Red States' House members LOVE PORK TOO!

State Grade
Nebraska 71
Utah 59
Idaho 49
Georgia 47
South Carolina 46
Tennessee 44
Colorado 41
Delaware 40
Arizona 38
Nevada 37
Wisconsin 37
Minnesota 36
Texas 36
Indiana 33
Florida 31
New Mexico 31
Oklahoma 27
Missouri 25
North Carolina 25
Ohio 22
Michigan 21
Iowa 20
Illinois 19
Virginia 19
California 18
Louisiana 15
Pennsylvania 13
Wyoming 10
New Jersey 9
Oregon 8
Alaska 6
Washington 5
Kentucky 4
Maryland 4
New York 4
Arkansas 3
Massachusetts 3
Mississippi 3
Alabama 2
Connecticut 2
Kansas 2
North Dakota 2
South Dakota 2
Maine 1
New Hampshire 1
Rhode Island 1
West Virginia 1
Hawaii 0
Montana 0
Vermont 0

When I used the CFG 2007 RePORK Card to get a state by state tally on the spending I thought all of the states on the bottom would be blue states. Boy, was I mistaken. I thought New York and California would be way down. I did not expect to find Alabama, Kansas, and Montana beneath them. I thought wrong. There are still a lot of big spenders in the House, and they are from red states as well as blue states.

House GOP-Porkbusters&Porkers

The Club for Growth has released a "2007 Repork Card"

The Club for Growth has compiled a RePORK Card of all members' votes on all 50 anti-pork amendments (see below). "Taxpayers have a right to know which congressmen stand up for them and which stand up for the special interests," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "Unfortunately, the Club for Growth RePORK Card shows that most congressmen care more about lining their buddies' pockets than they care about protecting American taxpayers."

It is a good read at their website. I decided to make a picture based on their report that shows the 7 states with Reps who scored 100%, and the 14 states with Reps who scored 0%. Three states, Arizona, California, and New Jersey, have a mix of both 100% and 0% Reps. So look with pride or look with shame. It all depends where you live, and whether you see CongressCritters™ 'bringing home the bacon' or 'lining their buddies' pockets'.

"Calling things by their name." - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

After watching this video the thought came to me that maybe Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been lurking here at Redsate. When she spoke about the former jihadist she knew who told her how much they laughed and loved when people said the terrorists were simply the response to the terrible government foreign policy. This reminded me of a recent post by my frieend gamecock. It sometimes does seem like there are so many people doing for free what America's enemies would gladly pay for.

From this website http://www.yehhumnaheen.org/english/index.html is the following statement

Yeh Hum Naheen has become a truly unprecedented musical movement. Featuring the vocal talents of some of Pakistans biggest music artists, including Haroon, Ali Haider, Ali Zafar, Shufqat, Strings, Shuja Haider and Hadiqa Kiani, uniting to sing out the message the world needs to hear.

Written by Ali Moeen, Pakistans foremost lyricist, with music composed by Shuja Haider, its the central message of the song that has compelled so many people to become involved. It is a message of reconciliation, a message of peace and a message of truth. Capturing the imagination of people across the board, Yeh Hum Naheen has given a voice to the silent majority, those in the Muslim world who have for too long been mis-represented. These are the people who although not appearing on our television screens are saddened and shocked at the high-jacking of Islam by terrorists, and want to stand up and shout “This is Not Us”. The song is the brainchild of Waseem Mahmood, author and media consultant, who took inspiration for the project from his children. They were tired at the way a minority of misguided young people were vehemently putting forward a message of radicalization and terrorism which was at odds with what the majority of Muslims believe. It is time to re-address the imbalance, and from the smallest child to the oldest person, Yeh Hum Naheen seeks to give a voice to the voiceless.

It does have that 1980's 'we are the world' feel to it. I and many other people have not been happy about never seeing anything like this. Silence has existed among many Muslims for so long. I just hope that this is for real.

Sharia Chic! NYC Stop This Madness!

There is a new PUBLIC school that will be opening its doors for the first time ever this September. The name of this school is Khalil Gibran International Academy. There was an article in the NY Post

Activists with ties to the principal of the city's controversial new Arabic-themed school are hawking T- shirts that glorify Palestinian terror, The Post has learned.

Way back in May 1 of this year Alicia Colon wrote her opinion of this new public school.

When I met him a while ago in The New York Sun's offices, Chancellor Joel Klein seemed to be in command of his senses. And Mayor Bloomberg did not become a successful billionaire without having some smarts. So whose insane idea was it to have an Arabic public school in Brooklyn open this September? Are they out of their minds? Have they learned nothing from the Netherlands about the danger of pandering to multiculturalism?

