1944: Battle of the Bulge; 2004: Battle of the Bilge

My friends at POWERLINE posted a link to a GREAT column by Paul Greenberg - a column written on this, the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge.

Greenberg wrote:

"Instead of sheltering behind the Siegfried Line, the "retreating" Germans were advancing. Through an only lightly defended 50-mile stretch of the Ardennes. Allied intelligence had collected reports of a transfer of German troops from the Eastern to the Western front in the fall of 1944, and there was ample evidence that they were being reassembled in the Ardennes, but word never filtered up to headquarters. No one had connected the dots. (Sound familiar?) [...] In the heat of battle, confusion reigned. Disguised as American MPs, English-speaking, American-accented Germans were sending relief convoys down the wrong roads, or into murderous ambushes. Just liberated French cities were exposed again, and Paris was jittery. The British press demanded that Eisenhower turn command of the land forces over to Montgomery - or anyone else competent. [...] In the heat of battle, confusion reigned. Disguised as American MPs, English-speaking, American-accented Germans were sending relief convoys down the wrong roads, or into murderous ambushes. Just liberated French cities were exposed again, and Paris was jittery. The British press demanded that Eisenhower turn command of the land forces over to Montgomery - or anyone else competent."

But that was then. Then, only the infamous yellow press of Fleet Street carped a negative line. NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT called for the Secretary of War to resign - (he was Henry L. Stimson, a secretary of huge import, and like Rumsfeld an enourmously talented and committed man on his 2nd tour of duty as leader of the department).

McCain and Kristol should be ashamed of themselves for caving into the negativists and defeatists who always seem to seek to scapegoat someone whenever there's a setback in this war. Well: setbacks are a part of war; the enemy is flexible, cunning and committed and they're bound to do things which will upset our plans. So, we must be cunning, too. Not defeatist.

I'd rather the McCains and the Kristols of the world - on the Right and on the Left - all kept their mouths shut, instead of carping each time we hit an inevitable bump in the road to victory - a victory that can only be lost if we lose our resolve; a resolve that can only be undemined by their short-sighted carping.

So... HEY YO... MCCAIN & HAGEL & KRISTOL (and now LOTT): ENOUGH ALREADY! Your seemingly unending calls for Rumsfeld to resign are nothing more than BILGE!"*

Bush and Rumsfeld have (for all intents and purposes) answered your call by saying what General McAuliffe said to the NAZIS at the Battle of the Bulge - "NUTS!"

*[Bilge as defined by the Navy: "Spaces at the very bottom of a vessel in which water leaks are allowed to collect for evacuation by the ship's pumps. Thus, the expression, 'That's bilge!', meaning 'Nonsense'. "]

FOR MORE ON THE "LET'S GET RUMSFELD!" CROWD (FROM THE EDITORS OF NATIONAL REVIEW), JUST CLICK HERE.

MUSAB AL ZARQAWI: master of disguise?

From Brunei On Line:

"Make-up may be Zarqawi's secret of eluding capture: Intelligence services

BERLIN (dpa) - Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi and his terrorists in Iraq may be moving around Iraq with impunity because they spend hours in front of the mirror making up their faces, according to intelligence services quoted by the Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel. In a story released before publication Tuesday, it said the services claimed the Jordanian Islamist's group were major buyers of rich theatrical make-up, and used the cosmetics to drastically change their appearance."

This news item gives those terrifying videotapes of Zarqawi's brutal beheadings a whole new layer of meaning and context: it's a macabre reality show in which he is the star. To read a fascinating column about this by Jason Burke - (about Zarqawi's "Theater of Terror") - just click HERE.

AL QAIDA'S GLOBAL HQ FOUND: it's in "Hubrisistan"

WW4 began in earnest 1979 - when the USA stood and watched as the Shah was overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini (and stood by and watched as Saddam took power in Iraq, and stood and watched as the USSR invaded Afghanistan, too!).

America continued to stand by and watch as Jihadoterror spread around the world (in Beirut in 1982, and everywhere elsewhere since: the Philipines; Indonesia; North, East and West Africa; Kashmir; Pakistan; Thailand - to name a few).

The USA even aided Jihadism a little when it used the Mujahadeen (precursors of the Taliban) to oust the USSR from Afghanistan.

This event in particular gave the Jihadists a false-feeling - the feeling that they could defeat anyone and everyone who got in their way. This is their HUBRIS. To this day, they believe that THEY defeated the USSR, and that they can also defeat the West (by defeating the USA); thereby, the Jihadists believe they can achieve their ultimate goal: re-establish the tyrannical Caliphate under Salafist sharia.

The Jihadoterrorists saw America as morally weak and timid - too cowardly to fight the USSR themselves.

