Saturday, March 04, 2006


Vanderleun of THE AMERICAN DIGEST has an interesting and provocative post on the Oscars. It made me wanna post some thoughts on Hollywood. HERE GOES:

The movie biz is smaller than other parts of the Mass Media; the music biz and the porn biz and the computer game biz are all bigger, and YET, the MSM fawns over H-wood and actors as if H-wood was the absolute apex of our culture and society, and as if actors were the most intelligent, able, noble and important people on the planet.

The fact is that most actors are under-educated "empaths" whose primary talent is PRETENDING to be someone else. They are trained to be able to have unfettered empathy for any character - even characters considered evil by traditional culture - so that they can BELIEVABLY play anyone, including whores, murderers and other assorted villains.

[ASIDE: Actors are most often rewarded with Oscars for portraying whores, murderers, villians - and other assorted misrcreants, deviants, and iconoclasts - because playing them is simultanepously a "stretch" and a paean to "anti-heroism" - which became the "holy grail" of acting ever since the studio-system was demolished by New Dealers/Leftists, and Brando and Dean "took over" the scene.] (For a little more on the old versus the new Hollywood click HERE and HERE and HERE.)

I believe - like legendary studio boss Jack Warner did - that movies are meant to be entertainment first and informative/intellectually challenging second. And I believe that when they are informative, they should be accurate, truthful and high-minded.

The pity is that most "INFO-movies" which have gotten released and heavily promoted are ones which are untruthful and instead attempt to reinforce LEFTISM - the dominant ideology in h-wood. IOW: they are propaganda.

I say that this is bad marketing and manufacturing for H-wood. I do NOT favor ANY limitation of free speech; Leftists SHOULD be allowed to say whatever they want - truthful or not. (That what they say is most often NOT truthful is only because their ideology is bankrupt.)

What I do feel is bad and wrong and immoral and BAD MARKETING is the dirth of centrist and traditional/bourgeois movies.

When H-wood does make them, they do phenomenally well: Movies like The Incredibles, Narnia, and Last Temptation, ALL outsell the "Brokebacks" and the "Syrianas" but still... they are so so so so SO tough to get backing for. Or praise for. WHY!? Because they don't jibe with the DOMINANT ideology of H-wood.

The people who are truly blacklisted in H-wood are ALL on the right. As a result, the breadth of movie offerings in any given week falls short, and the B.O. numbers reflect that.

WHAT'S THE ANSWER? Conservative people should make more - and INVEST IN MORE in - movies.

Sure, sure, sure : movies are not a fiscally conservative type of venture to invest in. I say: BS! An investment of $2-5 million in a innovative story with traditional values can easily reap in ten times what it cost. Unfortunately there are too few producers who are traditionalists, or so-called conservatives. As a result, more and more people continue to migrate away from movies. YUP: more than anything else right now, the Leftism of H-wood is killing the industry and driving people to other forms of entertainment and other media.

NEED PROOF: Everyone predicts that this year's Oscars will be the lowest rated. And it's the first time in HISTORY that H-wood's ticket sales have declined three years in a row. And it's the first time dollar sales of gross BO have declined. YUP: and the major reason is that H-wood is not giving people what they want; H-wood is telling people what they think the people should want - but don't becasue we're dumb bourgeois cretins. That effete and elitist attitude may make H-wood popular in Paris, Aspen and Tehran, but not in Peoria. It might make Clooney a hero in Madrid and Damascus, but not in Dallas.

If H-wood could abandon its attachment to knee-jerk anti-traditionalism, and if they REALLY supported free speech, then they would dedicate this year's Oscars to Theo Van Gogh and the M'hummed cartoons - and not the joys of sodomy, gender "re-assignment" and the like. But the dominant Lefties of H-wood are REALLY too cowardly to take on the REAL enemies of liberty. And they are too shallow to self-examine their own idiotic, shallow, 1960's Leftism. That's why they deserve their decline.



From Italy's TG5: "Iran: Nuclear Contamination, government covers up."
It happened about two months ago in Teheran, in the country's main center of nuclear research, at the headquarters of the Iranian atomic energy organization; among other things under the control of the U.N.'s IAEA. From an ultra-secret nuclear laboratory of the Revolutionary Guards situated in an undisclosed location in Iran, there arrived--according to TG5 sources--a load of radioactive material. A small suitcase containing some tens of grams of tritium was forced open by inexperienced hands, and the surrounding area was contaminated as a result. It appears that some workers were exposed to a high level of contamination.
I hope that this Iranian "mini-chernobyl" - occurring as it did in the center of Iran's biggest city - has the same effect on Iran that Chernobyl had on the USSR: that it will help lead to the downfall the tyrants.

Friday, March 03, 2006


I first blogged about the centrality of improving US-INDIA relations on APRIL 10th and then again on APRIL 14th and then again on JUNE 28th of LAST YEAR. (Each of these posts include several links, so check it out!)



ROBERT D. KAPLAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING IN THE WASHPOST - titled, "We Can't Force Democracy; Creating Normality Is the Real Mideast Challenge" :
Globalization and other dynamic forces will continue to rid the world of dictatorships. Political change is nothing we need to force upon people; it's something that will happen anyway. What we have to work toward -- for which peoples with historical experiences different from ours will be grateful -- is not democracy but normality. Stabilizing newly democratic regimes, and easing the development path of undemocratic ones, should be the goal for our military and diplomatic establishments. The more cautious we are in a world already in the throes of tumultuous upheaval, the more we'll achieve.
Paul at POWERLINE argues that Kaplan is making a distinction without a difference:
... the practical difference between Kaplan's classically conservative view and the supposedly hardline neo-conservatism of the administration probably is not substantial.
All humans are literally and figuratively born free (desiring to eat, sleep, crawl and do just about everything as we please - when we please, from the moment we are born); in other words, we are each NATURALLY sovereign over ourselves.

Democracy is simply the only way free persons can give their personal consent to be governed - it's the only way a nation can truly self-determine its governmental system. Tyrannies cannot logically or morally claim to be self-determined; they are determined at the end of a barrel of a gun, so-to-speak; the gun-holder determines everything; the people nothing.

Put another way: Democracy is merely how mutual consent is arrived at among people who each enjoy their innate, universal human rights. There is no other way mutual consent - and therefore legitimate self-determination - can be achieved.

The only form of government which can be said to be truly "imposed" is the tyranny that people suffer under when they are trapped by undemocratic regimes - whether they're ruled by an aristocratic, Marxist, or Baathist elite.

The so-called neo-conservative agenda of Bush is identical to the classically liberal agenda of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Reagan. It consists mainly of taking assertive/active/positive steps toward removing the imposed tyranny and assisting the newly liberated people to form their own democracy.