When I first heard of this proposed school, I thought it was a joke. But then I read Daniel Pipes's column about this disguised "madrassa" and discovered who the major principals were. Now I can't dispel this feeling of disbelief and outrage. This proposal is utter madness, considering that five years after September 11, ground zero is still a hole in the ground and we're bending over backwards to appease those sympathetic to individuals who would destroy us again. Smart, really smart.

How delighted Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda must have been to hear the news — that New York City, the site of the worst terrorist attack in our history, is bowing down in homage to accommodate and perhaps groom future radicals. The principal designate, Dhabah Almontaser, is virulently anti-Bush — a typical academic — but she is now undergoing a public relations makeover to soften her radical image. I suggest that New Yorkers research her hostile speeches and then do everything possible to put an end to this disastrously ill-conceived school.

Daniel Pipes was too conservative in asking his readers to send e-mails to the Chancellor at JKlein@schools.nyc.gov. I say break out the torches and surround City Hall to stop this monstrosity.

I can't say it any better than Alicia Colon did. It pains me that a NYC mayor would even want to be remotely associated with an "Intifada NYC' tee shirt marketing plan. I can not even imagine Mayor Rudy supporting this. The citizens of NYC, many of whom had friends and family members murdered on 9-11, must stand up and put this madness down.

The Senate did the right thing

Early Saturday morning Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said,

“In a time of a heightened threat, the Senate did the right thing and acted to give our law enforcement the tools they need to combat terrorism. It is now up to the House to act. It is critical to our national security – to keep our country safe – that we update this 30-year old law before we leave for August recess.”

I posted this earlier where I expressed my doubts about Congress getting this done. I really am glad that I was wrong. In an article from CQ Today,

A House Democratic aide said the House was expected to clear the Senate Republican legislation, with most Republicans and some Democrats expected to vote for it.

The bill is intended to eliminate hitches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA (PL 95-51) that have contributed to the gap and address limitations on surveillance created by a recent court ruling.

I hope the House Democratic aide is correct. The bill passed with bi-partisan support in the US Senate. Diane Feinstein joined 15 Democrats in voting YES with all of the Republicans voting YES. The Senate Roll Call is here.

It's Time To Get Out Now!

Now is the time to soberly and reflectively consider the situation. This experiment with a democratic republic has failed. Enemy combatants stream across the nation's borders. The lawmakers are taking an August vacation while soldiers fight and die every day. The country is terribly split, and the lawmakers in the nation's capitol are unable to make laws on improving the economy. The nation's infrastructure needs repairs. Many in the country do not trust the police to be honest and trustworthy especially national law enforcement. Most liberal and progressive thinking people should realize how hopeless it is. Really they should just leave the USA NOW!

The Really Scary Part of Obama's Speech

Senator Obama gave a speech August 1st on the GWOT. There has been much discussion about his remarks that as POTUS he would invade Pakistan and withdraw financial aid to Pakistan if it feels Pakistan is failing to stop terrorists. I really wish, which is why I am posting this blog, that attention could be paid to the really scary part of his speech IMO.

Here is the part that had my alarm bells going off:

"No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.

Too often this Administration's approach to homeland security has been to scatter money around and avoid hard choices, or to scare Americans without telling them what to be scared of, or what to do. A Department set up to make Americans feel safer didn't even show up when bodies drifted through the streets in New Orleans. That's not acceptable.

My Administration will take an approach to homeland security guided by risk."

To me that sounds like Senator Obama truly believes the US Constitution IS a suicide pact. FISA works? No violating the civil liberties of terrorists? WTF? To me this 5th part of his strategy is indeed the most scary part of all.

Bernard Lewis Explains Terrorists' History

Bernard Lewis was honored at AEI as the recipient of the Irving Krystol award for 2007.
On March 20th he gave a lecture upon accepting the award. The lecture was about history from the perspective of Osama Bin Laden, and how he sees historical events much differently than we in the West see them.

He divides the history into periods in relation to events of the Muslims. The first period is when Islam began to spread in the beginning.

Bernard Lewis:

The declaration of war begins at the very beginning of Islam. There are certain letters purported to have been written by the Prophet Muhammad to the Christian Byzantine emperor, the emperor of Persia, and various other rulers, saying, "I have now brought God's final message. Your time has passed. Your beliefs are superseded. Accept my mission and my faith or resign or submit--you are finished." The authenticity of these prophetic letters is doubted, but the message is clear and authentic in the sense that it does represent the long dominant view of the Islamic world.