Somalia, the USS Cole, and the African Embassy bombings all added to this perception.

They see the USA victory in Afghanistan as a temporary setback; ditto Iraq. They believe that over the long haul the USA and the West will tire and surrender in Afghanistan and Iraq - and everywhere else. After all, it took Vietnam a decade of guerilla war to oust the USA; it might take just as long to oust the USA from Afghanistan and Iraq - and "Palestine" and Spain and Kashmir, and so on...

But this is a false reading of history - one based on HUBRIS, as I said...

The key reason it is pure unadulterated hubris is this: The Mujahdeen could not have defeated the USSR if the USA had not been training, supplying and re-supplying them. Guerilla forces need to be re-supplied in a long guerilla war. The Vietcong had the USSR. Neither the Vietcong or the Mujahadeen side could've won without a huge state willing AND ABLE to resupply a guerilla force for years and years and years.

Absent that support, the Vietcong and the Mujahadeen didn't stand a chance.

For the Jihadoterrorists to believe that they can do it WITHOUT the support of a major nation state is nothing more than extreme HUBRIS. Fanatical hubris.

Which brings us to Afghanistan and Iraq - and Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The current counter-revolution being waged by the Jihadoterrorists in Iraq will fail if they are not resupplied.

Which means IF the new government of Iraq, and the USA, and the "Coalition of the Willing" can stop Iran and Syria from aiding the Jihadoterrorists within Iraq - (and also stop the monetary and intel' support that Jihadoterrorists worldwide get from reactionary elements within the Pakistan's ISI and the House of Saud) - THEN victory by Iraq and the USA is GUARANTEED.

The converse is also true: if the USA and its allies fail to stop the influx of aid from Syria and Iran into Iraq - then failure is guaranteed.

Today, at a photo-op with Berlusconi, Bush overtly warned Syria and Iran about meddling within Iraq.

Bush spoke softly - but I pray he spoke loud enough so that his words were heard all the way in "Hubrisistan." If not: then I pray Bush uses the big stick - and not too late, either.

MAN BITES DOG!

Man Charged With Animal Cruelty After Biting His Dog

The pet owner says the act was for punishment and training purposes.

By CINDY SWIRKO

New York Times Regional Newspapers

GAINESVILLE -- A man accused of biting his Jack Russell terrier, Lady, as a form of punishment was arrested on an animal cruelty charge Saturday by Gainesville police officers.

THAT GENOCIDE IS IGNORED BY THE U.N. AND THE MSM IS EXPECTED. THAT IT'S ALSO IGNORED BY BLOGOSPHERE... WELL, IT'S DISAPPOINTING!

Congress holds an important hearing into a barbaric form of genocide perpetrated by a totalitatrian tyranny and it's virtually ignored by the MSM. I expect that. What I didn't expect was this: According to the NEWSNOW.CO.UK - a news aggregating site with robots that monitor 15,000 news sites every 15 minutes, (or-so-they-claim) the biggest blogs have had NOTHING to say about it either. Not a single story in the last month by the "blogosphere big-shots" on coercive abortion in totalitarian China - a sickening practice which is simply genocide (SEE BELOW). SHAME SHAME SHAME. No matter how you feel about elective abortion, everyone should oppose forced abortion.

Only two reporters in the MSM are following this story: Gary Dinmore at the FT, and Jim Abrams of the AP. READ THEM.

STATE-SPONSORED GENOCIDE IN CHINA

Today C-SPAN broadcast the House International Relations Committee hearing on state forced abortions, sterilization and infanticide in China.

China uses coercive practices to limit families to one child - like jail, forced labor in prison, forced unemployment, and exorbitant fines on families that have more than one child (an amount that's the equivalent of 8-10x's their annual income).

The result is that in some regions of China there are now 30% more males than females - because families forced to have only one child prefer a male child and use sonograms to abort female fetuses or infanticde to murder female babies. The unbalanced gender ratios which result foster other inhumane and regressive behaviors like sexual slavery, illegal trafficking in female humans, soaring rates of female suicide, and huge dowries - which treat females as chattel.

The Bush administration has pressured China on these human-rights issues, and has - for the last three years - barred U.S. funds for the U.N. Population Fund, because the UNFPA supports China's population planning programs which includes policies of coercive abortion.

IMHO, coercive abortion is nothing more than another form of genocide. Genocide in the name of economics.

Imagine if the NAZIS had - instead of using the death camps of the Holocaust - limited Jews to only one child and used forced abortions to guarantee that result; eventually the "Final Solution" would've succeeded; it would've taken longer, but had the same terrible effect.

We shouldn't be less horrified or outraged by this type of Chinese genocide - it's merely more insidious and invidious.

Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking Member Tom Lantos deserve our support.

For more information go here.

LET'S NOT FORGET: SADDAM ABUSED THE OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM ON CLINTON'S WATCH

(AP) -- U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos ... predicted the world body will have to clean house over allegations of corruption in the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program in Iraq. "As a supporter of the United Nations, I am convinced that the United Nations will have to do some housecleaning and I am convinced that on the basis of the evidence already in, governments will have to do significant mea culpas," he said. "It is clear that we are dealing with a gigantic fiasco unprecedented in United Nations history, and clearly responsibilities will have to be assumed by individuals in several countries and within this organization," he added.

Lantos is the only survivor of the Holocaust in Congress, and the senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.

NEED I REMIND ALL OF YOU THAT MOST OF SADDAM'S STEALING AND BRIBING TOOK PLACE ON CLINTON'S WATCH! Well, his so-called "watch." What WAS he watching?! Maybe he was watching-out for Marc Rich?

WHY EUROPEANS LIKED POWELL MORE THAN THEY LIKED BUSH - AND MORE THAN THEY WILL LIKE CONDI

Old Europe always disliked Bush. They loved Clinton. But always hated Bush. Bush is a cowboy - and to Old Europe - and the Left everywhere - that's a bad thing.

Old Europe liked Saddam more than Bush. But it wasn't just personal. We all know why Old Europe fought in the UNSC to save Saddam: they were on his payroll - either directly through Oil-For-Food bribes, or indirectly through lucrative business dealings with Saddam's socialist regime.

What is slightly less understood is why Powell remained relatively popular among the Old Euorpeans - even as Bush wallowed in their irrational vitriol.

Powell did, after all, deliver the infamous UNSC WMD speech. Perhaps Old Europe forgave Powell this lapse because they think they "played" him - suckering him into thinking he had, in 1441, what amounted to a "declaration of war," when in fact they knew they wouldn't allow any such thing. (Of course, Bush out-smarted them all, by daring to act on his belief that "final chance or else" meant exactly that!)

The REAL reason that Powell remained popular in Old Europe was basically the same reason that Clinton WAS so popular in Old Europe. (HINT: Clinton met with Arafat in the White House more than any other foreign leader.)

YUP: Powell was so popular in Old Europe because he was the most pro-Arab member of the Administration; Powell - like most of the bureaucrats in the pro-Arab/Arabist State Department - always publicly sought to buttress Arafat and the Arabs and to undermine the hardline taken by Sharon - (a hardline that - it turns out - was very effective: the Second Intifada is over, and its use of terror failed miserably; this result strengthens all the free nations in the West who seek victory in the GWOT, and not merely appeasement and containment. Bush supported Sharon; Powell did not).

Old Europe has had two reasons for their accommodationist policies toward to Jihadoterror: first, Old Europe has a long and deep heritage of anti-Semitism; second, Old Europe has found decades of relative peace from Arafat and his minions by paying them blood money and obesiance - (Chirac gave Arafat's casket a full State send-off, and France still refuses to agree with the USA that Hizballah and Hamas are terrorists organizations - which allows them to continue to raise money for their Jihadoterror in France!).

NEED MORE PROOF? Consider this: The Jihadoterrorists consider Israel to be Little Satan and the USA Big Satan (because Israel couldn't continue to exist without USA support, in their view). Old Europe is NOT called "Middle Satan." And for this, Old Europe is relieved. They shouldn't be. Because, to the Jihadoterrorists, Old Europe is instead thought of as the future colony of the Caliphate! (And many believe that full colonization of Old Europe by Jihadoterrorists may be - for demographic reasons - an irreversible trend.) Anyhow, Old Europe has deluded themselves into believing that sacrificing Israel and the Jews has bought them relative security and safety.

Well, it's NOT totally delusiona: it has to some extent.. They HAVE been relatively free of Jihadoterror attacks for decades - except for anti-Semitic attacks inside Old Europe which were largely perpetrated by Arabs, and which Old Europeans largely ignored (until only recently). This feeling of success reinforced Old Europe's stance on Saddam: they concluded that if they paid off Saddam - the way they had Arafat, then Saddam wouldn't target them either. This, of course, really amounts to nothing more than surrendering to the enemy, (but that doesn't seem to bother Old Europe - even as Islam becomes their second largest religion - maybe the largest if one considers weekly participating adherents...)

The French in particular have for centuries relied on surrender as their favored way to resolve conflict and avoid war! (America and the UK have always been a little bit more stubborn when confronted by blood-thirsty tyrants.)

