Thursday, August 04, 2005

PAKISTAN HIGH COURT STRIKES DOWN TALIBAN LAWS - will Shias in Iraq get the message?

BBC: Pakistan's Supreme Court has said that various clauses of a bill introducing a Taleban-style moral code in North-West Frontier Province are unconstitutional. It said the provincial governor was not obliged to sign the bill into law. It has been passed by the NWFP assembly. The court said its opinion was advisory and it could not strike down the bill. President Musharraf says the bill is a breach of fundamental human rights. The NWFP government says it was mandated to pass the bill and will revise it.

Let's hope this ruling sticks - and that it also sends a clear message to the Iraqis who are writing their constitution, and debating the extent of Islam's influence/control over their government. If the Pakistan High Court ruling doesn't stick - (if the Muslim radicals flount it), then Musharraf must have the courage to enforce it. It will be another moment of truth for Musharraf.

BOTTOM-LINE: Muslims all over the world will soon determine for themselves if their religion is truly compatible with pluralism, democracy and the rule of law. I have my doubts. SURE: Indonesia and Turkey are democratic (and Egypt and Lebanon and Iraq ARE making progress) - but they are ALL also seemingly held hostage by their fanatical fringe. IOW: The moment of truth is approaching for all of Islam... I hope that Muslims choose well - and choose to move forward and join MOST of the rest of humanity. This could end the "Glo-WORM" sooner rather than later. If they do not, then WW4 will be a doozy - a long treacherous doozy.


YUP: the NYCLU is suing the NYPD to make them stop random searches. There can be The ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION is that this Leftist organization wants New Yorkers to suffer a subway attack just like the ones on London.

Why do I make this charge?!

Well, they oppose both PROFILING (so police can logically target searches), and they RANDOM SEARCHES. What option does that leave? Only one: NO SEARCHES. And therefore no deterrence. (UPDATE: this -- "no deterrence" -- actually overstates my case; there can be additional some deterrence without resorting searches: bomb-sniffing dogs (thanks to a commenter for pointing this out). CCTV will NOT deter anything; it just makes apprehending the perp' more likely. London proves this. Nevertheless, I stick by my charge: if the NYCLU were to succeed it would make us less safe. This makes them scum in my book.)

As the wise man once said - and as I have often repeated: "They're not anti-war; they are on the other side!"

UPDATE: A few Leftie commenters have suggested that either the NYPD should search everyone or no one. I think that they prove my point: rather than take a few measured and logical civil-defense measures in a time of war, when the threat is VERY serious, the Left would leave us defenseless but "constitutionally pure." For to search nobody is foolish, and to search everyone IMPOSSIBLE. So you see, it is exactly like I said it was: the NYCLU/ACLU/Left take deliberate actions which make us less safe than we might otherwise be. This aids and abets the enemy. Which is treasonous. Par for the course for the Left: they've been treasonous since the late 1960's. FDR, Truman and JFK - who would certainly be called neocons today - must be rolling in their graves!


This attack is like the wife-beater who blames the battered-wife for her beatings: "It' her fault; she doesn't effin' listen!"

Which should surprise NO ONE; after all, Islam condones wife-beating. Oh. Excuse me. That is NOT "true Islam." Yeah. Right.

[BTW: what do wacky Arab and Muslim and Leftist conspiracy theorists make of statements like this from al Qaeda? How do they maintain that the terrorist attacks are the work of Zionists/Likudniks/Bushies/and neocons when the jihadoterrorists take credit and promise more of the same? Do they think that al Qaeda is a Mossad/CIA/GOP front!? And if they do, HOW DO THEY SQUARE THIS WITH THEIR WACKY THEORY THAT BUSH IS CONTROLLED BY THE HOUSE OF SAUD AND HALLIBURTON!? And Rove. Sheesh. They are either nuts, or the enemy's Fifth Columnh - OR BOTH!]

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

NRO's IAIN MURRAY AGREES: having separate standards for Israel is anti-Semitic

Iain Murray (from today's NRO/Corner, describing George Galloway's most recent derisive use of the word "Israeli"):

There is a word for the belief that you should judge something more harshly when you discover that it is produced by Jewish people. It’s simple anti-Semitism. I’m sure George will want to denounce it the next time he hears it."

This also goes for the Vatican and Pope Benedict 16 - whose recent statements on terrorism were as anti-Semitic as those uttered by George Galloway and Ken Livingstone (HERE and HERE and HERE).