This is why we refer to wars fought for this reason as wars of liberation. Those who refer to it as imposition are mistaken. We liberated Europe from Hitler and then the USSR; we did not impose democracy on Europe. Ditto Japan.

As the oldest, richest and strongest democracy in the world we have a moral duty to try to help our brothers and sisters everywhere become free - to help them re-attain their innate liberty. And this means helping them rid themselves of tyranny, and helping them design and implement a democratic government of their own.

Kaplan's suggestion that we should instead follow a less assertive and more "cautious" laissez faire attitude is tantamount to resigning that we cannot shape events - or that when we can, it's too risky because it's somewhat destabilizing, and that instability is worse than a status quo which accepts genocidal tyrannies which enslave millions and millions of people and keeps them trapped in societies and economies which can only breed inequity, ignorance and poverty.

Well, I assert that all humans everywhere are capable of democracy - and deserve it as much as me and Kaplan. Kaplan and others think this is not the case; he explicitly argues that stability for people who already enjoy liberty and the fruits of liberty is more important than assisting our fellow humans who suffer under tyranny, and I say that this is highly ill-liberal of them - and somewhat racist and ethnocentric, too.

I know that any Afghan infant - even the child of Taliban parents - or any Iraqi infant, or any Pakistani infant, or any Palestinian infant who would be adopted by Americans and raised in the USA would be as "American" as anyone else raised here. IOW: propensity for violent jihadofascism is NOT genetic; if kids are raised to believe that tyranny and terror are okay, then they will believe that is the case. But their believing it does not make it so - just as believing the earth is flat does not make it so.

If Kaplan and others agree that there is no genetic component, then they are essentially arguing that all humans have the innate capacity for democracy but NOT the same cultural capacityy, then they are essentially arguing (in the case of Iraq, for example) that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

Since there are many Muslim democracies and many millions of Muslims living under democracy in nations which are not majority-Muslim, I think those who argue that Islam and democracy can't work co-exist are just simply wrong.
And those who say we can't help transform tyrannical nations into democratic are just as wrong. And those who say the help shouldn't be forceful - when some force is necessary, are wrong, too.

I do feel that Arab Muslim nations have special hurdles to overcome on their path to democracy - some of these hurdles are related to their particularly fervent cultural practices: polygamy, endogamous and consanguineous marriage, and misogyny.

I feel these contribute more to Arab poverty and to their diathesis for xenophobic violence, than Islam does. I feel these practices also give them a special diathesis for the most extreme forms of Islam. (WHY? Well, men raised to feel it's okay to murder their own daughters or sisters in order restore "family honor" are certainly going to be capable of xenophobic genocidal terror against people who are not in their "tribe.")

I feel that nations which allow these ill-liberal anti-humane and unfair coercive practices should be totally shunned by the Free World. We could START by relegating them to observer status at the UN.

We should no more accept a nation which allows these practices into the international community or into international alliances - or benefit from international aid from the World Bank or the IMF than we would a nation which allows slavery. THAT THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION SHOULD ENJOY LIBERTY AND EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW SHOULD BE EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT TO THE UN, THE WORLD BANK AND THE IMF AS THE LEGITIMACY AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
In criticizing the pace of transformation in Iraq - and highlighting the instability there - Kaplan seems to forget that our own nation had very VERY serious problems developing our own democracy, too: We had YEARS under the Articles of Confederation which were a DISASTER,; we had the Whisky Rebellion, and a horrifyingly deadly (though absolutely necessary) Civil War, and another 100 years of failing to FULLY achieve what the Declaration and the Constitution promised for all.

SURE: Democracy is a process - and a it's sometimes a long one, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't help that process along - or capitulate to the anti-democratic forces when that process hits some resistance. It seems to me that Kaplan and Fukayama are now advocating just such a capitulation.

And Kaplan forgets that, as tyrants go, King George III was not as bad as Saddam. And Kaplan seems to forget that the French had one and a half centuries of faulty democracies before achieving their current republic.

That's why Kaplan and Fukayam and the other naysayers should not be so quick to throw in the towel. Because it's based on a bad reading of history, and because it's EXACTLY what our extremist enemies want.

IN FACT: It's exactly what our extremist enemies tell their own people: "Democracy is not for you!"

I say: DEMOCRACY IS FOR EVERY PERSON EVERYWHERE. FDR said it, too. Bush says it - and does something about it.

God Bless Him. And God Bless Our Troops. WITH OUR HELP, THE IRAQIS WILL FIND THEIR WAY. There are tyrannical totalitarians who do not want the Iraqis to forge their own democracy. People who believe that all humans deserve their universal, inalienable, innate human rights must help our brothers and sisters in Iraq defeat these totalitarians.
Folks like Kaplan who prefer stability and a gradually, "providentially" evolving status quo (to taking risks) are not only timid, but wrong. The pre-9/11 status quo was what led to 9/11 (and tow decades of attacks before 9/11!). That should be as intolerable to everyone as slavery, too. So-called Realpolitik is bankrupt morally and ineffective in the real world. The confrontation between democracy and tyranny is something tyrants want to avoid - we shouldn't!

[ASIDE: Many critics of our assertive actions and our militaristic response to enemy provocations in The Long War are hollow because we have a voluntary military, and we are not asking the citizenry to make any sacrifices at all. BUT AREN'T HIGH ENERGY PRICES AND A GROWING SENSE OF UN-EASE AND INSECURITY SACRIFICES THAT WE ARE ALL MAKING?! Yes, I think they are. And I think most people realize that these are the costs of war.]

UPDATE (hat tip Jim Rose): MORE HERE.

Thursday, March 02, 2006



Yet Gorbachev, who is arguably the man most responsible for ending the Cold War, seems unfazed by polls and numbers.
The man who ended the Cold War and launched democratic reforms that broke the repressive Soviet regime continues to enjoy the limelight, globe-trotting on behalf of his political foundation and environmental group and taking part in charity projects.
These LIES do nothing more than expose the Leftist attitudes of the "reporters." Reagan and Thatcher and Pope JPII (who was shot during an assassination attempt planned and executed by the USSR) won the Cold War. It was NOT ended voluntarily by Gorbachev, who was nothing more than the COMMUNIST dictator of the USSR - the last of a long line of tyrants who murdered 50 million of their own comrades, and installed Castro and Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung and many MANY other horrifying tyrants.

Gorbachev actually only deserves our undying contempt. Even on his 75th birthday.

Why did the NYTIMES go out of its way to praise Krushchev last week, and why did these two wire services go out of their way to praise Gorbachev this week?

SIMPLE: to make the tyrants of the USSR seem like benevolent and misunderstood progressive leaders of a benign form of socialism.