The Left in Old Europe seems to have even decided that it is better to pay ransom to Jihadoterrorists than to become Americanized, or Anglicized - if you will. So-called "American Cultural Hegemony" mobilizes more proactive efforts on the part of Old Europe than beheadings by Jihadoterrorists. Well, this isn't new; as Seinfeld famously joked: the French fought harder to keep out EuroDisney than they did to keep out the NAZI's!

But back on topic:

If - in the post-Arafat era (thank God the day came!) - the Arabs do not play ball (and that is not assured; though there are many hopeful signs that things may indeed be leading toward a global settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict) then Condi will probably be tougher on the Arabs than Powell was, and in turn she'll be as popular there as her boss is - which is UN-popular. Well, that's all right with me!

NOTE: Clinton and Powell have sometimes been characterized as having been "more even-handed" in their approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict. But I believe people who want more pressure applied to Israel to make a deal with Arabs BEFORE Jihadoterrorism and anti-Semitic genocide is halted are making a false equivalence and are being anti-Semitic - and NOT just anti-Likud. Putting the IDF's defense of the sovereign state of Israel on par with the Palestinian Authority's lack of effort (at best) in fighting Jihadoterror (FATAH or HAMAS or any of the other Jihadoterrorist groups attempting to commit genocide against the Jews in Israel) is anti-Semitic.

This is not a side issue; this is the crux of the matter: Unless and until the P.A. makes an earnest effort to halt all Jihadoterror against Israel no bilateral deal - AND NO PEACE - is possible.

(ASIDE: Another reason that Bush is hated by many in Old Europe - one not to be ignored - is the fact that it is primarily the Left - the SOCIALISTS - of Old Europe who are most anti-American and pro-Jihadoterror: Zapotero and Schroeder are Socialists in name; Chirac isn't - but then: France is so far Left that even when Chirac thinks he's on the Right he's really on the Left!

Of all of Europe's socialists only Blair is a truly reformed socialist, and of all the Left-wing parties in Europe only New Labour is truly unwavering in its support for America, and its opposition to Jihadoterror. WHY? Because the UK and New Labour and Blair have been truly transformed by the Thatcher Revolution. The continent of Old Europe... well, they're still awaiting their "Thatcher."

I believe that the only hope for Old Europe is if they get their "Thatcher" before they become an Islamicized continent and a virtual colony of the Caliphate. The clock is ticking...)

SOCIAL SECURITY = PONZI SCHEME

INSTAPUNDIT linked to an article on Social Security by Arnold Kling at TECHCENTRALSTATION. The article is okay - but it really over-analyzes what's really a simple problem, and then profers a political analysis which is pointless and a solution which is stupid, unfair, and Statist.

The REAL problem is that Social Security is nothing more than a fraudulent scam - literally nothing more than a "Ponzi Scheme" run by the federal government. Always has been - always will be.

Simply put: a Ponzi Scheme is a type of fraud in which earlier "investors" are paid off with the investments of later "investors." This is EXACTLY how Social Security was conceived, and how it has run since its inception. (SEE COMPLETE OF PONZI SCHEME DEFINITION HERE.)

Shifting demographics mean that there will be fewer "new investors" coming on-line than "older investors" seeking their promised payments; that's the only reason that there's an impending crisis.

Solving the impending and inevitable demographic problem of this Ponzi Scheme is technically simple: either cut the amount of the outgoing payments/"benefits;" and/or raise the age at which those payments/"benefits" begin; and/or increase incoming taxes/"investments" by raising the tax rate or by raising the income ceiling at which those taxes currently stop. (Kling's suggested "solution" is nothing more than this type of adjustment).

In other words: make adjustments to Social Security in order to perpetuate the viability of the on-going fraud, and not by addressing the fundamental problem - the fact that the system is a form of FRAUD, a financial fraud that -- if it weren't perpetrated by the federal government -- would be busted by the likes of Eliot Spitzer!

Only gradual privatization can avert the crisis without perpetuating the fraud.

Gradual and partial privatization should lead to complete privatization at some point in the near future - a future when individuals will be responsible for their own retirement, as they are now responsible for their own employment and for their own eating, clothing, housing, bathing and everything else in their own PRIVATE lives.

The state should have NO ROLE in anybody's retirement - except to make sure that the privately placed investments are not subject to fraud and mismanagement.

KERRY: APPEARANCE OF RACISM OR BIGOTRY HAS NO PLACE IN SENATE LEADERSHIP

As the WASH TIMES pointed out today, in 2002, John F. Kerry made these remarks:

"Trent Lott's statements place a cloud over his leadership because there can never be an appearance of racism or bigotry in any high position of leadership, particularly in the United States Senate. It saddens me greatly to suggest this, but in the interests of the Senate, his party, and the nation I believe Trent Lott should step aside as majority leader."

