some of us will find ourselves on a flight with a chap like Richard Reid, the thwarted shoebomber. On that day we’d better hope the guy sitting next to him isn’t Governor Patrick, who sees him bending down to light his sock and responds with a chorus of “All You Need Is Love,” but a fellow who “understands” enough to wallop the bejasus out of him before he can strike the match. It was the failure of one group of human beings to understand that the second group of human beings was determined to kill them that led to the crew and passengers of those Boston flights sticking with the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures until it was too late.

Unfortunately the obsolescent 1970s multiculti love-groove inclinations of society at large are harder to dislodge. If you’ll forgive such judgmental categorizations, this isn’t about “them,” it’s about “us.” The long-term survival of any society depends on what proportion of its citizens thinks as Governor Patrick does. Islamism is an opportunist enemy but you can’t blame them for seeing the opportunity: in that sense, they understand us far more clearly than Governor Patrick understands them. The other day, you may recall, some larky lads were arrested in Germany. Another terrorist plot. Would have killed more people than Madrid and London combined but it was nipped in the bud so it’s just another yawneroo: Nobody cares. Who were the terrorists? Mohammed? Muhammad? Mahmoud? No. Their names were “Fritz” and “Daniel,” “Fritz,” huh? That’s a pretty unusual way to spell Mohammed.

Indeed. Fritz Gelowicz is as German as lederhosen. He’s from Ulm, Einstein’s birthplace, on the blue Danube, which, last time I was in Ulm, was actually a murky shade of green. And, in an excellent jest on western illusions, Fritz was converted to Islam while attending the Multi-Kultur-Haus – the Multicultural House. It was, in fact, avowedly unicultural – an Islamic center run by a jihadist imam. At least three of its alumni – including another native German convert – have been killed fighting the Russians in Chechnya. Fritz was hoping to kill Americans. But that’s one of the benefits of a multicultural world: There are so many fascinating diverse cultures and most of them look best reduced to rubble strewn with body parts.

Why do radical imams seek to convert young Canadian, British and even American men and women in their late teens and twenties? Because they understand that when you raise a generation in the great wobbling blancmange of Deval Patrick cultural relativism – nothing is any better or any worse than anything else; if people are “mean and nasty” to us, it’s only because we didn’t sing enough Barney the Dinosaur songs at them – in such a world a certain percentage of its youth will have a great gaping hole where their sense of identity should be. And into that hole you can pour something fierce and primal and implacable.

Indeed Mark Steyn's comments could leave a mark.
1. He reminds that many of the victims of the 9/11 attack were from MA.
2. He reminds that former NBA star Johnson beat the cr*p out of the shoe-bomber Richard Reid.
3. He lands a solid hit when he reminds how dangerous cultural relativism can be in leaving the youth with sense of identity void that evil is so ready to fill.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Free Speech Dying in Europe...Again

Brussels, the EU capital, had a demonstration on Sept. 11, 2007. The demonstration was organized by a group named Stop the Islamization of Europe. Diane West wrote an editorial about the event in the Wash. Times. While everyone has been spending a large amount of bandwidth talking about the NYT ad Ms West believes this under-reported story could be very much more the story of the week.

The assembly, sponsored by Stop the Islamization of Europe, was wholly peaceful — at least until Belgian police showed up. With a chopper above, water cannon nearby, they didn't break heads, exactly — nothing so kind as that. In a photo that should be titled The New Face of Fascism (, we see black-clad Belgian policemen brutalizing a man in a light-colored suit and tie. His hands are cuffed behind his back, his right elbow is clasped in what is known as an arm-bar hold, and he is also being subjected to a genital hold — a vicious grip that, a retired cop friend of mine tells me, would get any American policeman thrown off the force.

The man under arrest was Frank Vanhecke, president of the Flemish secessionist party Vlaams Belang and a member of European Parliament. Also arrested and beaten was Filip Dewinter, who, as the leading politician of Vlaams Belang, Belgium's largest opposition party, has personally garnered 25 percent of the electorate ( These men are invariably described as "far-right" politicians, as though "far-right"-ness alone (whatever that means when totalitarian police tactics are considered tolerant left) is rationale enough for harsh treatment. I've met both men and know them as free-market, small-government conservatives who deeply believe Western civilization is worth defending against the Islamization that occurs with the entrenchment of Shariah. Indeed, they are bravely trying to prevent Europe's Islamization, practically by themselves. I say "bravely" because in Europe these days, as we know from the Islamically motivated murders of Pim Fortyun and Theo van Gogh, such beliefs can get you killed.