Well, (believe it or not) it goes hand-in-glove with Clooney's movie GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK: The Lefties of the MSM praise commie tryants like Krushchev and Gorbachev, and make movies which unfairly savage McCarthy because they want to make anti-communists seem like unreasonable and dangerous paranoids because, by extension, it helps them portray Bush and LONG WAR HAWKS like paranoids, too.

There was another instance of this type of Left-wing hagiographic propaganda today, in a report which I saw on CNNI's YOUR WORLD TODAY. This report portrayed the incoming Hamas PM Haniya as a "humble honest man whose rise from refugee camp poverty to national power proves that anyone can grow up to become the leader of his nation. [paraphrased]"


The Lefties in the MSM praise Krushchev, Gorbachev and Haniya even as they SMEAR BUSH. Proving only that these dissembling Leftists have no shame.



Much of the MSM and all of the Left are breathlessly reporting on the AP-released copy of PRE-KATRINA videoconference which shows that Bush was warned about Katrina.

CNN and others are TOUTING this to show that when Bush said - FOUR DAYS AFTER KATRINA - that "no one expected the levees to be breeched" - he was lying.

The fact is that the tapes actually PROVE HE WASN'T LYING!

Here's the TRUTH: I watched the video and the chief hurricane forecaster says specifically that the "levees MIGHT BE TOPPED." TOPPED. NOT BREACHED. Here's how CNN reports it:

However, transcripts from video conferences on August 28 and 29 show that National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield expressed concern that Katrina might push its storm surge over the city's levees and flood walls.

"I don't think anyone can tell you with confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very great concern," Mayfield says in one.

In a September 1 television interview, Bush said, "I don't think anyone anticipated the
breach of the levees," a statement Chertoff agreed with three days later.

Is the MSM so stupid that they don't know the difference between topped and breached!? NOPE. They are delibeately dissembling (by conflating the two terms) in order to SMEAR Bush.

They are lying scum. ABC NEWS (and COUNTLESS others - I'm just using them as an example) are lying scum. The blogosphere once again gets it right - as usual, CAPT'S QUARTERS gets it VERY VERY right - and has complete transcripts.

[POSTSCRIPT/ASIDE: the Left LOVES to use conflation to smear Bush.

The WHOLE "ports deal brouhaha" was caused by deliberate premeditated use of conflation: instead of reporting that Dubai Ports World was buying a British comapny which owned leases for about 25 out of 830 container TERMINALS within six major ports, the MSM reported that Dubai was "TAKING OVER OUR PORTS", or "GOING TO CONTROL OUR PORTS" or that we were "surrendering the SOVEREIGNITY OF OUR PORTS."

They reported this as if managing a minority of stevadoring container terminals within a half-dozen ports was tantamount to CONTROLLING OUR PORTS, as if they were the same thing. THEY ARE NOT.

The people in the MSM - and Hillary and Schumer et al - KNOW that they're conflating the two terms (PORTS AND TERMINALS); they LIE this way deliberately - in order to smear Bush. They're nothing more than lying scum, than dissembing fear-mongering demagogues, and the MSM lies with them and for them. They have no shame.

The fact that the WH communications team couldn't get this simple fact out there BEFORE the false Left-wing meme blew up in their faces - (and, as a result, Bush has taken a tumble in the polls) - is more proof that this team has got to go - and go NOW! See below.]



YUP: That's the way it feels sometimes. Bush is seemingly losing the case of the century against the guiltiest perps in history. The MSM is CREAMING him at every turn. Can't this WH ever get ahead of any story!? Sheesh.

Maybe W should get rid of his whole dang communications team and bring in the top Right bloggers - POWERLINE, HEWITT, INSTAPUNDIT & company!

YEAH YEAH: If FDR had to deal with today's MSM he'd a quit after one term.
YEAH-YEAH: They drove LBJ and Nixon from office - and dang near got Ronnie, too.

But we KNOW all that now, and we know how to beat them; we beat them in 2000, 2002, and in 2004. But it sure don't feel like we're gonna beat them in 2006. And, if we don't beat them in 2006 - and IF the Dems get control of even one body Congress - then they'll do to the Iraqis and the Afghanis what they did to the South Vietnamese and the Contras: ABANDON THEM. And set us back in The Long War a couple of decades!


It' s NOT enough to be right; you have to convince people you're right, too. And the Bush Team hasn't been very convincing lately. Even though they have been mostly right.

MY SUGGESTIONS: Bring back Ari and Karen to run the inside, and bring in Tory Clark as Press Secretary. (Maybe even hire Deaver and Duberstein.) Make Mehlman Chief of Staff - move Card to DHS or Commerce or Treasury. And ship Rove to the GOP. Faster please!

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

THE HUNT FOR BIN LADEN: dead-end; time -warp; or near the end?

Late in February 2004 - THAT'S 2004! - the US military claimed that Bin Laden was "contained" withing 100 square miles of eastern Afghanistan and the Waziristan province of Pakistan; (links to BBC). They said that TASK GROUP 121 - which had captured Saddam was being flown in for a SPRING 2004 offensive; (links to CAPT'S QUARTERS).


[NOTE: 100 square miles is roughly the size if the Gaza, or 1/3 the size of the Caribbean island Dominica, or roughly the size of Aruba. Waziristan is roughly 30,000 square miles - so if it is true that we have Bin laden's location narrowed down to only 100 square miles, - and if some of the 100 square miles lies within Afghanistan - then this area is roughly between 1/6% and 1/3% of Waziristan. NOT MUCH.]

(1) set a deadline and then entirely empty/de-populate the 100 square mile area; (2) destroy all wells, homes, villages, all structures, etc; (3) station Special Forces at key locations; (4) kill anything/everything that moves.

First we announce that everyone has to go to TEMPORARY refugee camps - inside Pakistan. Once there, the refugees will receive compensation for their property, free food and shelter, and a small stipend. After the 100 square mile region is thus emptied, Bin Laden will have no support, no cover - and we can be free to use as much deadly force as necessary to kill him, without having to worry about collateral civilian damage. And I mean big friggin bombs, and A LOT OF 'EM! After we get Bin Laden, all the refugees can go home.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE PIN-PRICK ATTACKS THAT WE AND THE PAKISTANI MILITARY HAVE BEEN USING THE LAST TWO YEARS. (Like today's attack, which killed 45 al Qaeda, including a Chechen general - news stories HERE and HERE and HERE).


The BAD NEWS: they're LYING again! The GOOD NEWS: I guess it means that the Left can't come up with any non-bogus dirt!? GATEWAY has the details and the links. GO THERE NOW!