The second period is the second attempt to conquer the world by Mongol tartars who had been converted to Islams and Turks.

Bernard Lewis:

That was not the end of the matter. In the meantime the Islamic world, having failed the first time, was bracing for the second attack, this time conducted not by Arabs and Moors but by Turks and Tartars. In the mid-thirteenth century the Mongol conquerors of Russia were converted to Islam. The Turks, who had already conquered Anatolia, advanced into Europe and in 1453 they captured the ancient Christian citadel of Constantinople. They conquered a large part of the Balkans, and for a while ruled half of Hungary. Twice they reached as far as Vienna, to which they laid siege in 1529 and again in 1683. Barbary corsairs from North Africa--well-known to historians of the United States--were raiding Western Europe. They went to Iceland--the uttermost limit--and to several places in Western Europe, including notably a raid on Baltimore (the original one, in Ireland) in 1631. In a contemporary document, we have a list of 107 captives who were taken from Baltimore to Algiers, including a man called Cheney.

Osama Bin Laden credits himself as the leader of the third attempt to conquer the world.

Bernard Lewis:

Osama bin Laden, in some very interesting proclamations and declarations, has this to say about the war in Afghanistan which, you will remember, led to the defeat and retreat of the Red Army and the collapse of the Soviet Union. We tend to see that as a Western victory, more specifically an American victory, in the Cold War against the Soviets. For Osama bin Laden, it was nothing of the kind. It is a Muslim victory in a jihad. If one looks at what happened in Afghanistan and what followed, this is, I think one must say, a not implausible interpretation.

As Osama bin Laden saw it, Islam had reached the ultimate humiliation in this long struggle after World War I, when the last of the great Muslim empires--the Ottoman Empire--was broken up and most of its territories divided between the victorious allies; when the caliphate was suppressed and abolished, and the last caliph driven into exile. This seemed to be the lowest point in Muslim history. From there they went upwards.

In his perception, the millennial struggle between the true believers and the unbelievers had gone through successive phases, in which the latter were led by the various imperial European powers that had succeeded the Romans in the leadership of the world of the infidels--the Christian Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the British and French and Russian empires. In this final phase, he says, the world of the infidels was divided and disputed between two rival superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. In his perception, the Muslims have met, defeated, and destroyed the more dangerous and the more deadly of the two infidel superpowers. Dealing with the soft, pampered and effeminate Americans would be an easy matter.

This belief was confirmed in the 1990s when we saw one attack after another on American bases and installations with virtually no effective response of any kind--only angry words and expensive missiles dispatched to remote and uninhabited places. The lessons of Vietnam and Beirut were confirmed by Mogadishu. "Hit them, and they'll run." This was the perceived sequence leading up to 9/11. That attack was clearly intended to be the completion of the first sequence and the beginning of the new one, taking the war into the heart of the enemy camp.

He concludes this lecture with question "Is third time charm for Islam? He also appraises like a couple of prize fighters the advantages of Islam vs West. The advantages for the terrorists are strengths in conviction, fervor, and demographics.
The advantages for the West are the appeal of modern knowledge and freedom in its Western interpretation of freedom. I have always appreciated history, and I like the way Bernard Lewis presented. Lessons can be learned from history to keep from making the same mistakes over and over again.

Are You Talkin' to Me Senator Biden?

One of the CNN You-Tube questions came from Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan. the YouTube citizen questioner began. "To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe." Townsend then pulled out his Bushmaster AR-15. "This is my 'baby,' purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Please tell me your views. Thank you."

Senator Biden chose to give a snide and smirky reply. Biden questioned the sanity of Jared, and then took one final jibe at Jared when he said

"I hope he doesn't come looking for me."

While Senator Biden thought he was being cute, and saying what the liberals want to hear, he never did answer the question posed to him. He never did tell his position on gun control. He just smirked his way right past the question.

H/T Michelle Malkin

Democrat Rules Shut Her Out

Tonight House votes intended to allow a chance for Heather's fix FISA to be brought up fell short on 2 different procedural votes. On one vote the only Dem to vote with her was Cong. Barrow. On the other vote Cong Lampson and Cong Taylor joined Cong Barrow.
She needs many more votes with her to succeed. Apparently most Democrats believe that gathering intelligence from foreign enemies is a partisan issue. All but one of the Democrats think that a 'Wild & Scenic' National Park in CN is more important than quickly gathering intelligence on our foreign enemies. Words fail me

Fox News Video

Why didn't you do something?!