This blogger posted pictures of the is 9/11 commemoration in Brussels.

In my title I added 'again' as a reminder of the occupation of Europe by Nazi Germany. Then was also a time that the exercise of free speech could get you killed. There was a resistance movement then, and I only hope it is possible for a resistance movement today to combat the entrenchment of Shariah in Europe.

Monday, September 10, 2007

The Party of Death

Ramesh wrote the book, and here is how he describes this characterization:

One of the stories the book tells is how abortion transformed the Democratic party from a party primarily concerned about protecting the weak to one that is more avid about defending the alleged rights of the strong. Pro-life Democrats have resisted this transformation, but it is certainly true that the Democratic party has become the party of unrestricted abortion, lethal research on human embryos, and euthanasia. The way I put it is that the party of death has largely taken over the Democratic party and has an outpost in the Republican party too.

I think this concept of partying over death is not a new one, and it is not an original American political party idea. Many political islamists are life-long members of a party of death, both Sunni Taleban and Shia Mullah. There is a little twist, however, because instead of focusing on the child in the womb or the weak to die they want their young men and boys to die and kill off some infidels in the process.

Mohammed at the Iraq the Model puts it this way:

Islamists have failed to offer a chance for a better life whether when they were in the opposition or when they got to rule the country. I think that's why they try to sell the idea of death instead of life; they failed to offer a better life so they picked up the slogan of death and "martyrdom" to promise a better life, but in an imaginary heaven; not in real life.

Maybe in a kinda twisted way these lefties here in America are following the same pattern. They have failed to offer a chance for a better life whether when they were in the opposition or when they got to rule the country(ie Jimmy Carter). I think that's why they sell unrestricted abortions, lethal research on human embryos, and euthanasia to promise a better life, but in an imaginary Utopia; not in real life.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

America Provoked al Qaeda to Iraq Is a Stupid Thing to Say

Mohammed over at the Iraq the Model website has just knocked one out of the ballpark with his latest post on the Bin Laden video. I posted here at RS recently part1 of Mohammed's thoughts on the politics of radical Islam. This part 2 is much better stuff from Mohammed. I will not copy his entire article but I recommend reading it entirely. Here is just a taste of what he wrote.

This extremist path declared democracy an enemy and here although Bin Laden was referring to the Iraqi experiment he certainly doesn't limit this animosity to this case alone. I don't think he likes other democracies and that's why arguing that it was America that provoked al-Qaeda to interfere in Iraq, or that al-Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq under Saddam, is a stupid thing to say.
The man clearly says that he despices democracy as well as those who believe in it whether in Iraq or elsewhere. Now if he has the right to invite others to Islam then it should be equally our right to invite others to democracy. Except only if we admit that democracy is a sinful path and that Bin Laden is right, then America and the world should retreat from Iraq, abandon the mission to support the fledgling democracy over there and sit back and wait for other democracies to have their turn on Bin Laden's death menu.

America didn't bring al-Qaeda to Iraq, it's democracy in Iraq that made the extremists panic—their greatest fear is that if the once capital of the Islamic empire fell in the lap of democracy, what would "protect" other parts of the "land of Islam" from "falling" too!?

The conflict is not about Bin Laden and America; it's an ideological conflict in which there are people and regimes across the world that support one side or another, meaning that the conflict was inevitable even if America hadn't taken part. Otherwise the region would have been living in peace and prosperity now!

In fact, and I think many people agree with me, the American-led intervention was defensive rather than offensive when Bin Laden's ideology jumped to strike the towers in New York. At that point it became evident that such an ideology, in the presence of regimes that support it, could threaten any spot on the map with no exception from Bali to Madrid—and although the victims of this ideology have been mostly from the middle east, this could well change in the future if the extremist manage to take over the region.

We shouldn’t think that such crazy messages could come only from a Salafi extremist like Bin Laden; because it actually reminds me of a similar call from Khomeini to the leaders in Moscow to convert to Islam shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The late Ayatollah also said that Islam was the solution, so the point we should realize here is that this way of thinking is not an aspect of one particular sect as much as its part of the totalitarian ideology of Islamists that is deeply rooted in the minds of those, from one sect or another, who want to revive the Caliph rule.