I think Kerry was right about Lott in 2002, and that what was true about Lott then, is true about Reid today.

Reid must step down as Minority Leader of the Senate.

(See my earlier post HERE.)

MORE NORTH KOREAN DECEIT DISCOVERED BY JAPAN

BLOOMBERG:

"Japan may halt food aid to North Korea after genetic testing showed remains North Korea claims are those of Megumi Yokota, abducted by its agents in 1977, are those of someone else, Japan's government spokesman Hiroyuki Hosoda said. ``This is extremely regrettable,'' Hosoda, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, said at a regular press briefing in Tokyo. Japan may stop food shipments to North Korea and will lodge a strong complaint with the Pyongyang regime, he said. Some senior ruling party lawmakers including Shinzo Abe, deputy secretary general of the Liberal Democratic Party, want Japan to impose economic sanctions on North Korea because it has failed to provide information on its abductions of Japanese citizens. [...] Japanese lawmakers this year approved measures that allow the government to impose sanctions, including a halt to remittances to the communist country. Money transfers by Korean residents in Japan are among North Korea's biggest sources of foreign currency. "

This report further proves that North Korea is ENTIRELY UNTRUSTWORTHY in all regards, and cannot and must not be trusted to uphold any treaty or agreement on any matter - including nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament. But "untrustworthy" only begins to tell the story - it's worse, really: HOW COULD THE NORTH KOREANS HAVE THOUGHT THAT THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH THIS DECEIT!?!? It is utterly B I Z A R R E! Virtually INSANE! The Kim Jong Il regime is NUTS! Pursuing regime change - getting rid of Kim Jong Il and replacing him with a relaible leader - is the only viable policy. (See an earlier post on North Korea HERE.)

KING ABDULLAH: Coalition forces getting closer to capturing Zarqawi!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Jordanian King Abdullah II said forces in Iraq are "getting close" to capturing terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "He's slipped through the net once or twice where we got closer to him than he would have liked," dullah told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday. "The Iraqis, Jordanians and coalition forces are working very hard to track him down -- and we're getting close."

ATTACKING SYRIA WOULD BE LEGAL - AND IT MIGHT SOON BE NECESSARY

Waging WAR against SYRIA NOW would be legal because if there is a connection between any nation and al-Qaida then the “Authorization to Use Military Force” of Sept. 14, 2001 authorizes the president to attack them. Here's the Congressional Resolution:

“S.J.Res.23 - One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION - Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The Jihadoterrorist known as Zarqawi is part of al Qaeda, and Zarqawi is getting aid from Syria (see below). Zarqawi is - in a legal sense - attacking the USA when he and al Qaeda attacks USA armed forces in Iraq and our consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

The president should issue Syria a public ultimatum now, and demand that they cease and desist all aid to all terrorist groups, and quit giving harbor to terrorist groups, and prevent the entry of all terrorists into Iraq by January 1, 2005 (in time to restore order in Iraq before the elections) or face serious consequences.

This is NOT over-reacting. Victory in Iraq is an essential part of the GWOT and we must not allow Syria - (or any other nation - like Iran if they don't straighten up and fly right!) attempt to prevent our victory.

SYRIA SUPPORTING IRAQI REBELS

Thomas E. Ricks of the WASHINGTON POST reports:

Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency. In some cases, evidence suggests that these Baathists are managing operations in Iraq from a distance, the officials said. A U.S. military summary of operations in Fallujah noted recently that troops discovered a global positioning signal receiver in a bomb factory in the western part of the city that "contained waypoints originating in western Syria." [...] Jeffrey White, a former Middle Eastern analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the Syrian role is part of what many intelligence officials believe are the increasingly organized attacks on U.S. forces. "In the last two months or so, this notion that this is a Baathist insurgency has gained dominance in the [intelligence] community," he said. Coupled with that, he said, "there is an increasing view that Syria is at the center of the problem."

The WASHPOST article is very good; RTWT.

I blogged on the Syrian connection last week (on 12/2) HERE.

BOTTOM-LINE: We MUST crackdown on Syria.

MICHAEL MOORE: INSOMNIAC?

THESE NEWS REPORTS (FROM LEFT-LEANING MEDIA OUTLETS) MAY EXPLAIN MOORE'S OBESITY:

Report Links Lack of Sleep and Obesity NPR (audio), D.C. - 1 hour ago: Two studies report that sleep loss can contribute to obesity.

Lack of sleep may cause obesity Xinhua, China - 2 hours ago BEIJING, Dec. 8 -- A recent research finds that people who don't sleep very long are more likely to be overweight.

