Saturday, January 27, 2007


BRITISH doctors [said] he was too old to be treated on the National Health Service. But, at 72, he flew to Asia for a double-lung transplant and now claims to be the oldest man in Britain to have survived the operation. Joseph — not his real name — is one of a growing number of Britons who, frustrated with NHS waiting lists, are venturing into the murky world of organ brokers offering kidneys and livers harvested from the poorest quarters of the world, sometimes illicitly. ... He remains unsure where his new lungs came from. The Singapore surgeons told him only that they had been donated by the family of a much younger man who died from an unspecified head trauma.
This story reveals why socialized medicine is horrible. Of course, if the State pays for the healthcare and for the retirement benefits of its citizens it has a powerful DOUBLE INCENTIVE for NOT performing expensive LIFE-SAVING surgery: they save the money the surgery and rehab would have cost, and because the patient DIES, they don't have to pay out any more retirement benefits. EUTHANASIA IS A WIN-WIN FOR THE SATE. And socialized medicine and socialized retirement benefits creates all the incentive the state needs to carry out euthanasia - actively if not then by omission.

Obama and Hillary want to nationalize healthcare in the USA. We should be very VERY worried.

DES MOINES, Iowa - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton opened her quest for the White House Saturday stressing her potentially historic role as a woman - a tough woman at that, who will "deck" opponents, win the presidency and enact universal health care that eluded her as First Lady.
Lefties like Obama and Hillary will destroy this nation if we let them...

UPDATE#2: "MORE than half of people surveyed in Wales would turn to therapists such as faith healers rather than endure long NHS waiting lists, according to a poll out today."

If you put your faith in socialism then you might as well put your faith in faith-healers. [BTW: the graphic is from a BBC article posted in 2000 - and things have gotten WORSE since then! Does America really want to go that route!?!]


Thanks to Bill Clinton, we've learned from the MSM/Driveby Media that lying is a good thing, as well as blowing your stack in an interview.

Now with the news that the second-coming of our Lord, Barack Obama, is a smoker, we can expect smoking to make a huge comeback and to be cool once again. James Lileks puts it in perspective: (Hat tip: QandO)
Obama is a smoker. Who knew? I like the way this story raises the issue – they’re concerned about the effect on his voice if he stops smoking, don’t you see. Hah! I’m waiting for the candid shot of Obama having a smoke – if he’s in a good suit, giving off that Rat Pack vibe, it’ll set the anti-smoking cause back ten years. It's he's wearing a fedora, which would add a jazzman / forties twist, I see a fifty-state sweep. Or maybe not. Given how cigarette smoking has become a moral issue, it’ll be interesting to see how this gets played. A humanizing frailty? A surprising character flaw? DID HE SMOKE AROUND CHILDREN? Doesn't matter; the more I look at this fellow, the more I see a fifty state sweep.

Reliapundit adds: the nanny-state crowd - which hates Big Tobacco as much as they hate Big Oil and Big Pharma and Big Walmart - will give their favorite new stud a pass. Hypocrisy is okay, as far as the Left is concerned, as long as you blame industry and consumption for man-made global warming, support socialized healthcare, support raising taxes on the other guy behind the tree, and support subverting US foreign policy and US national security to the UN. (Hating the Second Amendment and not giving a damn about illegal immigration will also get you a pass.)


“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.
(1) Kerry voted AGAINST Kyoto.

(But perhaps that's when he was against it - before he was for it!?!?!?!)

When Kerry talks about duplicity and hypocrisy he is PROJECTING his own sins, his own crimes. And he deliberately LIED today about these two matters (among many other LIES and DISTORTIONS he uttered) in a way INTENDED to diminish the respect foreigners might have for the USA. Kerry is actively encouraging others to hate the USA; he is promoting animosity by spreading vicious lies about Bush and US foreign policy. And his own record.

Kerry is a traitorous lying scumbag.
COMPLETE ROUND UP AT MEMEORANDUM. And if you have the stomach for it, then you can go HERE and probably read up on other rich left-wing scumbags who're overseas dissing the USA.!


Well, it figures that the bloodshed, once started, would not cease so easily, and it didn't. The civil war between Hamas and Fatah continues:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Gunmen armed with mortars and grenades fought in several areas of Gaza City on Saturday, killing two men on the third straight day of factional clashes linked to the power struggle over the Palestinian government. The deaths brought to 20 the number of Palestinians killed since late Thursday, and at least 66 people were wounded, medical officials said. The rival Hamas and Fatah movements traded angry accusations, and each held several supporters of the other side hostage.

The violence froze talks about bringing Fatah into the Hamas-led government, negotiators said. Fatah's leader, moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said he would go ahead with his plan to call early elections if the coalition negotiations fail to produce results within two to three weeks. The Gaza fighting, which started late Thursday, was among the deadliest in nearly two months.
I get the feeling that they won't have any new elections, and there weren't really any to begin with. And this is one of the bloodiest outbursts I've seen so far between them.



"As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be-President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. 'When comes the end?' ... And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end."

This was part of freshman Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's much ballyhooed stentorian Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address.

One wonders if the untold millions of North Koreans who've starved, bled, and died since then would similarly applaud Eisenhower's courage and wisdom. For more than half a century, North Korea has been a prison-camp society beyond the imagining of George Orwell, where public executions for stealing food are familiar events. The man-made famine of the 1990s alone claimed the lives of up to 1 million people (hard data from Stalinist regimes are difficult to come by).

One also wonders: When are our troops going to come home? Technically, the Korean War isn't really over. We're merely enjoying a ceasefire — much like the one we had with Iraq in the 1990s.

While Webb favors a "formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq," our forces in South Korea have been there for nearly six decades. Something tells me the antiwar base of the Democratic party doesn't have that sort of timetable in mind for Iraq.

So, except for the fact that the Korean War didn't end, our troops are still there, and the outcome has been the source of humanitarian and national-security nightmares, Webb's salute to Eisenhower's statesmanship really strikes home. [Umph added.]

In fairness, Webb is a thoughtful man who takes foreign affairs more seriously than most politicians. But his closest-weapon-to-hand style of attack against Bush does not reflect well on him or the Democratic party that chose him to be its representative.

But it is revealing. Indeed, the Democratic party's most honest moment Tuesday night came not in Webb's brusque words but in the Democrats' brusquer body language.