The Vatican should recant and repent for its recent anti-Semitic statements. If the Pope and the Vatican fail to do so, Pope Benedict will neutralize his moral authority, authority he needs in the urgent battle against moral relativism and in the struggle to save the Church. If he fails to recant and repent, he condemns his Church certain to extinction - for a Pope with no moral clarity has no moral authority, and becomes merely a seat-warmer with no noble mission leading a Church with no transcendent purpose.

The Pope's currrent position would lead the Church in the anti-Semitic path of the Presbyterians and the Anglicans. Maybe this is what the Vatican wants. But the Pope's prior efforts at rapprochement with Judaism and his clear attacks on moral relativism would have argued against it. That's what is so puzzling about his recent statements. And why it is a moment of truth for the Church. I am praying for the best result.

Monday, August 01, 2005


A perfect little essay from Santiago at Red State (hat tip DISSECTING LEFTISM); EXCERPT:

The Democrats do not have philosophies, they have constituencies. And the Democrats and their constituencies are coming apart at the seams. ...

The Democratic "platform" has several odious components. Primarily, the Democrats are totally lacking on ideas on governance. They are unwilling or incapable of stating the simplest political position. Of the many important problems facing the nation, the Republicans are left to carry on alone: Social Security, foreign affairs, War for Democracy, reform of the UN. You name it, and try to find a coherent Democratic position on any of these matters. No such position can be found; no such position exists. In place of considered policies on governance, the Democrats have adopted an unrelieved negative position on all political questions. For example, Social Security is a known problem area, and has been for years; President Clinton was warning about the need to address SS problems a decade ago.

Today, Democrats largely deny that any problem exists, and if they are willing to talk about Social Security at all, they want to raise taxes (of course!) In addition to being extremely negative, Democrats are dishonest in talking about political positions. Some of the Democrat dishonesty is farcical; Bush is stupid, Bush is a liar.

Beyond that, the Democrats have adopted three dubious propositions, elevated them to iconic status, and repeat them endlessly, long after they have been utterly disproven.

RTWT! NOW! The essay depicts why -- unless centrist adults re-take the Democrat Party from the deluded anachronistic Left -- the Party will disappear.


Last week - on Friday to be exact - I posted on the outrageous hypocrisy of the vatican's anti-recent terror statements. NO ONE LINKED TO ME. And writers and editors of NRO - each of who had either posted my previous cticisms of Pope Benedict, or correpsonded on them with me - made nary a mention -- AS IF TRYING TO IGNORE THE INDEFENSIBLE VATICAN STATEMENTS.

I felt all alone and out on a limb. I thought: was I too harsh!? Now my momentary doubts are vanquished. Because Alan Dershowitz has NOW made the same crticisms that I made. Check them out at FRONTPAGE. Here's an excerpt: "The truth is that the Vatican has always had a Jewish problem. Today that problem focuses more on the Jewish state than on the Jewish religion. But the Vatican’s perverse refusal to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians in Israel raises even broader questions of discrimination."


GAZA: (1) the countdown to Judenrein; (2) a comparison to Pakistan and Afghanistan

Egypt and Israel have agreed to new post-Judenrein Egyptian troop deployments along Gaza's borders. BBC: ... Egypt has agreed to police the international border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt after Israel withdraws from the territory. Some 750 Egyptian troops will patrol the border, allowing Israel to pull soldiers out of the area, scene of frequent clashes with militants. Areas along the Gaza-Israel border have been the focus of fierce fighting throughout almost five years of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. ... Palestinian Authority security forces are due to take responsibility for internal security in Gaza, but face challenges from militant groups such as Hamas. A recent independent assessment said the Palestinian forces were weak, divided and outgunned by militant groups. ... Israel will maintain control over Gaza's borders, coastline and airspace after the pullout, and could respond if Palestinian forces fail to stop attacks against nearby Israeli towns and villages.

I first blogged on the Judenrein aspect of the Gaza withdrawal plan HERE (on March 5th, 2005) and HERE (on March 23rd). I have always been skeptical of a TWO-STATE SOLUTION because it requires that a "STATE" exist in the disputed territories - something that is NOT LIKELY to ever occur - especially if jihadoterrorists (like HAMAS and Islamic Jihad and al Aksa) are permitted to stay armed.

That's why I predict that Gaza - and the West Bank - will become JUST LIKE THE TRIBAL REGIONS OF WESTERN PAKISTAN: lawless. And NO "STATE." And hardly a good neighbor. As the Taliban and al Qaeda find refuge in the "tribal/lawless regions' of western Pakistan - free to cause havoc in democratic Afghanistan - so to will a LAWLESS GAZA and LAWLESS WEST BANK continue to cause havoc to Israel. (Gazastan and Westbankistan!)