The conventional wisdom is that the 9/11 attacks were not thwarted because we had a collossal failure by the intelligence community. There has been a lot of hand wringing and finger wagging about a failure to 'connect the dots.' A 9/11 Commission wrote a report about these problems, and how ironic that one the members of this Commission, Jamie Gorelick, had been the architect of the legal wall constructed to stop cooperation and information sharing between CIA and FBI agents. Well, here we go again. The Director of National Intelligence wants Congress to write new law to replace the antiquated 1978 FISA law. I am at a loss of words to understand how gathering intelligence about enemies to the US can be a partisan issue. Those enemies who want to kill us do not give a big whoop whether the Democratic Party or Republican Party has the White House or the Congress. Moderate Republican, Heather Wilson is the sponsor of a bill in the House intended to fix FISA law. Will her bill come to a final vote before the August recess?
I have my doubts.

Here is an open letter from Heather about this issue.

Dear Friends,

Not too long ago, we had a briefing in the Intelligence Committee that made me so angry that, when it was over, I had to go back to my office and close my door for a bit to cool off and think.

We have a problem. It is a problem created because our foreign intelligence laws have not kept pace with changes in technology. And the failure of the Congress to act and fix the law is putting Americans at risk.

I have been in the forefront of trying to modernize our foreign intelligence laws while protecting American civil liberties since early last year.

America spies on our enemies and in the war on terrorism, intelligence is the first line of defense. We try to discover the plans and intentions of our enemies so that we can identify them and stop them before they strike.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law was written in 1978 and intended to protect the civil liberties of Americans. The law requires a warrant to collect intelligence off a wire in the United States. When the law was written, almost all international calls were over the air – bounced off satellites. Over the air or "radio" communications did not require a warrant, but there are procedures in place to mask or destroy information about Americans if our intelligence agencies inadvertently collect a U.S. call. In 1978, almost all local calls were over a wire. Now, because of changes in technology, the situation is completely reversed. Almost all long haul communications are over wires or fiber optic cables and most local calls are over the air.

The problem is that our intelligence agencies are forced to go to a judge and prove they have probable cause to get a warrant to listen to foreigners in foreign countries if the conversation is collected off a wire in the United States. Think about that. We are doing everything we can, taking tremendous risks to listen to some terrorist talking to another terrorist in the tribal areas of Pakistan and we can’t try to snag that communication off a wire in the US without a warrant.

This is not how the law was intended to work and it needs to be fixed.

So, I’ve been working on getting it fixed. When quiet conversations with my Democratic colleagues didn’t spur them to make the political decision to act, we started increasing the public pressure at hearings, press conferences and with motions to recommit and previous question votes. I have been meeting with my colleagues who are not on the intelligence committee and explaining to them why this matters and enlisting them in the fight.

There are some indications this week that our campaign is having an impact and we may be forcing the issue and getting it addressed.

Yesterday, we got another push in a letter from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell. He is a low key guy not prone to hyperbole or grandstanding. He is a career military officer and intelligence professional. Read his letter and you’ll see what I mean.

We have to fix FISA.

Wish you were here,

I hope I'm wrong, and the congresscritters™ in a brief moment of sanity, come to their senses and pass this much needed legislation.

Speaking abroad without bashing the USA

Last month Fred Thompson spoke to the Policy Exchange in London. I recommend you read the entire text, and one aspect of this speech that really caught my attention is that Fred did not apologize for any perceived wrongs committed by the US. Fred did not criticize the US for making mistakes and causing problems instead of dealing with problems in the world. What a refreshing difference there is between Fred and, oh take your pick, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, et al. He was well received by these Brits because instead of pandering to their perceptions of the US he spoke about the problems that the US, UK, and the West must be ready to deal with. I won't cut and paste all of it, but here is just a sampling of the good parts.

In the long progress of the world toward liberty, it was not by chance that this lowly province of the Roman Empire became a great teacher of democracy and the model of self-government. And it wasn’t just luck that turned a troublesome British colony into the inspiration for all those who seek freedom. There is a reason why Britain and America were thrown together as partners in this world. The things that unite the American and British peoples? They don’t change with the names of leaders or with the passing of years.

It was Harold MacMillan who best summed up the shared experiences of British and American leaders in the last century. In his later years, Lord Stockton was asked what he considered the greatest challenge in all his years as a statesman. And in that English way, he put it in a word: “Events, my dear boy, events.”