Like we said in the previous post, regimes that follow this ideology, be it the Sunni Taliban or the Shia Mullahs, have failed to offer a civilized model of life so they chose instead to beautify and sell the idea of death under the old slogan of "Our dead are in heaven and your dead are in hell".

It's even more interesting in a way that this call for converting to Islam is a big fantasy since Bin Laden and the like know very well than America or other countries in the west would never impose a certain faith on their people. This message marks a deep trouble in the way extremists think; they live in illusions with complete disregard for facts, which is a very dangerous phenomenon when it's at this magnitude. And it leaves no room to doubt that they would do anything to drag the region, and the world, to an uncalculated confrontation.

It is evident from the naivety of the message that logic is completely missing in their ideology which means that dialogue with those people would be equally nonsense.

Saturday, September 08, 2007

A CFG 6-pack of the Good Stuff for 2008









Free Trade




Entitlement Reform






School Choice




Political Free Speech


Tort Reform











Free Trade



Entitlement Reform



School Choice



Political Free Speech

Tort Reform


A disclaimer: I am supporting Fred Thompson. My "+ sign" table is based upon Club for Growth 'White Papers' on these 6 candidates. I do not desire to post a negative attack against any of these 6. As you can see, every one of them managed to get at least a couple of + signs.
The Republican Party has moved away from the small government values of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan (entitlement reform) Fred Thompson is the only 1 out of these 6 that gets a + sign on this issue.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Playing the Religion Card in Politics

Over at the Iraq the Model web site Mohammed has written an excellent report about Maliki's visit to Sistani to discuss the latest security and political developments in Iraq. Mohammed thinks this is a very bad move on Maliki's part.

The people remain the most important item in the equation as they are the ones who have the actual power to decide the long-term strategic choices with their votes.
In Iraq the experience with the rule of Islamists has certainly reduced the numbers of people who support the idea of Islamic rule and a there's a growing number of people who now began to question the idea about Islam being the solution.

So, there will be a great long battle between the two ideas; between Islamic rule and the separation between religion and the state--the current problem is that the people are divided into two, almost equal, groups in this respect. This means none of the two can prevail at this stage but at the same time the performance of the government made mostly of Islamists will no doubt lead to a steady decrease in its popularity.

Islamists have failed to offer a chance for a better life whether when they were in the opposition or when they got to rule the country. I think that's why they try to sell the idea of death instead of life; they failed to offer a better life so they picked up the slogan of death and "martyrdom" to promise a better life, but in an imaginary heaven; not in real life.

This strategy, in some time that cannot be specified right now, will mark the beginning of actual death but it will the death of political Islamist movements and maybe Iraq, the country where people have the right to make a choice, will become a grave for political Islam.
It will take more than one round of elections to declare them dead but I see that time is not on the Islamists' side.

The war is going to be long because it's a war of ideas—the conflict is not going to be a localized one and will have different forms because I believe the whole world is concerned and will take part in one way or another.

Identifying and supporting the true moderates would be a fair weapon to use in this war and I think American and the rest of the free world will keep trying to support positive reforms towards a better life to defeat the ideology of death.

I agree completely with Mohammed on his assessment of the war. I am encouraged by the progress in western Iraq where tribal sheikhs instead of Muslim clerics have led the charge against AQI. I am also encouraged by the Lebanese army progress in regaining control of their country from radical Islamists.

Too many people get too hung up on the Sunni and Shia divide amongst Muslims. It is a lot more complicated than that, but what I really think is that the more important divide is between people who want an improvement in their lives, and they do not buy in to the politics of some religious zealots that do not deliver for them.

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Setting the Record Straight

A while back I was visiting RedState, and somebody provided this LINK and I remembered to bookmark it. I get discouraged a lot of times when I am reading other poster’s comments, and I click over to this link to get a perspective I will never get from reading anything from the MSM. As an aside, another source of great information about Iraq is now being provided by Jeff .

I’ve read the text of a speech Pres. Bush gave at an American Legion forum in Reno, NV, and also a previous speech he gave at a VFW forum in Kansas City, MO. To the American Legion audience Pres. Bush spelled out the situation between the US and the radical extremists we are fighting today. To the VFW audience Pres. Bush recalled the situation between the US and Japan in 1945.