The president asserted that no one wants failure in Iraq. Understandably, the commander in chief wanted to avoid conceding how very real a possibility failure is, so he chose his rhetoric carefully. He spoke in the abstract about the bipartisan desire for victory and success.

And yet the Democrats for the most part sat on their hands, refusing to applaud, never mind rise in favor of such statements from a wartime president. Then, when the president mentioned ending genocide in Darfur, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party leaped to their feet.

... None of this explains why Democrats are so eager to support continued U.S. fighting against the Taliban as part of NATO forces in Afghanistan, even though that puts us between two sides in what amounts to an Afghan civil war. But maybe Afghanistan is a humanitarian crisis too. Or maybe it's an excuse for Democrats to prove they are still tough as far as foreign policy.

Or maybe Democrats simply think the war in Iraq is lost, while there's still hope in Afghanistan ... assuming there's a principle in there somewhere.

... The 11th Commandment for liberals seems to be, "Thou shalt not intervene out of self-interest." Intervening in civil wars for humanitarian reasons is O.K., but meddling for national-security reasons is not.

This would explain why liberals supported interventions in civil wars in Yugoslavia and Somalia but think being in one in Iraq is the height of folly. If only Truman had called the Korean civil war a humanitarian crisis, Ike might not have called the whole thing off. ...

There seems to be only one hope for persuading the Democrats to support staying in Iraq. Let's just beat the rush and call Iraq a humanitarian crisis now. It surely is already. And if we leave prematurely, Iraq will undoubtedly give Darfur and Yugoslavia a run for their money as a humanitarian horror show. Why wait for calls to return to stop the bloodshed?
I'm actually quite sincere when I ask the following question: Does anybody — anybody — seriously think the effort in Afghanistan has more at stake for the war on terror than than the effort in Iraq?

I am in no way saying that Afghanistan isn't important. It's very important. But it seems so transparently obvious to me that Iraq is more important, that the downsides of failure are more grave, that the upside of success more rewarding, that I simply have a hard time believing anyone sincerely feels otherwise after seriously engaging the facts.

Moreover the moral concerns are so much greater, in terms of the humanitarian consequences of departure and America's obligation in Iraq.

The case could easily be made that we owe the Afghans nothing. We attacked their government after we were attacked by people given safe harbor and support on their soil. We did what we needed to do, and now we can leave. I don't agree with that argument, but it seems so much more compelling for Afghanistan than it does for Iraq, where we did launch a war of choice and therefore have a greater obligation to do right by the Iraqi people and to stay true to our democratic ideals.

This Democratic talking point about Afghanistan being the central front of the war on terror seems like such convenient b.s. I'm shocked they say it so glibly.

But maybe I'm wrong and there's a great argument I haven't heard.

I think Goldberg is effin' BRILLIANT. BOTTOM-LINE: The GWOT has many fronts, just like WW2 and WW3, (The Cold War). Some are fought openly, some clandestinely, some by proxies. The enemy has many factions - and they might kill each other at times, (witness Gaza or Baghdad), but against the West they are united: Afghanistan; Iraq; the Philippines; Thailand; Somalia - many fronts, ONE WAR. A war we must fight to WIN - ON ALL FRONTS.


NOTE: I've pasted several photos of the enemy in this post: an Egyptian, a Jordanian, a Saudi, an Afghani, an Iraqi and a man who was born in Cairo who claimed to be "Palestinian." ALL ENEMIES. ALL WORKING OFF THE SAME GAME-PLAN: JIHAD. We simply must fight them all...


From this article in the January 26, 2007 Washington Times:
Senate Democrats quashed a proposal yesterday that would have dramatically increased civil fines on employers who hire illegal aliens. [...] Mr. Sessions' proposal came directly out of the employer-sanctions section of the immigration-reform bill approved with overwhelming Democratic support last year. It would raise the minimum fine on employers from $250 per hired alien to $5,000 per alien. And it would raise the maximum fine from $10,000 per alien to $40,000 per alien.

Though Democrats turned back Mr. Sessions' employer-sanctions amendment, they allowed through a second Sessions amendment aimed at federal government contractors who are caught hiring illegal aliens....
The article also contains this plum, evidencing politics in action, at the expense of the interests of our nation:
After accusing Republicans of stalling, Mr. Kennedy then proceeded to read aloud for five minutes a story in the New York Times about soldiers fighting in Iraq.

China Catches Pig Madness

Companies looking to reach China's consumer market with pig images during Year of the Pig celebrations next month will have to adjust after a national television network adopted a policy to be sensitive to the country's small Muslim population, according to published reports. China Central Television said it would ban all verbal and visual pork references from advertisements during Lunar New Year celebrations next month.
Apparently Muslims are such delicate souls that they will self-combust just on seeing a picture of a pig! Jews too are forbidden from eating pigs but seem to have no problem with seeing pictures of them. Does that mean that Jews are stronger and wiser than Muslims? I think I had better not answer that!



Even though no blogger could live without Google it has been pretty apparent to conservatives that they seem to have a liberal bias. Go here, here and here. This bias extends to Youtube which Google owns.

Yet probably their biggest controversy by far was their announcement back in 2005 that they would be online in China but would allow there to be censorship. Amazingly the co-founders of Google are admitting that was probably a mistake. Here is an excerpt of some of their comments:
Asked whether he regretted the decision, Mr Brin admitted yesterday: "On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative."

The company has only once expressed any regret and never in as strong terms as yesterday. Mr Brin said the company had suffered because of the damage to its reputation in the US and Europe.

Last year in a speech in Washington Mr Brin admitted the company had been forced to compromise its principles to operate in China. At the time, he also hinted at a potential reversal of its stance in the country, saying "perhaps now the principled approach makes more sense."
It is amazing how once one loses money all of a sudden having some principles seems like a good idea.

Friday, January 26, 2007

Must not Abuse the English!

It had to happen. For centuries, lots of people (particularly the Scots and the Irish) spoke ill of the English. But Australians are apparently now not supposed to do so.

Two translations may be needed below. "Pom" is the common word for the English in Australia but it is only very faintly derogatory. Many of us are to this day British-born, after all. The other word is one common in both Australia and Britain but seems little-known in America: "whingeing" means whining, particularly the sort of whining an overtired baby or toddler does.