We must conclude that the greatest test of leadership – in your country or mine, in this time or any other – can be simply stated. We must shape events, and not be left at their mercy. And in all things, to protect ourselves and to assure the peace, the great democracies of the world must stick together. We must be willing to make tough decisions today in order to avert bigger problems tomorrow. We must be prepared to meet threats before threats become tragedies.

Changes in leadership on both sides of the Atlantic will give us new opportunities. Often in the history of nations, leaders rise to meet the times. These times require those with the wisdom and courage to see past the next election cycle.

Many in Europe simply have a different view from that of the United States as to the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism. They think that the threat is overblown. That despite September 11th, and July 7th and other attacks in Europe and elsewhere, America is the main target and therefore the problem is basically an American one. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq at a particular point in time resolves the matter for them. Also, they see no meaningful connection between terrorist groups and countries like Iran.

Admittedly, even some in America think that the threat is overblown, and that if we had not gone into Iraq, we’d have no terrorism problem.

However, most Americans feel differently. We understand that the Western world is in an international struggle with jihadists who see this struggle as part of a conflict that has gone on for centuries, and who won’t give up until Western countries are brought to their knees. I agree with this view. I believe that the forces of civilization must work together with common purpose to defeat the terrorists who for their own twisted purposes have murdered thousands, and who are trying to acquire technology to murder millions more.

When terrorists in their video performances pledge more and bigger attacks to come, against targets in both Europe and America, these are not to be shrugged off as idle boasts. They must be taken at their word.

When the president of Iran shares his nightmare visions before cheering crowds, those are not just the fanatic’s version of an empty applause line. The only safe assumption is that he means it. If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to “wipe out” an entire nation, we should listen. We must gather our alliance, and do all in our power to make sure that such men do not gain the capability to carry out their evil ambitions.

It seems that the 2008 contest for POTUS has taken off earlier than ever before, and lately there have been a slew of blogs that are critical of a candidate's style, wife, son, dog, etc etc. I just thought I would post about a speech given to an audience that can't vote in the next election. A lot of people have been especially critical of Fred lately because he has not officially announced that he is running for POTUS. Does anybody want to talk about the substance of his speech to the Political Exchange in London? Can anyone remember that there really are important things in this world that actually do trump style. Just wonderin'.

Glenn Beck has jumped the shark or...

On the Glenn Beck show today he interviewed Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. The main topic of this interview is the prosecution of Ramos and Compean. There was a blog here recently about this prosecution, and the conclusion had been drawn that prosecutor Johhny Sutton had really schooled Laura Ingraham on the merits of the case.

Not .So.Fast.
According to Congressman Rohrabacher, the administration is stonewalling a Congressional investigation and is involved in a coverup over some things that occurred during this entire period of time. I recommend you read the entire transcript of this interview. Here is just a little sampling:

GLENN: How far does this -- I mean, what bothers me is I talked to Sutton and I said, you answer to Gonzales. Gonzales answers to Bush. It's the three of you. How far up the chain does this go?

SENATOR ROHRABACHER: Well, I'm sure this goes all the way up to the White House. There's no doubt about that. We have to remember this going the other direction, too. The other direction is the jurors, which are just us, you know, we the people make up juries. The jurors in this case, they kept the information about the second drug deal from the jury and they painted the drug dealer as a one-time guy who is trying to sell drugs to raise money for his sick mother and they've been -- Sutton who in testimony says, oh, the judge was the one who determined that that information wouldn't get to the jury. No, no, it was a prosecution motion for the judge not to let the jury hear that and so what we've got is a false picture, a lie being painted to the jury and now during this investigation they've tried to use those same tactics to prevent congress, my investigation, from getting the information that would get to the truth. They were denying us these documents saying, oh, we can't give you -- these are official documents by the department of homeland security. We can't get those. And the Department of Justice and Homeland Security denying this unless Ramos -- excuse me, unless Davila, the drug dealer, signs a waiver, a privacy act waiver. So we're not even supposed to be able to look at official government documents in overseeing the activity of these jokers.
SENATOR ROHRABACHER: And so I was cautious to begin with in this investigation, but clearly Ramos and Compean, they both have an unblemished record and those are both veterans. These are guys who served our country -- excuse me -- in the military. In fact, Ramos, I believe, is an officer in the Naval Reserve.

GLENN: I believe one of them was the border guard of the year, the year before.