Of course the MSM reported on these speeches, but they always fail to report in the central message and points that President Bush makes. They always seem to threadjack their reports over this or that quibble they have with his speeches. It is frustrating to me that the President has some important things to say to the country, and he does not have the speaking skills to do it.

Known Facts Today

The Violent Islamic Radicalism That Inspires Extremists In The Middle East Has Two Main Strains. Allowing these forces of radicalism to drive America out of the Middle East could result in disaster for the region's people, danger to our friends and allies, and a direct threat to American peace and security.

  1. The First Strain Is Sunni Extremism, Embodied By Al Qaeda And Its Terrorist Allies. These extremists hope to impose their dark vision across the Middle East by raising up a violent and radical caliphate that spans from Spain to Indonesia. They kill fellow Muslims in places like Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in an attempt to undermine their governments. And they kill Americans because they know we stand in their way – they attacked U.S. Embassies in Africa in 1998, attacked the USS Cole in 2000, killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11, and plot to attack us again.

  1. The Second Strain Is Shia Extremism, Supported And Embodied By Iran's Government. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and the United States is working with friends and allies around the world to confront the danger presented by actions of Iran's government. Iran's leaders threaten the security of nations everywhere by:
    • Actively pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons;
    • Arresting visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime;
    • Backing Hezbollah terrorists who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon;
    • Funding the terrorist groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories;
    • Sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which can be used to attack American and NATO troops and Afghan civilians; and
    • Sending arms to extremists in Iraq that are used against Coalition and Iraqi troops, and Iraqi civilians.

These Two Dangerous Strains Of Extremism Vying For Control Of The Middle East Have Now Closed In On Iraq In An Effort To Bring Down Its Young Democracy

Sunni Extremists, Led By Al Qaeda, Are Staging Sensational Attacks On Innocent Men, Women, And Children In Iraq In An Attempt To Stoke Sectarian Violence. These violent extremists' ranks include foreign fighters from a variety of countries in the region who travel to Iraq through Syria. Their operatives have killed those seeking to build a new future for the Iraqi people, and their operations seek to create images of chaos and carnage to break the will of the American people. Their targets include everyone they consider infidels – including Christians, Jews, Yezidis, Shia, and even fellow Sunnis who do not share their radical distortion of Islam.

Shia Extremists, Backed By Iran, Are Training Iraqis To Carry Out Attacks On Our Forces, The Iraqi Government, And The Iraqi People. Members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force are supplying extremist groups with funding and weapons, including sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs). With the assistance of Hezbollah, they have provided training for violent forces active inside Iraq.

  • The Attacks On Our Bases And Our Troops Using Iranian-Supplied Munitions Have Increased In The Last Few Months – Despite Pledges By Iran To Help Stabilize The Security Situation In Iraq. Recently, Coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had been manufactured in Iran this year and provided to Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents.
  • The Iranian Regime Must Halt These Actions At Once. Some say Iran's leaders are not aware of what members of their own regime are doing. Others say Iran's leaders are actively seeking to provoke the West. Either way, Iranian leaders bear the responsibility for aiding attacks against Coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis.

The Momentum Is On Now Our Side In Iraq – Our New Strategy Is Seizing The Initiative From Our Enemy, And Giving It To The Iraqi People

Our New Strategy Is Showing Results In Better Security.

  • Sectarian violence has sharply decreased in Baghdad.
  • Since January, we have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other enemies of Iraq's elected government each month
  • Al Qaeda is being displaced from former strongholds in Baghdad, Anbar, and Diyala provinces.
  • We have conducted operations against Iranian Qods Force agents whose group supplies lethal munitions to extremist groups.
  • We have targeted Iranian-backed Shia militants and their supply networks – and Prime Minister Maliki has courageously committed to pursue them.

Our New Strategy Is Resulting In Encouraging Developments At The Local Level, And As Iraqis Take Control Over Their Lives At The Local Level, They Will Demand More Action From Their National Leaders In Baghdad. In the cities and neighborhoods where they live, Iraqis are increasingly reaching accommodations with each other, with the Coalition, and with the government in Baghdad. This reconciliation is coming from the bottom up; it is having an impact in the fight against the enemy; and it is building a solid foundation for a democratic Iraq.