Compared with Americans, the English are much more likely to grumble about things rather than do something about it and in Australia they also sometimes compare various features of Australian life unfavourably with how it was back in England. Australians are mostly a happy and laid-back lot (we have reason to be) so they complain less and they find it amusing that Poms who criticize Australia choose to live here. So the term "Whingeing Pom" is widely used and will be rapidly applied to any Pom who DOES whinge. Now read on:

"It's OK to use the word "Pom", but not in connection with lots of references to whingeing. Radio advertisements for Tooheys New Super Cold beer featuring British men singing "Whinge whine bang-on gripe grumble" and "Slag whinge snivel cry 'Mummy"' to the tune of Land of Hope and Glory were banned yesterday by the advertising watchdog. The Advertising Standards Board, which said last month it was acceptable to use "Pom" in the same ad campaign, has now ruled it vilifies the English to associate Poms with too much whingeing.


The ban will be greeted by most Australians with mere amusement. (Above post crossposted from Tongue Tied.)


Yes, the left supports the troops, don't they? Check this out:

Sen. Russ Feingold, (D-WI), has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday in his Judiciary Committee subcommittee to explore whether Congress has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq. The move comes as Congress prepares to vote on a congressional resolution opposing President Bush’s escalation of the war.

Feingold, a fierce war critic, will force Democrats to consider an option many consider politically suicidal: denying funds to the military and U.S. soldiers to force a quicker end to the war. Democratic leaders have privately called on members to restrain from cutting off funding and focus on congressional resolutions condemning the Bush policy. The resolutions are nonbinding and therefore symbolic.

If the lefties always want to use the Viet Nam analogy to explain what's going on in Iraq, then they need to follow it through the whole way. When we abandoned Viet Nam, at the behest of the Lefties in our Congress, it was a disaster. The North Vietnamese almost immediately invaded the South (in direct violation of the Paris Peace Treaty), and millions died in the region, and millions more were forced to flee their homes. The Boat people, REMEMBER? That is the kind of thing that will happen in Iraq if we cut off the funding of the war. And to top it off, Iraq will be established as an Iranian proxy. Just what the world needs, a more powerful Iran.

The Lefties in our Congress are insane.


Yep, that's his plan. It's in his own words. Of course, he means it as satire, but I've always been under the impression that an attempt at humor has to be directed at something which actually exists in the real world, or it won't be funny.

And, since this is not funny, I propose we just take Michael Moore at his word, and conclude once and for all that he is a fascist loon:
[MOORE:] You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you’re out of combat-ready soldiers — so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million — Iraq — is to send in at least 28 million! Here’s how it would work:

The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.

[CRITTENDEN:] Or, here's another idea. How about if Michael Moore rounds up the 25 million people who saw Farenheit 9/11 and takes them over to Iraq to serve as human shields? Michael Moore's girth ought to cover at least four Iraqis all by its immense self.
Crittenden is brilliant.


Modern liberal societies have weak collective identities. Postmodern elites, especially in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation. But if our societies cannot assert positive liberal values, they may be challenged by migrants who are more sure of who they are.
As we have been blogging for years. RTWT.


Israel's president Moshe Katsav has taken a suspension of his position, something he himself requested, in order to deal with what appear to be trumped up charges that he committed rape upon as many as eight female employees on his staff at various times in past years. And it's sad to say, but I think this is indeed a modern day Dreyfus affair. Katsav's speech tells a few very important things here, including how attorney general Menny Mazuz double-crossed him:

A first in modern Israeli history: The President of Israel vehemently condemned official national organs, saying they cooperated in targeting him because of his "outsider" status. At times his voice broke, and at other times he was furious with rage, but he showed conviction and firmness throughout his 50-minute speech.

Though the President has claimed innocence ever since the allegations of sexual harassment against him first arose shortly before the summer war with Hizbullah, he has never publicly explained his side of the events. In tonight's dramatic speech, he went further than ever before in doing so. Particularly noteworthy was his scathing attack against the media, addressing many minutes of his remarks directly to the reporters sitting in front of him.

In addition, he essentially accused Attorney General Menachem Mazuz of lying and double-crossing him. Katzav said that at one point, he and Mazuz held a secret meeting, yet it and its contents were leaked to the media. The President said he called Mazuz to consult with him, and Mazuz said he would neither confirm nor deny the reports. Katzav followed suit, saying publicly that he would neither confirm nor deny - and the next day he heard Mazuz submit a public statement in the Knesset confirming the meeting and its leaked contents.

The headlines blared that the Attorney General contradicted the President's public statement. "He did the opposite of what he had told me on the phone the day before! What was I to do? ... I decided to continue to practice self-restraint and not embarrass Mazuz - but, I admit, it was not only for that reason; I continued to remain silent so that I would not be accused of interfering with the investigation."

You can view the video here too, and read his whole speech at the above link. Out of the whole speech, I think I should note this here, which he tells to the elitists:

I know what bothered you - that six years ago I was elected President [defeating Shimon Peres]. You wrote at the time that it was the end of Zionism, etc. I should be ashamed of myself? You should be ashamed of yourselves for writing such things about a democratic vote in the legislature!

Well, it has been speculated by some that Shimon Peres may have had something to do with the harrassment of Katsav, in revenge for defeating him in the election back in 2000. But then, as some people wonder, did Ehud Barak, as incompetent as he may be, cast his vote in favor of Katsav? Assuming that Peres has anything to do with this, why should he be taking out his anger on Katsav when he's not the one to blame for his "troubles"?

---At this point, a Channel Two news anchor interrupted, and Katzav responded furiously:

You have talked for six months, and now it's my turn! No, you won't talk here! If you don't like it, you can get out! I was silent for six months, and now you don't want to hear the truth! Channel Two - yes, Channel Two, the same station that has been spilling my blood for six months! The same Channel Two that set an interview with the President of Israel for a specific day, and then just a day before the interview, decided to cancel it - and why? Because it decided that Muhammad Dahlan was more important to them than the President of Israel - that's the same Channel Two that doesn’t like to hear the difficult things I am accusing them of now.

Channel Two is one of the most bottom-of-the-barrel TV stations in this country, and the slam upon them is richly deserved. They don't deserve an audience, and should be shunned by one and all. I don't watch much TV today anyway. Let that be a lesson there, if you will, about how badly political corruption gets out of hand here. I wouldn't be surprised if that's been the case in Europe too, in some cases. They've certainly come close.