I don't think so. The Iranian tyrants are even more bloodthirsty and ruthless than the Chi-coms, and they will mercilessly put down any uprising. The Iranians know this, which is why we haven't seen any major rebellions to date (none on even nearly the same scale of - or with the bravado of - Tiananmen). This is true even though VERY deep animosity is felt by MOST Iranians toward their mullah tyrants.

Which is why I think it's gonna take a massive preemptive military strike to prevent the jihadofascist totalitarians of Iran from getting nukes. Spontaneous regime change doesn't have much of a chance.

BY THE WAY: The fact that the USA hasn't isolated the Islamic nation of Pakistan - which is after all, merely a partially democratic nation - for its nukes proves that our policies are NOT racist or IRRATIONALLY islamophobic.

The again, IF Musharraf were to be overthrown by jihadofascists, I think we'd INSTANTANEOUSLY "neutralize" their nukes.

BOTTOM LINE: I don't think a sanctions regime against Iran can actually prevent them from getting nukes, or "contain" them. And I don't think that it will lead to a democratic rebellion. To accomplish what we must, we must take bolder actions on both fronts.


Many blogs have linked to this manifesto signed by Rushdie and Manji and Hirsi and others. (More here and here and here and here.)

It's swell that these famous Left-leaning intellectuals have taken a universalist/non-relativist stand on human rights, but the REAL issue is: What are they willing to do about it?!

Are they willing to support a proactive, bold, aggressive counter-attack - including sanctions, blockades and even preemptive military strikes?

Will they urge their own nations to do more to help the USA and the UK and the other coalition members assist the emerging Iraqi democracy?

Will they support an end to immigration without assimiliation? Will they support the deportation of radical Muslims who incite violence? Will they demand that nations which don't allow its citizens the universal human rights outlined in the UN Declaration be demoted to "observer status" at the UN?

Will they at least criticize their comrades on the Left who - at best - have been skeptical of Bush, and at worst accused him of being a lying, torturing war criminal who went to war for oil/Halliburton/family revenge?

Or do they just want to sign petitions and send strongly worded, high-minded letters?

I suspect it's the latter, and we don't need them for that - we already got Blix and Baradei and Kofi for that!

I pray they prove me wrong, and that this represents the beginning of a more unified West. If that's the case, we will be more likely to have the resolve necessary to defeat the enemy in this - THE LONG WAR.


The deadly bird fu strain H5N1 has spread to 17 new countries in February alone, says the World Health Organisation ...New figures from the World Health Organisation (WHO) show the virus has spread to birds in countries previously unaffected in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East this month. ...
Then there's this from INDONESIA:
Agriculture Minister Anton Apriyantono declared that Indonesia was experiencing a bird flu emergency. A swift response was needed to break the chain of infection. "The situation in Indonesia is concerning, no ordinary response will do," said Anton in a discussion on Radio Trijaya last Saturday (25 February).

According to Anton, what could be done now was to compel the community to confine their birds. For example, domesticated chickens, previously allowed to roam free around the yard, must now be kept in cages. The government, he said, was mid-way through preparing legislation that would, among other things, cover bird flu issues. The new regulations would address poultry distribution channels and stipulate measures to prevent the further spread of bird flu.
The new legislation, according to Anton, would be an amendment to Law No 6/1967, concerning Essential Stipulations for Animal Husbandry and Livestock Health. However, Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari said that Indonesia was not in a state of emergency over bird flu. "This might be an emergency for the poultry but given that human to human transmission is yet to be proven, it is not yet an emergency for humans. So far, transmission has only occurred between poultry and humans," said Fadilah who was in Ternate when contacted by Tempo.
Retroscreen Virology, a medical research institute subsidiary of Queen Mary College, University of London, has announced that an Israeli medical preparation, Sambucol, reduced the quantity of cells infected with the avian flu virus by 99%, compared with a control group not treated with the virus. ... Sambucol was found to be effective at significantly neutralizing the infectivity of the virus in cell cultures. These results were presented during the International Conference on Bird Flu: “The First Pandemic of the 21st Century. A Central Role for Antivirals,” held at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital on January 19-20, 2006.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006


Oppositon to Dubai Port World take over if a relatively FEW container terminals is RIDICULOUS! This "Israeli boycott issue" is another red-herring; here's why, FROM TODAY'S JPOST:
The Arab boycott, established by the Arab League in 1951 as an economic tool to hurt Israel, is a dying animal. Ask Aramex.

The company, which provides delivery services around the world, is commonly used by Arab and Israeli companies who want to exchange goods without upsetting any Arab port officials. The company provides customers with US mailing addresses where Israeli products can be sent. It then exchanges the Israeli postalstamped packaging for a US-stamped package and sends it on to its Arab destination.

So while some Arab ports will not accept goods marked "Made in Israel," if you take off the sticker and send it through another country, the deal is done.

"Besides Syria, the Arab boycott is now just lip service," said Doron Peskin, head of research at InfoProd, a consulting firm for foreign and Israeli companies specializing in trade to Arab states. ... Today, however, even the most hardline Arab countries are officially dropping the official primary level of the boycott to join trade organizations and agreements.

The most significant "fall" was of Saudi Arabia, which agreed last September to drop the primary boycott of Israel to join the WTO. ... Various historical events weakened the boycott further. Egypt made peace with Israel in 1978. In 1991, Kuwait agreed to rescind its secondary and tertiary boycotts after the US freed it from Iraqi occupation. ... In 1996 the OAB stopped convening.

Today, trade between the Jewish state and the Arab world remains "undercover," but goes on regularly. (The products cannot be identified as Israeli or they may end up back on the ship.).

THE TRUTH ABOUT DUBAI AND ISRAEL - and the anti-Ports World folks ain't gonna like it!

(1) Via LGF:
Dubai Ports World, the combined United Emirates (UAE) port management company for the Gulf, has stepped up its challenge to win the operating rights of six major ports in the US, by claiming it has strong business ties with Israeli shipping company Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. ...

Asked in an interview last week with “CNN” reporter Wolf Blitzer whether Dubai Ports World was doing business with Israel while the UAE refused to recognize Israel, [CEO Ted] Bilkey replied, “One of our very sound customers is Zim line. It’s the largest shipping company. And the president of that company is very close to our company and supports us, because we have good relations with all of our clients.

“We handle their operations in a number of ports throughout the world because it’s good commercial business for us. They wouldn’t come to us unless we did a good job,” added Bilkey.

Blitzer: “Does the emir know this?”

Bilkey: “Absolutely.”
(2) Via Israeli Consulate general (SF):
Dubai to Copy Israeli Hi-Tech Model - Thursday, June 17, 2004:

While striving to become the regional financial center of the Middle East, Dubai has decided to develop its hi-tech industry according to the Israeli model, MA’ARIV reported. Senior Dubai officials have approached Israel with the intention of developing joint technology projects.