Obesity linked to lack of sleep BBC News, UK - 21 hours agoA reduction in the time people spend asleep could partly account for soaring obesity rates, a study has revealed.

Sleep loss may equal weight gain USA Today, By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY. By John Zich, USA TODAY. Scientists discover that sleep deprivation increases levels of a hunger hormone .

Studies find lost sleep equals gained weight CTV, Canada - Dec 6, 2004 Two new studies suggest that what's not happening in the bedroom may be why so many gain weight. ...

Maybe if Moore stopped making deceitful anti-American propaganda he'd be able to sleep at night - AND HE'D LOSE SOME WEIGHT!

FOR HIS COMMENTS, REID - LIKE LOTT - SHOULD STEP DOWN

I just saw ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS on the Hannity & Colmes show on FOXNEWS. The segment was largely about the recent departure of Kwesi Mfume from the NAACP. At the end of the segment, Williams vehemently asserted that the Left is racist when it comes to Black Conservatives - Williams should know: He is a Black Conservative.

Williams said that Senator Reid’s comments about Justice Thomas - uttered this past weekend on Russert’s NBC show, MTP - were RACIST, and argued that Reid would have NEVER asserted that a white justice’s opinions were "poorly written." I agree, and I think that Reid should no more be the Leader of the Democrat Caucus in the Senate than Lott should have continued to be the Leader of the Republicans in the Senate.

Lott - after getting pressure from the blogosphere and his caucus - did the right thing and stepped down from the leadership position. Reid must do the same thing.

SPREAD THE WORD!

HERE WE GO AGAIN: COMRAD PUTIN GIVES MORE ADVICE ON DEMOCRACY & ELECTIONS

The last time Pooty-poot Putin gave electoral advice, it was to claim that (1) his puppet won the Ukrainian election; and that (2) the Ukraine election was fair; and that (3) there should be no new election in the Ukraine.

That was THREE STRIKES! Putin should be out of the electoral advice-giving game, but just he can't seem to keep his autocratic trap shut.

Now - during the visit of Iraqi PM Allawi - he is advising the world that he can't see how there can be an election in Iraq as long as it is occupied.

Putin would be listened to more seriously if he gave advice on matters he has 1st hand experience with: like (a) how to shut down free speech, and (b) how to use the State to steal private property, and (c) how to ride roughshod over governors, legislatures and human rights. Not to mention (d) how to sell nuclear reactors to Jihadoterrorists, and (e) how to garner bribes from the likes of Saddam as one perverts the UN Oil For Food Program and obstructs the enforcement of UNSCR's.

Seriously, this derogatory comment by Putin - and his stance on Ukraine - should make it absolutely clear to everyone that Putin is nothing more than a Russian Chirac - and that is someone who is NOT to be trusted.

WHY "CIA INTEL'" IS LIKE "A DICTATOR" TO THE OLD MEDIA AND THE LEFT

Today's big "gloom and doom" Iraq story in the Old Media is based on the leaked CIA cable written by the CIA's Iraq station chief. Apparently he-or-she desribes things there as going badly, and getting worse.

And this is reported in the Old Media as incontrovertible proof that... believe it or not (Heh!): (1) "Bush still lies (when he says things are not too bad in Iraq, and will get better"); and that (2) the Bush Administration is doing a bad job of managing the Iraq War and the GWOT.

(I wonder how TODAY'S Leftists in the Old Media would've reported on WW2 from D-day on - when we took the MOST casualties and had MANY setbacks?! They probably would've been calling for FDR's impeachment! Heck; today's Leftists in the Old Media would've said that FDR's decision to invade Europe before the 1944 election was a politically driven fiasco!)

Why doesn't it surprise me that the Left and the Old Media they dominate spin the "CIA CABLE" story this way!? Well, first because I find it so CONVENIENT that the Left - and the Old Media they dominate - trust any intel' from the CIA that is basically anti-Bush. When the CIA was 100% sure that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD - or when they NOW say that Iran has a surreptitious Nuclear Weapons Program, well then the CIA is an evil and untrustworthy and incompetent agency, to the Left and the Old Media. Like I say: it's so convenient.

It kinda reminds me of how the Left deals with dictators: any dictator that is anti-American is "okay" to the Left and the Old Media: Castro, Tito, Kim, Mugabe, Saddam, Qaddafi - (by the way: they're ALL socialists) - they're all okay, to the Left and the Old Media they dominate... merely indigenous expressions of self-rule and whose rigid policies are based on a reasonable fear of impending American invasion (or "American cultural hegemony!"); however, if a dictator is pro-American, then they're bad to the Left - like Marcos, Pinochet, Musharraf (before he restored democracy), and so on.