SENATOR ROHRABACHER: He was nominated to be the border guard. The fact that he was nominated shows you they both basically -- and, of course, Johnny Sutton has seen fit to try to smear these guys. One of them had a family altercation two years ago. Sutton had to make that totally public as if the public won't understand that sometimes you have family altercations, they get out of hand. But it doesn't -- it wasn't part of his job. Had nothing to do with part of his job but instead they've been vilifying these men, trying to go out and shoot Mexicans, making sure if there was any blemish that everybody knew about it. That's the type of underhanded thing, and I would say Mr. Sutton and these guys are now in a desperate situation because we now have got -- they are trying to keep from the congress the information that we now have that they gave a free pass to this drug dealer even after he had been fingered for a second drug deal and then, of course, they lied about it to the jury.

I am a supporter of President Bush, and that is why I titled this piece "Glenn Beck has jumped the shark or..." If this is a coverup by the administration for the DHS, then IMO there is a bigger worry here with this than there is with Iraq. It seems that one constant with scandals is that the coverup is always the driving force behind the scandal. I have not come to any final conclusions about this case, but I wanted to post this, and hopefully get some thoughtful responses.

Democrats want you to shut your pie-hole

There was a vote in the US Senate on the evening of July 19th on an amendment by Susan Collins. The purpose of the amendment was to provide limited immunity for reports of suspicious behavior and response. 60 yea votes were needed for passage, and it fell short by 3 votes. All 39 No votes were cast by Democrats.

The List:

Akaka (D-HI)
*Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Dodd (D-CT)
*Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
*Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
*Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
*Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
*Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
*Pryor (D-AR)
*Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
*Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I put an asterisk beside the name of each Senator who is up for reelection in 2008. Maybe some of them have a safe seat, but I think every one of them should called out for their vote. Every one of them should be asked to explain why they want everybody who reports suspicious behavior subjected to facing lawsuits filed against them by CAIR & company. History shows us that terrorist attacks are thwarted by reports of suspicious behavior from ordinary citizens. example: the Ft Dix six. We need to seize on every misstep these Democratic congresscritters up for reelection in '08 take, and call them out on them.

Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence

The title of this blog are words in a speech Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave recently to the National Press Club. They obviously fell on deaf ears when you read the editorial pages or opinion pieces written. The underlying reason why the lefties and wobbly Republicans like Lugar and Warner want to surrender is because they think the Muslims ARE half-wits who can respond only in violence. Many also believe the world's oceans are going to keep the violence from coming to our shores. IMO bigoted folks like this are wrong on both counts.

First thing is let us make a moral distinction between Muslims and Islamists. Ms Ali put it this way:

Muslims are diverse. Some, like Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid, want to reform their faith. Others want to spread their beliefs through persuasion, violence or both. Others are apathetic and do not care much for politics. Others want to leave it and convert to Christianity, like Nonie Darwish, or become atheist, like me.

Islam unreformed, as a set of beliefs, is hostile to everything Western.

In a free society, if Jews, Protestants, and Catholics have their own schools, then Muslims should have theirs, too. But how long should we ignore that in Muslim schools in the West, kids are taught to believe that Jews are pigs and dogs? Or that they should distance themselves from unbelievers and jihad is a virtue? Isn't it odd that everywhere in Europe with large Muslim organizations, demands are made not to teach kids about the Holocaust, while in mosques and Muslim bookshops The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is distributed?

And what about in Muslim lands, where Jews, Catholics, and Protestants cannot have their own schools, or churches, or graveyards? If Muslims can proselytize in Vatican City, why can't Christians proselytize in Mecca? Why do we find this acceptable? If Christians, Jews, and Atheists take to the streets in large numbers to protest against their own elected governments in objection to the war in Iraq, to the war against terror, why don't Muslims march in equally large number against the beheadings of Western aid workers? Why don't Muslims stand up for their own? Why are Jews and Christians and Atheists in the West the ones fighting genocide in Darfur? Why does it pass unnoticed in Muslim lands when Shias kill Sunnis and Sunnis, Shias by the thousands? It doesn't add up, does it?

It is important to understand how radical islamists make absolutely no separate distinction between the church and the state. They are one and the same to these folks, and this is totally contrary to Western life. Ms Ali details the stark differences between the USA and Islamic countries in the world:

As a woman in the West I have access to education. I have a job, and I can change jobs as I wish. I can marry the man of my choice, or I can choose not to marry at all. If nature allows it, I can have any number of children I want. I can manipulate nature and freeze my eggs. I can have an abortion. I can own property. I can travel wherever I want. I can read whichever book, newspaper, or magazine I wish. I can watch any movie I want or go to the museum of my choice. I can have an opinion on the moral choices of others and express my opinion, even publish it. And I can change my mind as time goes by. I can establish a political party or join an existing one; I am free to change parties or give up my membership. I can vote. I can choose not to vote. I can stand for election to office or go into business. This is what makes the West so great.