Dubai officials met with Israeli businessmen during the regional economic conference in Jordan and expressed interest in cooperation with leading Israeli hi-tech companies, which have not yet expanded to the Gulf. Dubai representatives showed excellent understanding of the Israeli legislation governing manufacture and the hi-tech industry.

They also expressed willingness to visit Israel, since the Dubai government does not oppose such visits.
These two items prove that the UAE is in fact among the most moderate of all the Arab nations.

NOTE: This is an excerpt from a recent State Department briefing:
ERELI: I would note that the intelligence community's Risk Acquisition Center, which is under the office of Director of National Intelligence, prepared an assessment to determine if any derogatory information existed on this acquire and whether the acquire would take any action -- might take any action to threaten national security.

And as a result of this very thorough, very exhaustive, very careful review by all the stakeholders, including the Department of Homeland Security, it was decided that there was no objection on national security grounds for this transaction going forward.

I would also point out that nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports.

That remains very firmly in the hands of Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is management of some port operations.

Department of Homeland Security has had good relations with the Dubai ports role in the past.

And I would note, as the Secretary noted in her remarks on Friday, that from a counterterrorism point of view, we've had a strong and effective partnership with the UAE and those are some of the facts, I think, that are important to bear in mind when looking at this case.


Turns out the "political groundswell" of Democrats and some Republicans in Congress was not the result of national security, but in fact the almighty dollar. The Miami port operator Eller & Co. ... sent a team of lobbyist[s] to D.C. to turn the screws. The MSM got it wrong yet again.
Eller's campaign included a lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill that has produced a groundswell of Democratic Party opposition to the deal. Eller "was really the canary in the mineshaft for many people on the Hill and in the media," said Israel Klein, a spokesman for Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
I expect the Dems to do the bidding of isolationist/protectionist lobbyists (working for unions or corporations that can't compete without government intervention), but NOT GOP members of the Congress or governors.

The shame is, that without the GOP demagogues pumping up this bogus flap (King and Pataki and Collins and Ehrlich), it wouldn't have EVER even become a brouhaha. SHAME ON THE GOP DEMAGOGUES WHO DID THE BIDDING OF THE DEMS - AND THEIR PROTECTIONIST-LOBBYIST BUDDIES!


VARIFRANK has some shocking facts from North Korea and Cuba: North Korea literally can't make CRAP, and Cuba can no longer produce enough RUM! Details and brilliant commentary at Frank's. GO THERE NOW!


The London-based Dar al-Hiyat newspaper reported on Tuesday that Iran would allocate $250 million to the Palestinian Authority to replace the funding withheld by Israel and the United States following Hamas' election victory. In an interview with the newspaper, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said that he officially approved the Iranian support for the new Hamas-led PA.
That will buy a lot of bombs and missiles and rockets. And it proves one thing: Jihadoterrorists stick together! We should treat all who support terrorists like the terrorists themselves - even the EU!

I hope that Israel swiftly finishes the security fence and rapidly completes unilateral separation from the West Bank, then - if and when the enemy launches a major attack against Israel - the IDF should utterly destroy the enemy, empty the territories and reduce them to ashes and dust. An uninhabited reminder and a buffer zone.

Making the prospect of this "unilaterally assured destruction" quite clear to the enemy might be the best deterrent to any attack, and best guarantor of "peace." I put "peace" in quotation marks because a true peace can only exist between peoples who accept each other. As long as Muslims don't accept the state of Israel there can be no real peace.


Europe's "Little Ice Age" may have been triggered by the 14th Century Black Death plague, according to a new study. Pollen and leaf data support the idea that millions of trees sprang up on abandoned farmland, soaking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This would have had the effect of cooling the climate, a team from Utrecht University, Netherlands, says. The Little Ice Age was a period of some 300 years when Europe experienced a dip in average temperatures.
OKAY... by extension... if more treees mean lower temperatures, then less trees mean warmer temperatures. OR OLDER TREES (which absord much less CO2 than young growing trees.

This seems to bear out an earlier study, by scientists out of CAL-IRVINE, which suggested that the Amazon Rainforest is actually causing global warming because the trees in the Amazon are the oldest they've ever been - meaning the Amazon is NOT absorbing as much CO2 as it did a hundred years ago when most of the tress were younger and growing fast.

Which implies that the best way to halt "TREE-MADE GLOBAL WARMING" would be IF WE CUT DOWN HUGE SWATHES OF THE AMAZON RAINFOREST AND THEN REPLANTED IT WITH YOUNG, FAST-GROWING TREES! These trees would bind up much more CO2. Once cut down, the old trees could be turned into lumber, houses and furniture - and therefore they would NOT decay and add any CO2 to the atmosphere.

Those who doubt the magnitude of this should note that the Amazon forest contains 35% of all the carbon bound up in land-based vegetation! IOW: it has a HUGE effect on our atmosphere - more than all the man-made industry COMBINED! If we really want to lower atmospheric CO2, then we MUST cut down all t he old trees in the Amazon and replace them with young trees.

This is exactly the opposite of what the Leftie "save the earth" econazis rail on and on and on about. In fact - these studies seem to suggest - the Leftie econazis who say "SAVE THE RAINFOREST" are the true cause of global warming! "Protecting" the Amazon is causing global warming! How effingly ironically delicious!

Too bad there are no politicians with balls big or steely enough to actually propose this logical and scientific plan.



The entire attack against the UK-Dubai-US container terminals deal is BOGUS. It has been from the start. The latest salvo in this BOGUS BROUHAHA is that CFIUS was told by the USCG that there were "intelligence gaps." From POWERLINE:
"Paper: Coast Guard Has Port Co. Intel Gaps." The Associated Press begins breathlessly:
Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.
Of course, if you continue reading, you find:
The Bush administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved. ***

The Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the document ultimately were addressed. In a statement, the Coast Guard said other U.S. intelligence agencies were able to provide answers to the questions it raised.

"The Coast Guard, the intelligence community and the entire CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) panel believed this transaction received the proper review, and national security concerns were, in fact, addressed," the Coast Guard said.
When the MSM only reports the questions that the USCG had, and DELIBERATELY FAILS TO REPORT THAT THESE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED, well: this is TRUE "cherry-picking."


Well, when the Left accuses Bush and Cheney of cherry-picking intel on Iraq in order to build up a case for war it's a FALSE charge. WHY?! Well, even Paul Pillar was forced to admit on CNN's THE SITUATION ROOM that all the intel from every agency in the world had overwhelmingly concluded that Saddam had WMD. And he admitted that there was no arm-twisting or slanting of the intel. IN OTHER WORDS: there was no cherry-picking.