This inconsistency or hypocrisy reveals a lot about the Left - and the Old Media they dominate. And it is much more than (and deeper than) an anti-Bush sentiment - because so many of these characterizations pre-date the Bush presidency. It reveals that anti-Americanism is a core value to them - they use it as the basis to grade so much else... almost everything else. Even the GWOT - of the Jihadoterrorists, the Left asks; "how bad can they be if they are anti-Bush and anti-American?!"

Which is why so many people like me think the Left is "for all intents and purposes" a Fifth Column for the Jihadoterrorists - just as they were for the Soviets, (either as dupes or as willing fellow travelers - it matters not).

Which is why fighting Leftism is an important secondary front in the GWOT. We will never become united in the GWOT until the Left abandons their post-modernist aversion to the West and America as the leader of the West.

(As I have written many times before, I think the key to accomplishing this is demolishing the Left's cultural and moral relativism. Once exposed as a morally bankrupt ideology - once "deprogrammed" from their reflexively amoral positions - Leftists can rejoin the good fight to liberate all humanity from tyranny - and the poverty and ignorance that tyranny causes.)

BARGHOUTI FLIP-FLOPS: NOW, HE MAY WITHDRAW FROM RACE

GOOGLE NEWS has 297 stories posted on Barghouti's second FLIP-FLOP on this issue.

Which means he already has a lot in common with another Leftist & former candidate for the US presidency - John Flipflopping Kerry.

Maybe Barghouti will run when his own prison term is up? That would be fine with me: he's currently serving five (5) consecutive life terms for murder and terrorism.

Why the NYTIMES, RICHARD COHEN - and the rest of the LEFT - still just don't get it!

Greg over at the great foreign policy blog - The Belgravia Dispatch (BD) - linked to an article at the NYTIMES Week In Review by Richard Cohen - from Rio where the anti-Americans are gathering for another conference of some sort or another (this is what they do best).

Greg selected this quote (in part) from Cohen's article:

The United States has a strategic problem: its war on terror, unlike its long fight against Communism, is not universally seen as the pivotal global struggle of the age. Rather, it is often portrayed abroad as a distraction from more critical issues - as an American attempt to impose a bellicose culture, driven by the cultivation of fear, on a world still taken with the notion that the cold war's end and technology's advance have opened unprecedented possibilities for dialogue and peace.

Frank Godwin commented at BD:

The world never shared the American belief that the struggle against Communism was "the pivotal global struggle of the age." The Europeans and the Japanese might have shared some of our views because the Soviet wolf was literally at their door. They were, however, quite content to have America do the heavy lifing in that pivotal struggle. Most nations were largely consumed by the same set of domestic challenges all face today. In Latin America nations were either insulated from the struggle entirely or they saw it play out in their domestic politics with little sense of a world conflict.

Even an anti-Communist Latin American or African government did not automatically support any aspect of American foreign policy towards the Soviet Bloc or anywhere else. Much of Africa and some of Latin America was 'non-aligned' meaning that rhetorically they leaned toward the Soviet Bloc but expected most development assistance to come from the West. Today the functional equivalent of the 'non-aligned' myth is making variously disapproving noises about American foreign policy and strident anti-Israeli pronouncements. All the while they adamantly refuse to criticise any American or Israeli opponent, even those who are terroristic or who are a threat to the 'non-aligned' nation itself.

Believing that there was some idylic era where America had a common vision and purpose with the world anytime after World War II distorts the past and serves a partisan political purpose in the present. Are we to believe then that Bush and 'his' War on Terror had us cast out of some Eden of worldly consensus?

I add:

Richard Cohen is WRONG, and Frank Goodwin is right: the Cold War was considered bunk by the Left; when Reagan called the USSR what it was - "an evil empire" - the Left freaked out and thought REAGAN was the warmonger and that he was fomenting an irrational fear; to the Left the USSR - and most tyrants (unless they were in the USA' s sphere of influence) - were benign. Only the tyrants the USA used to in order to oppose USSR hegemony were considered bad by the Left; (i.e.: "Castro good; Marcos bad").

The source of this for the Left is their embrace of post-modernism and the "pomo" rejection of the West. Simply put: Post modernists blame white heterosexual men for all of history's ills; to the pomo Left white heterosexual men are the source of all bad things. All political movements which oppose the West and/or white heterosexual men are good - whether they be feminists, "anti-colonialists," nativists, Islamists, gays, open border advocates, or anti-globalists, greens, etc..

All the Left's "anti-USA, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist, anti-neocon" positions can be seen as attacks on traditional culture and politics of the West - which has been a traditionally white male enterprise - at least until the second half of the last century.