I don't normally do the petition thing anymore but in this case I think it is extremely important that we send spineless senators a message. In Punditarian's post he talked about Petraeus' great answers that he gave on the hill. Here is something else he said while there:
"No matter how well-intentioned, a resolution being opposed to this new strategy is a vote of no confidence in you. No matter how well-intentioned, the enemy will see it as a weakened resolve."
As Flopping Aces points out we expect this appeasement from the Democrats but click on this link to see how to contact all the Republican senators "who want to send the message to the enemy that we give up."

Also, if you agree with this statement:
"If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution."
Click here to sign the pledge!

Thursday, January 25, 2007


GLASOV: Qutb was an Islamic fanatic who was full of hatred. He was intoxicated by a death cult based on martyrdom through jihad.

Yes, Qutb obviously believed that we were “immoral” -- in the sense that any Muslim radical believes that anything non-Muslim is immoral. In his view, immorality was anything connected to humans pursuing earthly happiness and joy -- and anything that didn’t involve giving one’s life through jihad.

In terms of the U.S., Qutb was enraged when he saw people dancing at a church social in Colorado in the 1940s. And let’s just get a glimpse of the mindset here: the dancing there was nothing compared to the dancing of today. And whatever it is that one might think of the dancing today, one thing is for sure: no one of sound mind would have called the dancing at the church social in Colorado in 1940 as being “immoral” by any rational standard.

The bottom line is that Qutb was enraged that people were enjoying music and life, because the purpose of life was death through jihad. And this disposition was akin to the Leninist hatred of cheer on earth.
If someone wants to lead an ascetic life, I say fine. When they want to IMPOSE their asceticism on me I say, over my dead body. Amish people and Hasidic people live in among us (many in enclaves) according to a law they feel is higher than those we have written by mutual consent. THEY DO NOT SEEK TO IMPOSE THEIRS ON US; THEY DO NOT EVEN PROSELYTIZE. Islamo-nazis DO.

And Leftists do too, in their way - with all their nanny-state BS.

I say the Founding Fathers were right: we should each be free to pursue what makes us happy. The Declaration makes this clear: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the ultimate goals in life.

And I say that the Ten Commandments makes this VERY clear, too: After all, there are only these Ten things ya gotta watch out fer - a few you must do, and a bunch you cannot do - and EVERYTHING ELSE IS OKAY. (Jews have an additional 600 or so commandments - with NO additional privileges.) The ultimate UNIVERSAL human right is our right to pursue our own happiness. This pisses of the enemies of liberty. They wanna boss everyone else around.

"Live Free or Die" might means "Live Happy or Die - And Let Each Decide his own Happiness." The jihadists and the Leftists want to decide for you. We mustn't let them.


As you may have noticed AP is reporting that Georgian authorities and American agents have nabbed a would-be Uranium smuggler. This is bonafide EVIDENCE that there is a very real danger that al Qaeda could -or may already have - a dirty bomb or a small nuclear device. This is no time to back down from the task at hand - destroying Islamofacism. Any capitulation or accomodation will only lead to greater disaster further on.


Rocco di Pippo of the Autonomist blog has been in Iraq recently, and reports that for women there, equality has still not been achieved:
In terms of material resources, Iraq is poised to take its place among the earth's most prosperous nations. But, as is case in Saudi Arabia, it will never happen until women in Iraq are treated equal to men. For a start, they should be treated better than dogs.

Iraq's society appears to be structured and dictated by oppressive, frightened men, many of whom use the Koran to justify the subjugation and destruction of women. Men whose false "respect" for women is rooted in total fear of them and their sexuality. Men who control and manipulate every single aspect of women's lives.

Where are the Western "progressive" women's groups when you need them? Why are most Western feminists and feminist groups silent when it comes to the terrible plight of Iraq's oppressed women? They have turned their backs on those who truly need liberating, preferring instead to slay "oppression" where it does not truly exist. They are cowards and liars.
For Iraq to truly become a democratic country, and for women there to gain full rights, that's why Islam will have to be rid of.


In Australia, John Howard and some other government officials are taking a strong stand against the propaganda being spread in Islamic youth centers. According to this January 24, 2007 article:
The Australian government, whose leaders have invited Muslims who believe religious law should trump the nation's secular constitution to leave, now has launched an investigation into recordings of messages urging Muslims to kill enemies of Islam.


Prime Minister John Howard has said he believes activities of those in Australia's mosques should be monitored, citing a need for the government to know if members of the Islamic community supported or taught violence.

"We have a right to know whether there is, within any section of the Islamic community, a preaching of the virtues of terrorism, whether any comfort or harbour is given to terrorism within that community," Howard told Australian radio earlier.
Read more at Always On Watch Two.


You have to give the man credit. The solons said they wanted answers. They asked the questions. He gave them the answers. As reported by "The Hill:"

In response to a question from McCain regarding the effect of such congressional resolutions on troops, Petraeus said, “It would not be a beneficial effect, sir.”

McCain supports sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and is at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), another presidential hopeful and member of the Armed Services panel.

When Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a strong supporter of the Bush administration’s strategy for Iraq, later asked Petraeus whether the resolutions of disapproval would encourage the enemies in Iraq, the officer said: “That’s correct.”

This is a test of will,” he said, adding that as commander he would like “the enemy to feel that there is no hope.” He stressed, however, that he respects freedom of speech and the discussions taking place in Congress. (Umph added.)

You have to give it to The Man. He knows war. He knows leadership. And he is not afraid to tell the defeatist appeasers in the Senate that their efforts are propping up the enemy. If David Petraeus (Brooklyn native, USMA graduate, Princeton PhD, Ranger) fights as well as he talks, he just may be this war's Ulysses Grant.


As Reliapundit just mentioned the Democrats really don't want victory. They have too much riding on the fact that it will be good for their party for their own country to lose.

Eleven Democrats along with Traitor Chuck Hagel just passed a resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stating that they don't support Bush's new plan for the war. Here are some of Hagel's ridiculous comments:
"If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes," said Hagel.
"This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we're asking our young men and women to do?"

Hagel is trying to make it seem like he is taking some noble stand. Give me a break! There is nothing tough or courageous about jumping on the politically correct bandwagon and appeasing the enemy by agreeing to cut and run!


Global warming could exacerbate the world's rich-poor divide and help to radicalize populations and fan terrorism in the countries worst affected, security and climate experts said on Wednesday.