In Muslim lands, except for a very lucky few, women are denied education, have no job, and are forced into marriage with strangers. In the name of Islam, women are denied the right to their bodies; they cannot choose whether to have children or how many to have. They have no rights to abortion, and often they die trying to get one. They cannot own property, trade, or travel without the risk of robbery or rape. Most women (and men) live in state and religious censorship on what to read (if they can read at all) and what films to watch, and they have hardly any museums or art they can enjoy. Of the 57 Muslim nations that are members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), only two are democracies. Both are frail and corrupt, and both face the risk of being overtaken by the agents of pure Islam. Turkey has a safety check in the shape of the army and Indonesia none. In none of these countries--except for the usual show-pieces to delude the West--are women allowed to establish their own political parties, play a meaningful role in one, vote, or run for office.

This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam--from Riyadh to Tehran, from Islamabad to Cairo--know that any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their power. This is why, among other things, they are so desperate to cage in women. This is why they also hate the West.

Please don't be fooled by the few shrill voices--in or out of the veil--that enjoy the status quo and betray their fellow women.

I know there is a war fatigue in the USA that has set in, but we need to think instead of responding like half-wits. It is madness to think that we can just stop fighting and then all of the islamist terrorists will stop fighting too. It doesn't work that way, and it never has. We also should not think we are in a global war against all Muslims. We need to make the moral distinction between a diverse large percentage of the world's population, (Muslims) and the politics of the radical islamists. All of the other great religions have reformed from their rudimentary beginning, and I still hold out hope for reform in Islam.

Scolding Western Journalists...to No Avail

Late last month Ayaan Hirsi Ali produced 2 short publications at AEI. One on June 19th was The Role of Journalism Today. The other one on June 25th was An Honor Worth Defending.

The June 19th article is about the odd feeling she had giving a speech at the National Press Club. In her speech she talked about defending freedom of expression, free press, and the rights of women. What felt odd to her is she noticed the embarrassment the western journalist felt at defending the very right from which they earn their bread.

She noticed the same sense of uneasiness in early 2006 among Western journalists, academics, politicians, and commentators on how to respond to the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark. In fact, many seriously defended the assertion that Denmark had to apologize for the cartoons. This attitude was repeated in the fall of last year when the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who wrote that the founder of Islam spread his religion by the sword, and the New York Times urged the Pope to apologize.

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam. Tony Blair and the Pope should not be embarrassed in saying it, and you should stop self-censoring. Islam and liberal democracy are incompatible; cultures and religions are not equal. And perhaps most important of all, Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence.

I encourage anyone to read the entire publication. She writes about many good questions that she is often asked by people, and she writes some very interesting answers to these good questions. Her final paragraph is this admonition.

If we do not understand the differences between Islam and the West--why one is so great and the other so low--and we don't fight back and win this battle of ideas in order to preserve our civilization, in my view there is no point to your profession or mine.

Her second article is about the reaction in Pakistan to Sir Salmon Rushdie being honored by Queen Elizabeth II with knighthood.

Imagine if a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags. Imagine if they then built a bonfire and hurled the items one at a time into that fire screaming "Long Live the Queen!" each time the flames shot up.

This would be the equivalent of what hardline Muslim students did in the eastern Pakistani city of Multan, to take just one example, when they burned effigies this week of Queen Elizabeth II and Salman Rushdie, chanting "Kill him! Kill him!" in response to his recently bestowed knighthood.

Westerners have too often shrugged their shoulders at the trashing of their icons--such as when the queen is burned in effigy--by the foot soldiers of tribal barbarism. This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists.

Instead the West should join together to vigorously defend its symbols and civilization that, with all its flaws, still offers the best life to the most people.

Strident demands for apologies from power holders should be met with stoicism. Not one inch should be given.

Governments like that of Pakistan, which encourage and even stoke the flames, ought to be brought to account instead of coddled. The United States and Britain ought to demand that Pakistan's religious affairs minister, Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, resign for saying, in the Pakistani Parliament: "The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title."

With this episode involving Sir Salman, the Nigerian playwright Wole Soyinka is absolutely right: It is a fatal mistake for the West to let the forces of intolerance "define the territory of insult." The West must stand its ground.

By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life.