Cultural and moral relativism are the post-facto rationalizations for the Left's insistence on supporting anti-West groups even though most these groups are anti-libertarian and even Luddite. The Left uses cultural relativism and moral relativism to argue that truly evil groups (in any universal sense - for example groups that commit genocide or traffic in slavery, for instance) are (to them) "merely alternative ways of living and behaving and judging."

This is why the Left so OVERVALUES the U.N. and OVERVALUE international unanimity/consensus as prerequisites for international intervention: the only source of universality for the Left is consensus among divergent appearing groups (nations, cultures, races, genders, etc.). Consensus is ersatz universality for the post modernist Left.

Proof that the Left's pomo moral and cultural relativism is in fact morally bankrupt is the fact that absent a cross-cultural consensus they have no basis for interceding to stop genocide when it occurs within a nation - as in the Sudan, or Rwanda - recently. If Hitler was around today, they'd watch him kill German Jews and just shrug their shoulders saying - in effect: "it's none of our business; it is an internal matter" - just as they have with Rwandans and Darfurians. They claim this is nuanced and sophisticated; it is actually morally bankrupt. Another example: cultural relativists have no moral basis for ending all slavery everywhere. To me this proves that the pomo Left is morally bankrupt - a philosphical dead-end, a poltical non-starter.

Further proof of their moral bankruptcy is the utter hypocrisy at the core of their creed: how could white male heterosexual civilization be "bad" (for women, non-Western nations & cultures, etc) if there is no such thing as "bad" - in absolute/universal terms!? It cannot really be "bad" because by their own definition there is no such thing as "bad.". How can Bush be "bad" if there is no such thing as "bad?"! YES: they simply want to have their cake and eat it to. This cannot be done, and it proves the the Left is a hypocritical, false and useless creed.

Neocons are merely universalists - not unlike FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. Neocons believe that all humans everywhere deserve the same human rights. And neocons are willing to take on burdens and risks to help their fellow human beings achieve their human rights; in fact, neocons think it is the duty of the richest and freest and most powerful among us to help our poorer and less free and weaker brothers and sisters enjoy their rights, too.

Richard Cohen is still basically a Leftist trapped in a tired, hypocritical, vapid, useless and amoral ideology. When he and his fellow travelers at the NYTIMES and in the Left abandon their "pomo moral relativism" they will join us in he good fight to make all of our brothers and sisters everywhere be free. Until then, I expect nothing but hypocritical revisionist/fantasist sniping which does nothing but aid the enemies of universal human rights for all humanity everywhere.

SCOTUS FACT: Justices agree with each other - more often than not

An overlooked fact: according to recent surveys, NONE of the Justices votes with any other Justice less than half the time.

Think about that. NONE of the Justices votes with any other Justice less than half the time. It means that all of the Justices have more in common with each other, and agree with each other MORE than they disagree with each other.

I think we should keep this in mind as things heat up (as they are bound to) IF-AND-WHEN a Justice retires and Bush makes a nomination.

We shouldn't let the "one-issue hot-heads" make us lose sight of the fact that most distinguished jurists agree and disagree on many many things, and you can NEVER predict what issues will come before the SCOTUS, or how a person will judge once they become a Justice of the SCOTUS.

So, we should only insist that the nominees be highly qualified. That's all.

ANOTHER KEY POINT: the character of the court will not change if a conservative Justice retires and Bush replaces him with another conservative. So the real battle royales shouldn't occur until Stevens or Bader-Ginsburg retires. Or perhaps O'Connor - who has been a ket swing votes - swinging Leftward more often than not. Which leads me to my advice to the Democrats and the Left: if-and-when Rehnquist retires and Bush selects a qualified conservative - confirm him quickly. If you don't, you're just gonna look like a bunch of sore-losers.

FITTING PALESTINIAN POLL RESULT: "dead heat"

According to this article at THE GUARDIAN, Mahmoud Abbas - the favored FATAH candidate (whose NOM DE GUERE is ABU MAZEN) - is in a DEAD HEAT with Marwan Barghouti, the convicted terrorist and murderer now serving five (5) life terms, and who is "credited" (you should forgive the expression - I'm just momentarily adopting the Palestinian POV) with leading the 2nd Intifada until he was captured by the IDF.

A poll by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research shows Mr Abbas ahead by 40% to 38%. In the other poll, by Bir Zeit university, Mr Barghouti is one point ahead of the man who had been widely assumed to win January's election. The margin of error in both polls was 3%.

It says something about the Arabs in the occupied territories that these two men are their most popular leaders - now that Arafat and Yassin are dead... Yes, it says something, and that something is not very nice.

There was a bit of hopeful news in one of the polls: support for Hamas is declining.

RTWT. And: stay tuned...