"We have to reckon with the human propensity for violence," Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain's former ambassador to the United Nations, told a London conference on "Climate Change: the Global Security Impact."

"Violence within and between communities and between nation states, we must accept, could possibly increase, because the precedents are all around." He cited Rwanda and Sudan's Darfur region as two examples where drought and overpopulation, relative to scarce resources, had helped to fuel deadly conflicts.

Experts at the conference hosted by the Royal United Services Institute said it was likely that global warming would create huge flows of refugees as people tried to escape areas swamped by rising sea levels or rendered uninhabitable by desertification.

Tickell said terrorists were likely to seek to exploit the tensions created.

"Those who are short of food, those who are short of water, those who can't move to countries where it looks as if everything is marvelous are going to be people who are going to adopt desperate measures to try and make their point."


John Mitchell, chief scientist at Britain's Met Office, noted al Qaeda had already listed environmental damage among its litany of grievances against the United States.

"You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries," al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wrote in a 2002 "letter to the American people."
He makes no mention of the fact that Darfur and d Sudan are on-going islamo-wars. As are nearly all the wars in the world today.

FACT: Globally, there have been more than 7000 jihadoterrorist attacks SINCE 9/11. None have anything to do with climate change, or poverty.

Convergence between the Left/eco-nutsies and jihadism is not novel. It is a NATURAL ALLIANCE. WHY?! Simple: the basic affinity that the Left has with the jihadism is based on the fact that both are opposed to modernity, and both revile traditional Judeo-Christian/Western Civilization.

Both the post modern Left and the jihadists see the J-C West as bad; (the relativist Left even seemingly makes an exception to their relativism in order to assert that the J-C West is truly and absolutely bad). Typical of this anti-Judeo-Christian West attitude is the fact that so many on the Left either equate Christian fundamentalists with jihadoterrorists and/or fear Bush and Falwell more than Binalden and Zawahiri. The post modern Left blames the J-C West for the what they feel are the worst acts in all of human history: Third World poverty, most of humanity's genocide, and global warming.

Each if the charges the Left levels at the J-C West are demonstrably false. (Even if one believes that global warming is caused by man, the emerging Third World nations of China and India are just as "guilty" of creating atmospheric CO2 as is the USA and the West, but the Left and Kyoto gives them a free ride and ZERO criticism. This proves that it's more about being anti-USA/J-C West than anyhting else.) Additionally, the Third World committed more genocide than the West, And their poverty was not caused by the West.

The jihadists blame the West for the sad state of affairs inside the former Caliphate.

The Leftists and jihadists are united in their hatred of the J-C West, and the since the USA is the defender of the J-C West they hate the USA. (FURTHER PROOF OF THIS CONVERGENCE: The recent attack on the USA embassy in Greece was done by Leftists acting on behalf of Muslims.)

Like the jiahdoterrorists, the post modern Left wants to destroy the J-C West by bringing down the USA - only the Left wants to accomplish this through their Gramscian agenda (which we have posted on extensively at TAB). OF COURSE: they are willing to appease the jihadists if this will HURT the USA an the West; chastise the West, if you prefer.

The jihadists want the West to become dhimmis and withdraw from all lands which were ever muslim. And they will do anything within their means to accomplish this: including starting a nuclear holocaust.

The Left is the enemy within, and - because they are also a Fifth Column of the jihadist enemy - until we defeat them, we will not be able to defeat the jihadists abroad. This is a big challenge, because the MSM and the academy and a few key bureaucracies (CIA, FBI, State) are dominated by the post modern Left. Defeating the Left is even tougher in Europe where the post modern Left is even more entrenched in the MSM, the academy andf the bureaucracies; (SEE: BRUCE BAWER).

Basically, the USA Left has been anti-USA since Truman broke with Stalin. The Left supported the USA during WW2 ONLY because FDR was allied with Stalin. The Left has opposed the USA in every war since WW2. Iraq is just another in a long line of wars the Left wanted us to lose: Korea; the Bay of Pigs; Vietnam; Nicaragua; Grenada, the Gulf War; Panama; and Iraq. (Many also opposed the Afghan War - arguing it was about gas or oil or the deliberate starvation of Afghanis.)

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? Well, about 30% of the USA public are OK - hawkish and pro-West and positive about Judeo-Christian civilization. About 30% are Leftie secular doves - Gramscian or their dupes. And about 15% are unreachable apathetic people who basically don't give a damn about politics or history. And then there's the indecisive 15% - "FREE-REANGERS". These folks blow with the wind: when the news from Iraq is bad, then they oppose the war.

In addition to attacking the jihadists with everything we've got, in addition to attacking the post modern Left with everything we've got, we have to do whatever we can to reach THIS last group. But without an objective MASS MEDIA it's a very VERY tough problem. WHY?! Well this 15% are the folks who get their news and take their cues from the MSM's TV news, which takes its cues from the Gramscian NYTIMES.

Fox cable has helped, but the cable audience is 1/20th the size of the broadcast audience and there's still not enough convergence between Fox and news-talk radio and blogs and podcasts to make up this distance. If we're ever going to liberate this 15% from the stranglehold of an MSM dominated by the post modern Left, then we're gonna have to create synergies between these three mediums to reach the masses and to undercut the Leftist lies and propaganda of the MSM.

[BTW: The polices which the Left advocates on behalf of the impoverished Third World are ALL BAD. If we really want to cure Third World poverty then we need to help INDUSTRIALIZE the Third World and get them to introduce more free market capitalism and more globalization. It's what works. The policies which the Left advocates DO NOT. Only when China and India gave up on Leftist economics and began to thrive.]

Others blogging this convergence between eco-nutsies and islamo-nazis: LGF and Jihad Watch.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007


"Why Democrats can stop the war"
"STOP" not win.

"Above all else, the mission we must all join is to end the war in Iraq."
"END" not win.

... the Dems would not stand up en masse was when Bush said we should pursue victory:
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.
The Dems don't want to win, and they do not care about the consequences, either.








BTW: Did you know they trucked in tires to burn!? SHEESH: these animals're so freakin weird! There will be no peace in Lebanon or Kashmir or the Philippines or Thailand or Gaza or Iraq until the islamo-nutsie militias - like Hizballah and the al Sadr's Mahdi Army, and J-I - are WIPED OUT. And the sooner the better.