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFGHANISTAN AND ISRAEL? At least the USA and NATO have troops on the ground HELPING TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY IN AFGHANISTAN and helping Afghanis kill the jihadoterrorists. Israel must fight the jihadoterrorisists - who are closer to Israel's population centers than the Taliban are to Afghanistan's population centers - ALL BY HERSELF - accompanied only by the constant harranguing of the hyypocrites and the anti-Semites of the world.


The MSM does it. Even FOXNEWS does it. Even Glenn does it - when he links to a cartoon critical of Frist.

It seems to me that the controversy is complicated enough without critics leaving out the KEY word: EMBRYONIC.

Bush has authorized more money for stem cell research than any other president EVER - (which was easy because he was ther FIRST to ever pledge a penny for it)!

So the criticism he gets for "being against stem cell research" is totally uncalled for!

The only form of stem cell research Bush put any limits on - LIMITS ON FEDERAL FINANCING ONLY (and he has not put ANY limits on ANY research which is NOT funded by the feds!) - was EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH - a subset of the larger field STEM CELL RESEARCH, which studies uses for stem cells from many sources.

I do not think that every Bush critic is DELIBERATELY obfuscating the issue, though many undoubtedly are. It's merely sloppy and lazy criticism which is- ultimiately - a disservice to Bush AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO THE DEBATE.

ASIDE: Why is it that sloppy and lazy journalism ALWAYS seems to go against Bush? COULD IT BE BIAS? Yup. Even Glenn is BIASED against Bush's position, so he uses (and links to) a cartoon which obfuscates the issue by using of the overly broad term (sans "embryonic") - when ONLY the narrower term is truthful. Shame on you, Glenn!

Stem cells from non-embryonic sources have just as much - or more - potential as the controversial embryonic stem cells. So the bias is uncalled for.

Sunday, July 31, 2005

THE LEFTIST PHRASE I HATE MOST: "well, then the terrorists have already won"

I hate it when I hear Lefties say: "well, then the terrorists have already won." They usually say it when there is some sort of practical counter-measure we can take to increase our safety from the jihadoterrorists which requires a modicum of libertairian restraint, like: National ID Cards; or profiling; or actually enforcing our laws and guarding our borders. Today on WOLF BLITZER's LATE EDITION on CNN John MIller (LA's terrorism czar) said it with regard to National ID cards; he said (paraphrasing): "... the cop in my likes the idea, but the democrat in me doesn't because, well, then the terrorists have already won. "

I THINK: when the jihadoterrorists kill us -- when they succeed in committing genocide against us and scaring us, and forcing us to change our policies and to appease them and their aims -- that THEN AND ONLY THEN HAVE THEY WON. IOW: when they win, they've WON. Until then, we need to take every counter-measure necessary to make their lives harder and their mission more difficult UNTIL WE HAVE UTTERLY DEFEATED THEM!

Jeff at PROTEIN WISDOM has another critique which utilizes the Leftist rationalization, "well, then the terrorists have already won." It's a sarcastic defence of Jimmy Carter's latest outburst; here it is (hat tip INSTAPUNDIT):

As to whether or not Carter’s comments provide rhetorical cover for the terrorists—of course not! Carter is simply voicing his dissent, and if a former US president can’t openly criticize his government—publicly, overseas, during wartime, and on the basis of a narrative of events that an investigative panel has already concluded simply does not represent the facts on the ground—well, then the terrorists have already won.

Indeed. Heh.


BBC: People from certain ethnic groups are more likely to be stopped and searched on London transport after the bombings, British Transport Police (BTP) said. A force spokesman said communities were not being singled out, but police have to "target the people we think may be involved" in bomb attacks. The policy has been supported by Home Office minister Hazel Blears. ... Ms Blears said officers would be acting on descriptions from intelligence sources. ... "It is going to be disproportionate. It is going to be young men, not exclusively, but it may be disproportionate when it comes to ethnic groups," the British Transport spokesman said.

BRAVO! Better to be "politically non-correct" than to allow another attack. SURE: the islamofanatics will find some way to adapt - (by perhaps using Chechens or Bosnians or Filipinos or Thais), but forcing them to adapt (to scramble for new trainees and perp's) is part of how we can keep them off-balance and on the run and on the defensive.

Since 7/7 both Britain and France - led by Sarkozy - seem to be taking the necessary HARSH steps to counter-attack against the jihadoterrorists: using massive CCTV surveilance and adding deportation and racial profiling to their arsenal.

When will the USA get as tough?