I have a lot of respect for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and unfortunately her admonitions are simply being directed at a segment of the West that have their heads stuck firmly in the sand like ostriches. I also think there is one type of target the press will stand their ground against and beat the drum against. That target is rich white middle-aged men like POTUS or CEO of Halliburton or Exxon. I also think there is an elitist bigotry wrapped in a fear by many western journalists that Muslims ARE half-wits who can only respond in violence.

We can not win any battles of ideas through the MSM, so I suggest we support somebody who, like Reagan, bypasses the MSM and speaks directly to the people.

Fred Thompson on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Andrew West wrote an article about how Ayaan Hirsi Ali became a hero of the right because the left deserted her in hour of need. In the article ms Ali explain in her words:

‘I called it the paradox of the Left,’ she told The Guardian. ‘On the one hand they support ideals of equality and emancipation, but in this case they do nothing about it; they even facilitate the oppression.’

In one of the more disgraceful episodes in the recent history of the European Left, Dutch Labour chose the votes of primitive mullahs — and I make no apology for labelling them as such — and the communities over which they hold sway, instead of a passionate human rights campaigner. Hirsi Ali bolted first to a libertarian business Party and, following her resignation from Parliament, to a Right-wing think tank in the United States.

What a loss. She became a victim of the Left’s fatal embrace of cultural relativism over universal human rights.

The Left is not being ‘culturally sensitive’ when it argues we need to accept or even ‘understand’ cultures, be they in Central Asia or Central Australia, that challenge liberal and social democratic norms or accommodate violence in the community or the home — it is being dangerously indulgent and its adherents need to rethink their position, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s words ringing in their ears.

Fred understands Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the message that she has for the world. This is just one more reason that I'm with Fred.

Obama girl vs McCain Mama vs Hott 4 Hill!

On those really slow news days some dueling You Tube videos that have me ROFLMAO.

Behind curtain #1 we have Glenn Beck, Amber Lee Ettinger, Obama, and McCain, and old ladies.

Behind curtain #2 we have Taryn Southern, Hillary, and young students.

WARNING: If you open curtain #2 scenes of Hillary's face on Mt Rushmore my be too graphic for the weak hearted. I'm kind of sick & twisted like Glenn Beck.

Last Name Magic for POTUS

POTUS who have last name ending in “n”
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Harry Truman
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
William J. Clinton
16 of POTUS have last name ending in “n”

POTUS who have last name ending in “r”
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Chester Arthur
Herbert Hoover
Dwight Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
6 of POTUS have last name ending in “r”

POTUS who have last name ending in “e”
James Monroe
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
Calvin Coolidge
4 of POTUS have last name ending in “e”

POTUS who have last name ending in “t”
Ulysses S. Grant
Theodore Roosevelt
William H. Taft
Franklin D. Roosevelt
4 of POTUS have last name ending in “t”

POTUS who have last name ending in “s”
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Rutherford B. Hayes
3 of POTUS have last name ending in “s”

POTUS who have last name ending in “d”
James Garfield
Grover Cleveland
Gerald Ford
3 of POTUS have last name ending in “d”

POTUS who have last name ending in “y”
William McKinley
John F. Kennedy
2 of POTUS have last name ending in “y”

POTUS who have last name ending in “h”
George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush
2 of POTUS have last name ending in “h”

POTUS who have last name ending in “k”
James Polk
1 of POTUS have last name ending in “k”

POTUS who have last name ending in “g”
Warren Harding
1 of POTUS have last name ending in “g”

0 of POTUS who have last name ending in “a”, “i”, “o”, or “l”

2008 candidates with the right ending to their last name
Joe Biden
Hillary Rodham Clinton
John McCain
Bill Richardson
Tommy Thompson
Fred Thompson

2008 candidates with the wrong ending to their last name
Barack Obama
Rudy Giuliani
George Pataki
Tom Tancredo
Chuck Hagel
Mike Gravel
Ron Paul
Sam Brownback
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Dennis Kucinich
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Jim Gilmore
Al Gore
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter

The other magic has to do with 10 of the 42 POTUS have the same last name. In 220 years from 1789 to 2009 we have had 20 years of Roosevelt, 12 years of Bush, 10 years of Johnson, 8 years of Adams, and 4+ years of Harrison. I personally do not want to see any more years of Clinton as POTUS. Maybe it is just coincidence, and there is not a “royal class” of Americans from whom POTUS is elected. I hope so. In any event I am pleased that my guy’s last name ends with the letter “n”. I’m with Fred.