The military calls its new weapon an "active denial system," but that's an understatement. It's a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they are about to catch fire. Apart from causing that terrifying sensation, the technology is supposed to be harmless — a non-lethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons.


A first grader actually brought home this little booklet:

And check out this graphic, which also came home from the same school.

[Hat-tip to Pim's Ghost]


I didn't see the broadcast, but according to this report,
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007 — - Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil....

"This appears to be the first hard evidence al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to attack us here at home," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, former chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council....

"Anyone willing to go to Iraq to fight American troops is probably willing to try to come to the United States," Clarke said.
Fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here.

PC HYSTERIA: Texas Mayor Singles Out N-Word for Ban

We read:
"It's one of the most reviled words in the English language, but if one Texas mayor gets his way, getting caught uttering the "N-word" will hit offenders where it hurts. Mayor Ken Corley of Brazoria, Texas, has proposed a city ordinance that would make using the word in an offensive fashion a crime equal to disturbing the peace and punishable by a fine of up to $500. But legal experts said it's unlikely the law will stand up to the First Amendment....

Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.

A number of comments:

1). "most reviled words in the English language". Reviled in the current U.S. climate of PC hysteria would be more accurate. We DO speak English in Australia but the High Court of Australia recently ruled that the word is not offensive at all in Australia.

2). The loophole that you can avoid penalty by claiming that you used the word affectionately is fun. Can whites use that defence? And if whites are disbelieved while blacks ARE believed, is that racism? And what if a black uses the word abusively? How do you prove that? Or don't you try? And is THAT racism?

3). Why ban just one "reviled" word? What about the c-word, the f-word etc. Is not singling out just one racial word racism? And too bad there's nothing about calling a white man a "cracka", eh?

4). Anybody using the word in writing would be smart to spell it with a single "g", as "niger" is simply the Latin word for black and even Brazoria, Texas, is unlikely to ban Latin.

5). I occasionally refer to people of sub-Saharan African ancestry as "negroes" but I believe that that word is "offensive" too in America. Should that word be banned too? It IS, however, the scientific term -- though Leftists would say that there is NO scientific term for people of African ancestry. But I wonder how people of African ancestry can be given special preferences ("affirmative action") if they cannot be scientifically described?



The recent threats coming from al zawahiri may be evidence of a very real and imminent danger. I also choose to interpret them as a sign of desperation: they threaten us because they cannot achieve a hudna and they are presently being whipped in Somalia, Afghanistan, the Phillipines and soon Bahgdad. Iran is also playing every string possible in Iraq, Lebanon, and Venezuela, to disperse the focus of our efforts to defeat Islamofacism. No where is the battlefield more important than Iraq. Ayman al-Zawahiri's letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi states on page 2 "The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq." Therefore we must not leave Iraq before the Iraqi nation is stable, secure, and free from ill willed foreign influence.


It appears the city of Malmö, Sweden has a problem with scofflaws: approximately $10 million dollars of parking tickets remain unpaid.

Guess what - the three who scoff at the law the most are: Ousamma Alaiyan, 5.030.978 Swedish kroner - about $700,000 US dollars; Majid Mohammad, 2,9 million kroner - about $416,000 US dollars; and Yssar Mahdi, who owes the Swedish state 2,4 million kroner - about $345,000 US dollars.

If you haven't noticed these names are not typically Swedish names. Who are these people? Is it possible they are also participating in other forms of criminal behavior?

Racism! Whites not allowed in Black Caucus

Get this:

"Freshman Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, D-Tenn., is not joining the Congressional Black Caucus after several current and former members made it clear that a white lawmaker was not welcome.

"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in a majority-black Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."

More HERE.


Ever since 9/11 President Bush has protected this country and taken it to the terrorists. As a result we haven't had one single terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the 5 years since then. Not only does he not get credit for this but he gets attacked by the naysayers.

Here are two of my favorite excerpts from his State of the Union Address:

"Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them."

"In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America -- and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country -- and resilient, too. We've been through a lot together. We've met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong, our cause in the world is right, and tonight that cause goes on. God bless."

For all my excerpts and thoughts about the speech go here.
RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: Please check out the comments section: they reveal the Left for what it is.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007


... the Dems would not stand up en masse was when Bush said we should pursue victory:
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.
This was not a policy statement by Bush but a clear statement of a GOAL - VICTORY, one the Left OBVIOUSLY doesn't share.

(And Webb's reply was clearly a Leftist assault on the free marketplace: the Left wants to pick winners and losers.)


Thousands of diabetic children could risk losing limbs because the NHS cash crisis is hitting services, said a report out on Wednesday.

Four out of five diabetic children have poor glucose control, putting them at risk of developing complications, it said.

In the UK, there are 20,000 children under the age of 15 with type 1 diabetes, which means sufferers are dependent on insulin. Another 1,000 children have type 2, which is associated with obesity, but many more youngsters are undiagnosed. ...

The cash crisis means Pediatric Diabetes Specialist Nurses (PDSNs) are overstretched, it said. According to the Royal College of Nursing, there should be no more than 70 children to each nurse but some NHS trusts have caseloads of up to 300 children, meaning PDSNs take on more. Almost every region in England has seen an increase in the number of children each PDSN manages, the reports said.

Over a third (40%) of trusts have no protocols for transferring children into adult diabetic care while nearly a third of youngsters who want psychological support do not receive it, it added. Douglas Smallwood, chief executive of Diabetes UK, said: 'No wonder 80% of children have poor blood glucose control.

"ARE WE NOT MEN?" ... maybe not, maybe to the Gramscian Left we are BEASTS?

The deliberate beautification and gentrification, if you will, of human-equine sex by the post-modernist intelligentsia at the Sundance Festival (see our previous post) is not an isolated phenomenon. We have identified this artistic activity as part of an overall Gramscian attack on the fundamental values and cultural institutions of the West. The Gramscian left's overall program calls for the destruction of the family, private property, and organized religion. The ultimate goal is our dehumanization.

The proximate goal of the bestiality buffs is to blur the distinction between the human and the animal, and thereby to reduce human beings to the status of animals.

And that's not the only way that our civilization's traditional view of a separation between the human and animal realms is being dissolved. Let me show you how.

Although there initiatives were widely reported as a comedic faits divers, leftist legislators in Spain were deadly serious when in June 2006 they introduced a bill to accord human rights to the great apes.