  • In Anbar – The Province That Had Been Called "Lost" To The Enemy – Increasing Numbers Of Local Sunnis Have Turned Against Al Qaeda. Local sheikhs have joined with American forces to drive the terrorists out of the capital city of Ramadi, and elsewhere, residents are providing critical intelligence, and tribesmen have joined the Iraqi police and security forces.
  • Many Iraqis Who Once Felt Marginalized Are Rejoining The Political Process. Virtually every city and town in the province now has a mayor and a municipal council, and local officials are forming ties with the central government in Baghdad because these Sunni leaders now see a role for their people in the new Iraq. In an encouraging sign, the central government is beginning to respond with funding for vital services and reconstruction, and with increased security forces.
  • In Other Provinces, There Are Also Signs Of Bottom Up Progress. For example, in Diyala province, the city of Baqubah re-opened six of its banks, providing residents with capital for the local economy. And in Ninewa province, local officials have established a commission to investigate corruption, with a local judge empowered to pursue charges of fraud and racketeering.

Iraq's Government Still Has More Work To Do To Meet Many Of Its Legislative Benchmarks, But It Is Also Important To Note That Many Of The Goals Behind These Benchmarks Are Being Achieved Without Legislation. For example, the national government is already sharing oil revenues with provinces – despite the fact that no formal law has been passed.

Known Facts in 1945

At the outset of World War II there were only two democracies in the Far East -- Australia and New Zealand. Today most of the nations in Asia are free, and its democracies reflect the diversity of the region. Some of these nations have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, and some are Buddhist. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all share one thing in common: Their governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, and they desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

Along the way to this freer and more hopeful Asia, there were a lot of doubters. Many times in the decades that followed World War II, American policy in Asia was dismissed as hopeless and naive. And when we listen to criticism of the difficult work our generation is undertaking in the Middle East today, we can hear the echoes of the same arguments made about the Far East years ago.

In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.

Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work.

Others critics said that Americans were imposing their ideals on the Japanese. For example, Japan's Vice Prime Minister asserted that allowing Japanese women to vote would "retard the progress of Japanese politics."

It's interesting what General MacArthur wrote in his memoirs. He wrote, "There was much criticism of my support for the enfranchisement of women. Many Americans, as well as many other so-called experts, expressed the view that Japanese women were too steeped in the tradition of subservience to their husbands to act with any degree of political independence." That's what General MacArthur observed. In the end, Japanese women were given the vote; 39 women won parliamentary seats in Japan's first free election. Today, Japan's minister of defense is a woman, and just last month, a record number of women were elected to Japan's Upper House. Other critics argued that democracy -- (applause.)

There are other critics, believe it or not, that argue that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion -- Shinto -- was too fanatical and rooted in the Emperor. Senator Richard Russell denounced the Japanese faith, and said that if we did not put the Emperor on trial, "any steps we may take to create democracy are doomed to failure." The State Department's man in Tokyo put it bluntly: "The Emperor system must disappear if Japan is ever really to be democratic."

Those who said Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken, and fortunately, Americans and Japanese leaders recognized it at the time, because instead of suppressing the Shinto faith, American authorities worked with the Japanese to institute religious freedom for all faiths. Instead of abolishing the imperial throne, Americans and Japanese worked together to find a place for the Emperor in the democratic political system.

And the result of all these steps was that every Japanese citizen gained freedom of religion, and the Emperor remained on his throne and Japanese democracy grew stronger because it embraced a cherished part of Japanese culture. And today, in defiance of the critics and the doubters and the skeptics, Japan retains its religions and cultural traditions, and stands as one of the world's great free societies.

You know, the experts sometimes get it wrong. An interesting observation, one historian put it -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts" -- he was talking about people criticizing the efforts to help Japan realize the blessings of a free society -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts had their way, the very notion of inducing a democratic revolution would have died of ridicule at an early stage."

Instead, I think it's important to look at what happened. A democratic Japan has brought peace and prosperity to its people. Its foreign trade and investment have helped jump-start the economies of others in the region. The alliance between our two nations is the lynchpin for freedom and stability throughout the Pacific. And I want you to listen carefully to this final point: Japan has transformed from America's enemy in the ideological struggle of the 20th century to one of America's strongest allies in the ideological struggle of the 21st century.