IOW: the cherry-picking charge is another Bogus Bush Scandal - just like this Dubai deal. As is latest USCG wrinkle. The whole ENTIRE Dubai controversy is nothing but a disinformation campaign by self-serving demagogues - from BITH parties!

Sadly, the polls seem to suggest that this disinformation campaign is working. SO FAR. But as a great American once said, we have not yet begun to fight.

Monday, February 27, 2006


STATUS QUOISTS - like Scowcroft - who say that Saddam was contained, and Bush should've left him alone, and they argue that once al Qaeda is neutralized we can safely return to a pre-9/11 world.

REALISTS - who say Saddam was contained, Bush should've left him alone, and they argue that democracy won't work in Iraq because Iraqi culture and social disparities can't accomodate it. They think you can make deals/arrangements/treaties with the enemy, and co-exist with them - from Hamas to Iran to North Korea.

JIHADISTS - like OBL and Zawahiri and Zarqawi - who know that their totalitarian ideology can only be imposed by using horrific intimidation, and who know that only a robust USA can prevent them from imposing their repressive ideology and re-establishing the Caliphate under sharia.

PACIFISTS - who oppose the use of any deadly force - and even opposed the USA's entry into WW2.

POST-MODERNISTS - like Sheehan and Chomsky and Kucinich- who say that we deserved 9/11 and that we should withdraw from the Third World and return to them the wealth we stole as colonialists and imperialists and globalists, and that we should abandon our "colony" Israel and let Muslims run their own world.

OPPORTUNISTS - like Schroeder and Clinton and Biden and Hagel - who oppose Bush whenever they feel they can make a political gain.

And Bush - he's best described as an idealist or a UNIVERSALIST: Bush believes that all people everywhere deserve their innate, inalienable, universal human rights, and that the richest, strongest, most diverse and most powerful democracy in the history of the world has a duty to help lead a movement of all free nations to liberate all our brothers and sisters everywhere from tryanny, genocide, degradation - and the poverty and ignorance and racism which are bred by tyrnannies. (This USED TO BE called liberalism, but has become known as "classical liberalism" or neo-conservatism.)

Take your pick; choose which camp YOU want to be in. I know which one I'm in - the same one as FDR and Truman and JFK and Reagan - and Blair and Bush.

Only this last camp realizes that we are now counter-attacking in what will be a very LONG WAR - one that won't be over until the world's last truly evil totalitarian ideology is defeated everywhere, and every nation everywhere has a self-determined, self-styled democracy. Afghanistan and Iraq are merely the first two major campaigns in this war.

The status quoists, realists and pacifists would appease the enemy in the false hope that this would stall their plans. (Appeasement has never ever accomplished the goals which it sets out for itself - it has always only ever strengthened the enemy and made the inevitable clash worse than it might otherwise have been. ) The post-modernists would go even further and make sacrifices and reparations to the enemy. The opportunists... well, they could never be trusted to do anything based on any prinicple.


ADDENDUM: How this taxonomy plays out on the partisan-political landscape:
There are only one or two universalists in the Democrat Party - which is home base for ALL post-modernists and pacificists. Status quoists, realists and opportunists make up strong minorities in both parties. If Bush wasn't a universalist then we wouldn't have EVER invaded Iraq. He is truly LEADING the Free World in The Long War. Only the universalists are hawks; all the other camps are basically doves.

The way things look now, opportunists will gain seats in the 2006 election. The result might be less bold actions - and more appeasement - in the Long War.

If - in 2008 - the USA doesn't elect a POTUS who is a universalist (and with Blair's chosen successor Gordon Brown being an unkown), well.... then the Free World will retreat (by letting Assad stay in power, letting Iran get nukes, letting Kim stay in power, by financing Hamas, and by seceding our foreign polciy to the UN and the EU) - until the next big terrorist attack.

A major jihadoterrorist attack HERE will make us feel like we're in a foxhole together. For a while. If at that time a "non-univeralist" is in the WH, then we will probably point fingers at each other rather than strike back as Bush did.

Because the Democrats have basically not supported the Long War, al Qaeda will do whatever it can to foment an Iraqi Civil War between now and the November election in the US - in order to try to get an appeasing/dovish majority - a DEMOCRAT majority - in one or both houses.

If they accomplish this, then I'd expect them to lauch a really MASSIVE attack against us and/or our allies - so their comrades in the MSM can spin it as a major loss LIKE THEY DID WITH TET. This will give the doves a pretext for blaming Bush and withdrawing, (like the doves did vis a vis Vietnam: They blamed LBJ and Nixon and suspended aid to the South Vietnamese Gov in 1975. This led to the Fall of Saigon, 1 MILLION Boat People, the rise of Pol Pot, and to 3.5 MILLION slaughtered by socialist genocide in SE Asia.)


During Clinton's two terms we were repeatedly attacked by al Qaeda and he never did ANYTHING effective about it. Somalia, the 1993 WTC Bombing, the Khobar Tower attack, the 2 African embassy bombings, the attempted LAX attack, and the USS Cole attack were ALL al Qaeda attacks.

Clinton either ran away with his tail between his legs or used ineffective pin-prick retaliations. (Former FBI Director Freeh has charged that Clinton was more interested in geting a Saudi donation for his library than getting their cooperation in hunting-down the Khobar attackers.)

Also, during Clinton's two terms he "gave away the sovereignity of our ports" when he allowed Communist China and Saudi Arabia to "control several ports."

NOW... he and his wife attack Bush and our ALLIES in The Long War (like the UAE) using lies and deceit - AS IF HIS RECORD DEMANDED RESPECT! (Bill does this often when overseas!)


Obviously, these two hypocrites don't deserve an ounce of respect on ANY issue involving jihadoterrorism or port security! BOTTOM LINE: The Clintons' mendacity and hypocrisy knows no bounds. He and his wife are treacherous OPPORTUNISTS who should NEVER again be trusted with our nation's security.


On the heels of the brutal anti-Semitic torture killing, France now does these two things:
(1) Pushes to get Hamas EU funding; and (2) Refuses to extradite suspects Lebanon wanted to interrogate in relation to the Hariri assassination.
FRANCE: they might as well be al Qaeda. I'd rather lease some terminals in our ports do the UAE than France!


Top Hamas figures Mahmoud Zahar and Saed Siyam rejected on Sunday any possible peace negotiations with Israel. Speaking in Amman, Jordan before parliament members from all over the Arab world, Zahar said that Israel was an enemy, and thus not a partner for negotiations, Israel Radio reported. He added that Hamas did not plan to renew the failed diplomatic talks with Israel.
Israel should finish the security fence ASAP, seal off the borders around Gaza and the West bank, make it impossible for Hamas to get financial or military aid, and then call the whole deal "done."