Spain could soon become the first country in the world to give chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes some of the fundamental rights granted to human beings under a law being proposed by members of the ruling Socialist coalition.

The law would eliminate the concept of "ownership" for great apes, instead placing them under the "moral guardianship" of the state, much as is the case for children in care, the severely handicapped and those in comas, said the MP behind the project, Francisco Garrido.

Please note that the apes will share the present legal status of children, the severely handicapped, and those in comas. The identity and character of those categories of individuals will be important in this discussion.

Despite the enthusiasm of the socialist ruling coalition, not everybody in Spain is on board:

The Roman Catholic Church has expressed concerns about his resolution. The Archbishop of Pamplona and Tudela, Fernando Sebastian, has said that only a "ridiculous or distorted society" could propose such a law. "We don't give rights to some people - such as unborn children, human embryos, and we are going to give them to apes," the archbishop said.

Amnesty International's Spanish branch has also expressed concerns, saying that humans have yet to see their rights fully guaranteed. A senior member of the Spanish opposition Partido Popular, Arturo Esteban, called the proposal an "act of moral poverty".

Advocates of conferring "personhood" on the great apes claim that such a measure will not diminish human rights:

Amnesty International correctly observed that the rights of many humans in the world are yet to be respected. The group also correctly understood that advocates are actually asking for basic rights for nonhuman apes, acknowledged by the United Nations — not just improvements in the conditions in which humans hold and use other great apes.

What Amnesty International misses is that respecting the 'personhood' of great apes does not diminish human rights. There is no reason why the basic rights of life, liberty, and freedom from torture should only be applicable to humans. Moreover, such a change would help humanity to preserve the environment instead of destroying it, and it would open more general discussions of animal rights in Spain.

The Catholic Church is on record opposing the measure. Fernando Sebastian denounced the concept when, in the archbishop's view, abortions violate the human rights of embryos. The archbishop also reportedly said, "Too much progress becomes ridiculous."

The ape rights initiative has received backing from academics in dozen of universities. GRASP submitted a letter of support for the measure.

However, according the human rights associated with a concept like "liberty" to an animal, even one of the great apes, inevitably trivializes and diminishes the status of that right for human beings.

And it is of course a direct contradiction of the basic concept of human freedom and responsibility enshrined in the Jewish Bible, which is also accepted by Christianity. The "personhood" activists want to grant human liberties to animals, but do you think they would accept the equally absurd idea of putting an animal on trial for its instinctual actions? Would you try a hungry wolf for the killing of a defenseless fawn before a jury of ruminants or carnivores?

By elevating an animal to human status, and human stature, the post-modern relativists want to degrade the status of the human being. If human beings are only animals, then there is really no moral problem with the State's altruistic and beneficent servants (notice the claim that "academics in dozens of universities" support granting human rights to apes) incarcerating or even killing any humans they deem unable to enjoy a proper "quality of life." A foetus, a defenseless adult in a coma, or a severely handicapped person can be discarded without compunction.

Eugenic breeding and eugenic culling of human specimens would thus be no worse than any other form of animal husbandry.

The Spanish government took another step towards abolishing human personhood by directly attacking the biological and familiar basis of human reproduction; henceforth, Spanish birth certificates will not list the baby's Mother and Father, but only its "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B:"

The new changes replacing Mother and Father come courtesy of a ministerial order.

"Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Spanish Minister of Justice, excused the ministerial order by claiming since the government modified "the status of civil marriages, to allow the union of same-sex couples, it was necessary for a new format for the Family Book (Libro de Familia) and one that uses terms such as "Parent A" and "Parent B" instead of "Father" and "Mother".

There is furthermore no reason that the socialist governments of the world should stop there. The Canadian Supreme Court recently decided that a child can legally have three parents, and ordered the State to register both women in a same-sex relationship as his mothers, with the "family friend" who provided the sperm to be listed as his father. In the dystopian world of polyamorous "families" and "alternative" living-arrangements, why should a birth certificate only show "Progenitor A," "Progenitor B," and not "C," "D," and "E?"

Strictly speaking of course, what the Spanish government and the Canadian Supreme Court have enacted is nonsense, and makes as much sense as King Hardicanute ordering the incoming tide to recede, or a law commanding the Sun to rise in the West. Only in a science fiction fantasy does any human child come into the world with anything other than one mother and one father. Elementary biology shows us that a fertilized human embryo consists of the ovum provided by the mother and the DNA from the sperm, provided by the father.

I am not speaking now of the critical role played in child development by an active, involved father, and the drastic social consequences faced by children in our inner cities who are growing up in a fatherless world. Although that is also part of the brave new world the socialists are wishing on us.

Again in this instance, I am reminded of H.G. Wells's fevered vision of the Island of Doctor Moreau, where half-animal, half-human victims of the Doctor's self-important and unethical experimentation struggled for their identity:

“Say the words,” said the Ape-man, repeating, and the figures in the doorway echoed this, with a threat in the tone of their voices.

I realised that I had to repeat this idiotic formula; and then began the insanest ceremony. The voice in the dark began intoning a mad litany, line by line, and I and the rest to repeat it. As they did so, they swayed from side to side in the oddest way, and beat their hands upon their knees; and I followed their example. I could have imagined I was already dead and in another world. That dark hut, these grotesque dim figures, just flecked here and there by a glimmer of light, and all of them swaying in unison and chanting,

“Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

“Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

“Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

“Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

“Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?”

And so from the prohibition of these acts of folly, on to the prohibition of what I thought then were the maddest, most impossible, and most indecent things one could well imagine. A kind of rhythmic fervour fell on all of us; we gabbled and swayed faster and faster, repeating this amazing Law. Superficially the contagion of these brutes was upon me, but deep down within me the laughter and disgust struggled together. We ran through a long list of prohibitions, and then the chant swung round to a new formula.

“His is the House of Pain.

“His is the Hand that makes.

“His is the Hand that wounds.

“His is the Hand that heals.”

And so on for another long series, mostly quite incomprehensible gibberish to me about Him, whoever he might be. I could have fancied it was a dream, but never before have I heard chanting in a dream.

“His is the lightning flash,” we sang. “His is the deep, salt sea.”

A horrible fancy came into my head that Moreau, after animalising these men, had infected their dwarfed brains with a kind of deification of himself. However, I was too keenly aware of white teeth and strong claws about me to stop my chanting on that account.

“His are the stars in the sky.”