INN reports:
Hamas officials Sa’id Syiam and Mahmoud a-Zahar told the Associated Press they reject entering into diplomatic talks with Israel, calling past talks a “failed experiment”.

The two were attending a gathering of Arab elected officials in Jordan, telling the media the “Israeli enemy” cannot be a partner, adding US pressure on the PA is insignificant since it is not coming from Arab states. The two added the recent Hamas election victory was another sign of defeat for Israel, emphasizing diplomatic relations with Israel was a non-starter.
Anyone who thinks a negotiated two-state solution is possible is NUTS.

IRAQ CIVIL WAR OVER - (before it really started!)

Leaders of the main Sunni Arab political bloc have decided to return to suspended talks over the formation of a new government, the top Sunni negotiator said Sunday. The step could help defuse the sectarian tensions that threatened to spiral into open civil war last week after the bombing of a Shiite shrine and the killings of Sunnis in reprisal.
Sheesh, that was the fastest descent into civil war and end of a civil war of all time! Or maybe the nattering nabobs of negativism who said that Iraq was declining into a civil war war wrong!? Maybe they've been wrong all along? Maybe they just wished it was true?


The NYTIMES reports that Germany secretly aided our war against Saddam (even though they publicly derided it). They did this by handing over Saddam's war plans to us. MY QUESTION IS HOW AND WHY DID THEY GET'EM!? I think it proves that the Germans were really in very VERY deep with Saddam, and were playing a dangerous double game. Here's what the NYTIMES account says:
The classified study contains a copy of the sketch supplied by the Germans. "The overlay was provided to the Germans by one of their sources in Baghdad (identity of the German sources unknown)," the study notes. "When the bombs started falling, the agents ceased ops and went to the French Embassy."
If you ask me, the Germans helped Saddam make the plan, and then gave a carbon-copy to us to cover their asses. ALSO NOTE WHERE THE KRAUTS HID: in the friggin French embassy! How fitting!

Sunday, February 26, 2006

BUSH, IRAQ, AL QAEDA AND THE LONG WAR: once and for all, dispelling the lies of the Left

Leftists are fond of saying that - with regard to Iraq - "Bush Lied and people died." They love to chant: "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" I'd like to disprove these charges once and for all:
(1) "SADDAM AND 9/11": Bush asked for and received a SEPARATE authorization to attack Iraq and did NOT use the 2001 AUMF to attack Saddam. If he had belived that Saddam was connected to 9/11, then he could have merely used the 2001 AUMF. This proves that Bush never EVER DIRECTLY connected Saddam to 9/11. (There are, though, unequivocably ties between Saddam and al Qaeda and other jihadoterrorist groups.)

(2) "BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD": Neither the UNSCR#1441 or the 2002 Congressional authorization to attack Saddam limited the reasons Saddam was a threat to WMD stockpiles, but in fact contained two dozen reasons why Saddam was a threat to the USA and our allies and our interests. If Bush thought that WMD's were the only reason to go to war, then he would NOT have bothered to make sure all those other imporant points were in the resolution. Many had to do with the UNSC resolutions which Saddam had violated, and MOST of these had nothing to do with WMD.

ADDITIONALLY: Ex-Cia man Pillar - who has been getting a lot of press recently, rehashing his old vague and unsupportable charges - has recently been forced to REPEATEDLY admit that the Robb-Silberman Commission report was entirely correct when it concluded that not a single solitary intelligence officer or report was altered or adjusted in any way due to political poressure from anyone. And Pillar has also admitted that Cheney was 100% correct when he said that all intelligence agencies from all nations agreed that Saddam had WMD. Tertefore: BUISH DID NOT LIE.

(3) "SADDAM WASN'T AN IMMINENT THREAT": As to the charge that Bush lied about Saddam being an imminent threat - for without WMD stockpiles there could be no "imminence": Bush specifically argued that he would NOT wait for threats from untrustworthy tyrants like Saddam to become imminent because that would be too late.
(4) "MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED": When Bush appeared on the deck of that aircraft carrier in front of that banner which said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" that part of the mission which that aircraft carrier was involved in had been accomplished, as was the mission for most of the troops which invaded Iraq and deposed the genocidal tyrant Saddam.

The current fighting is against DIFFERENT forces with a different goal than Saddam, and as such it comprises what is essentially a SECOND mission: securing a self-determined pluralist democracy for Iraq. When this mission eneds - probably in 2007, then Iraq will have to maintain its security on its own. In a larger sense, we can only declare total victory in Iraq at that time.

(5) "DEMOCRACY FOR IRAQ WAS NEVER REALLY A GOAL": The very challenging goal of democracy for Iraq was EXACTLY what Bush said his ultimate goal was when he addressed the UN General Assembly in September of 2002 - a month before UNSCR#1441 was passed, four months before Saddam filed a false "fional decaration" - in ciolatiuon of UNSCR#1441, and six months before the war began. There was no "rush to war" and democracy was not an after the fact rationalization rushed into place when the ISG failed to find stockpiles. NOTE: the ISG did unequivocably determine that Saddam was in violation of most of the UNSR's which functioned as the armistice for the Gulf War.

(6) "NO BLOOD FOR OIL": It was liberal Democrat president Jimmy Carter (and not Bush, Cheney or Halliburton) who - in 1980 - declared that Gulf Oil was strategic necessity for the USA and the West, and that the USa would use any means necessary to defend its flow to the West. This became known as The Carter Dioctrine and has the same force today as it did then and as the Monroe Doctrine still has today. It is NOT a partisan policy inveernted to please oil companies; it is recognbition that the world's economy and the world's PEOPLE needs energy to survive, and the USA will guarantee that the world gets that energy. (REMEMBER: Europe and Asia get more oil from the Gulf than the USA does!)

If we won't fight to save our way of life and economy from becoming held hostage to oil-strong islamofascist tyrants, then we might as well NOT fight for anything - a position that the Left mostly endorses!
THEREFORE: When Leftists claim that Bush lied about Saddam's connections to 9/11, or Saddam's WMD, and what the exit strategy of mission was, or that democracy was ever a reason to depose Saddam - and that "BIG OIL" was the real reason we went to war - THEY ARE LYING, NOT BUSH.

The Left's and the MSM's continuous assault on Bush and Iraq (now screaming "civil war!") only serves the enemy by undermining support for our ultimate cause and the larger war.

Ultimately, we will only defeat jihadoterrorism when we drain the swamp. Tyranny - and the poverty which tyranny produces - is the "swamp." Democracy is the "drain." Since tyrants don't often leave voluntarily - and because islamofascism can only thrive under a tyranny - war and threat of war are really the only means of implementing this policy.

Appeasment only encourages the enemy. Draining the swamp will take a long time; hence, "THE LONG WAR." It might be a shorter war if the Left were firmly on OUR side. I'M NOT HOLDING MY BREATH!


NYTIMES: "Sweet Are the Uses of Perversity" -
... The spring season in New York is, happily and atypically, plump with demonstrations of such genre bending, with entrancingly wicked shows that extract the profane from the sacred and the rot from the pillars of society.

[About one the 3 plays reviewed - emphasis added:] ...You could also say that it single-handedly dragged the British sex farce from the realm of seaside-postcard naughtiness into a land-mined field of subversion. In portraying two middle-aged, middle-class siblings drooling over the same cute young thing (a male hustler, in this case), Orton revealed not only the sagging flesh beneath his characters' rigorously conventional clothes but also the wayward, wanton itches beneath the skin. And how many other sex farces blithely factor in sadistic murder?

... The erotic dimension, though, is subjugated to the greater, and disturbingly pertinent, theme about how spin shapes what we think of as rock-hard history.
This review PROVES (once again) that the editors of the NYTIMES actively endorse an ideology which is OPENLY hostile to traditional values and to objectivity. They are thoroughly post-modern in their ridicule of everything which has made our civilization free and properous - namely bourgeois culture - and their revulsion for normalcy, and their contempt for traditional Judeo-Christian values, which they deem repressive and anti-libidinal.

Of course, like good little post-modernists, they also deny that there can be any objective history (only "spin"). Er um, they believe this is true for everyone EXCEPT for themselves and THEIR read of history! What hypocrites! What perverted and subversive hypocrites! What scum.

BOTTOM-LINE: I am glad people are free to write, perform, observe and critique whatever they want - even the perverse plays reviewed in the linked-to article. If producers want to put on PERVERSE pays and if people want to act in them and pay to see them, and if newspaper reporters want to praise them for their perversity: FINE. People are rightly free to critique my traditional bourgoise values - in plays, movies, and reviews - ANYWHERE THEY CHOOSE. And I am free to critique their critique of my values, too.

MY CRITIQUE: I know the difference between a pigs ear and a silk purse, and won't let anyone tell me the former is the latter. "High" art cannot be both high and serve perversness anymore than a war can be called a just war if it serves perverseness. SIMPLY PUT: If the intentions which inform the act are perverse, then the act is perverse. And we should no more praise perversity than praise chaos, poverty or ignorance.

I would argue that completely "unfettered" human liberty - human liberty that has no respect for Natural Law - always devolves into libertinage, and that this is ultimately destructive to the perpetrators, to society and to culture.

When a newspaper review praises a work which "BLITHELY FACTORS IN SADISTIC MURDER," then I think it is clear that they NO LONGER HAVE A FUCTIONAL OR DEFENSIBLE MORAL COMPASS - not the NYTIMES, not their reviewer, and not the playwright or the producers or the actors or the people in the audience who "GET OFF" on "blithe murderous sadism." People who cannot condemn sadistic sex murderers are amoral at best.

That many chic literati do praise perversity proves only that many are degenerates; they are in fact nothing more than a chic degenerati, and their praise of perversity - posing this time as a review - is no better than a happy sports report from a bloody cockfight. Puns intended.

ASIDE: Isn't it "RICH" that these chic degenerati are the very same people who condemn Bush for fighting a war of liberation!? YUP: To these "perverted subversives", sadists in plays who murder prostitutes deserve praise, but a president who toppled totalitarian regimes which perpetrated crimes against humanity - which murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of their own citizens - he deserves condemnation. Sheesh. If that doesn't prove to you how basically IMMORAL this chic degenerati crowd is then NOTHING will!

Their fervent anti-traditionalism is why the post-modern Left has had a problem supporting our side in The Long War: Like our enemy, they too want to bring our culture down. Unfortunately for the post-modernists, they don't even appreciate the fact that Bush is far FAR less of a threat to their libertinage than are the jihadoterrorists.

EQUALLY IRONIC IS THIS FACT: Those of us who unabashedly support our side in The Long War are not only defending our nation and the Free World and Natural Law (and its bedrock concept of Universal Human Rights), we are also defending our "perversely subversive" chic degenerati foes - (who abhor Natural Law) - right here at home. Our victory is theirs.

[NOTE: It is fitting that (a) one of the plays reviewed in this column in the NYTIMES stars well-known BDS-afflicted Bush-basher actor Alec Baldwin, and (b) that another article in the NYTIMES announces that the unabashedly Leftist play AWAKE AND SING will also be opening in NYC soon. This further proves that the "sexual perversity crowd" and the "socialism crowd" are one and the same. Essentially, one might say, they have ONE PLANK in their PLATFORM: the desire to destroy the bourgeoisee, to obliterate its economic systems and and cultural values.]


When Blair - with the help of the USA and George Mitchell - moved the northern Ireland situation toward a peaceful NEGOTIATED resolution it was predicated on the IRA DISARMING. They could not be a part of the negotiations because they were armed, and NO final deal could be reached until THEY VERIFIABLY DISARMED.

Blair basically stuck to this ESSENTIAL point, and let Northern Ireland governments fall over it. It is still a sticking point. And rightly so: a terrorist group which also does crimes for profit cannot be part of any legitimate peace process or legitimate governing process. Terror and criminality are ANTITHETICAL to both.

Bush and Rice made an UNBELIEVEBALY HUGE MISTAKE when they pushed Israel to allow Hamas - a group even worse than the IRA - to particpate in the elections without DISARMING and WITHOUT ANNOUNCING THAT THEY ACCEPTED ALL PREVIOUSLY SIGNED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PLO AND/OR PNA.

The result is that Hamas won. SURE: this has brpought some clarity to the situation; it poroves that a majority of so-called Arab Palestinians support terror - like the Taliban and the pakistanis of Waziristan and the Sunnis and many in Northern Ireland. It proves that Israel has a REAL SERIOUS SECURITY PROBLEM BECAUSE THEIR TERRORISTS ARE RIGHT ON THEIR BORDERS.

Bush and Rice should NOT have had a double standard, and demanded of Irael something that they would NOT have EVER accepted themselves for America. The result has greatly complicated things and made armed conflict more likely, not less. And - because Hamas is a repressive and fanatical religious party- it doesn't bring the Arabs living in the territories any closer to attaining liberty; it merely means they are becoming more Taliban-like.

We should NOT trust a single agreement with Hamas; they are no more trustworthy than the Taliban or Saddam or al Qaeda or Iran. There will be no peace in Israel until jihadism is defeated EVERYWHERE - defeated in "Palistan" the way it was in Afghanistan.