At last that song ended. I saw the Ape-man's face shining with perspiration; and my eyes being now accustomed to the darkness, I saw more distinctly the figure in the corner from which the voice came. It was the size of a man, but it seemed covered with a dull grey hair almost like a Skye-terrier. What was it? What were they all?
There is a difference between a human being and an animal. To be sure, the human being is built upon the chassis of an animal body. But although the animal is endowed with a "living spirit" (Genesis 1:24), the human being also has soul that derives from the breath of God (Genesis 2:7). To deny the difference is to make a mockery of both the human being and of the animal -- it is to transform the animal from that which he is, into a childish cartoon figure; and it is to degrade the human being, and all of his potential, into the passive victim of the bureaucratic intelligentsia.

I am also reminded of the recurrent and defiant refrain in Bertolt Brecht's song "Wie Man Sich Bettet" -- "Ein Mensch ist kein Tier!" A human being is not an animal:
Meine Herren, meine mutter praegte
Auf mich einst, ein schlimmes Wort.
Ich wurde enden im Schauhaus
Oder an einem noch schlimmern Ort.
Ja, so ein wort, das ist leicht gesagt.
Aber ich sage euch: Daraus wird nichts!
Das koennt ihr nicht machen mit mir!
Ein Mensch ist kein Tier!

Your Honors, my mother pronounced
An awful curse on me - that
I'd end up in the morgue
Or an even worser place.
Yes, a word like that, it's easily said.
But I say to you: Nothing will come of it!
You can't do that with me!
A human being is not an animal!
The freedom and potential of the human being is what is being called into question by the multi-faceted Gramscian attacks on human dignity and on marriage & the family. That is what is at stake in the left's culture war today. If we do not win that war, we will cease to be human beings. Let us remember then, "Are we not men?"


(Hat tip TAN/Bookworm.)

I KNOW THIS IS TRUE. I LIVE IN NYC. Maybe this is what it all comes down to: the Lefties are unhappy and they want the state to make them happy, and make "you" unhappy!"


Well, if they aren't, the net effect is still that they are hitting the same day as the Presidential State of the Union speech:
An opposition protest turned violent today as thousands of Hezbollah supporters blocked roads leading into Beirut, burning tires and cars and clashing with government loyalists. The escalation brought the Lebanese capital to a virtual standstill and heightened fears that the nearly two-month long political crisis could burst into sectarian conflict.

Along one major thoroughfare, government loyalists faced off with Hezbollah demonstrators with a brawl and sporadic gunfire. One side raised photos of the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, and burned photographs of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, whose assassination in 2005 originally set off Lebanon’s political turmoil. The other side, lined up across the street, raised photographs of Mr. Hariri and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, and even of Saddam Hussein, while shouting epithets back.

Until now, the opposition protest has largely been noisy but peaceful, as both sides dug in for a long fight. Hezbollah, together with the Christian Free Patriotic Movement and several smaller groups, descended on Beirut last month, calling for Mr. Siniora’s resignation and for early parliamentary elections in order to form a so-called national unity government in which Hezbollah and its allies would have veto power.
Yep, until now, it's been "peaceful." One has to wonder if something big and bad will happen right before the SOTU address tonight. The enemy would love that. And they're very PR conscious.


When I looked into who Norman Finkelstein was the first thought that came to mind is he must be David Duke's long lost brother.

Patrick Ishmael gave me the heads up about Finkelstein being slated to speak at SLU (Saint Louis University) on January 30th . Just another testament to how leftist Universities embrace anti-semites.

Finkelstein is the author of "The Holocaust Industry". To give you an idea of where he is coming from, Noam Chomsky is a big fan of the book and a good friend of Finkelstein's.

Check out Ishmael's post on this to see Finkelstein's Lebanese interview. Also, you may want to let SLU know what you think about having Finkelstein on their campus.

Reliapundit adds: Finkelstein's in "good" company with Chomsky, Jimmy Carter, David Duke, David Irving and Arafat and Binladen and Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad!

Here's a link to a pro-palestinian/pro-Jimmy Carter article he wrote for the leftist mag Znet. And here's a link to a pro-palestinian book of his - in which he defends the intifada.

He defends jihadoterrorists and Nazis - two of the most ruthless genocidal hate-groups of all time, and condemns Israel and Jews - the most besieged nation on the globe and the most persecuted people on the Earth in all of human history. Say no more.


WorldNetDaily reports that the Jewish community of Yemen is under threat from Islamic militants, and forced to pay jizyah:
JERUSALEM – Many of Yemen's Jews this weekend fled their homes for a hotel after receiving death threats from Islamic militants accusing the country's tiny Jewish community of serving as agents for "global Zionism."

The Jews said they feared for their lives. It was disclosed they had been forced to pay special taxes that Islam imposes on Jews and Christians in return for protection and security. About 45 Jews left their village in Sa'ada county in Yemen after Dawoud Yousuf Mousa, one of the heads of the local Jewish community, was warned Jan. 10 if the Jews don't leave within 10 days they would be exposed to killings, abductions and looting.

Four masked militants approached Mousa and delivered a letter to him warning the Jewish community had been under Islamic surveillance. "After accurate surveillance over the Jews residing in Al Haid, it has become clear to us that they were doing things which serve mainly global Zionism, which seeks to corrupt the people and distance them from their principles, their values, their morals, and their religion," the letter stated. "Islam calls upon us to fight against the disseminators of decay," the letter said. The threats have been attributed to disciples of Shiite religious leader Hossein Bader a-Din al-Khouty. [...]

Most of Yemen's Jews were evacuated to Israel in Operation Magic Carpet, a series of semi-secret airlifts between June 1949 and September 1950 that brought 45,000 to the Jewish state with the assistance of Britain and the U.S. A smaller, continuous migration was allowed to continue until 1962, when a civil war in Yemen put an abrupt halt to any further Jewish exodus. Several thousand Jews remained.
There should be made an appeal on their behalf, and I think that they should all be brought over to Israel for their safety and a better life. In a backwards country like Yemen, there's simply no future to be had there.

Monday, January 22, 2007


The Gramscian left has won another victory against Western civilization.
Just persuading the gliberal glitterati to accept bestiality as a normal subject for a normal film would go a long way towards undermining marriage and family in America.

But they have gone even further than that in their depraved attack on decency.

They have succeeded in making it (in the words of the Sundance Festival's official website) "as smart as it is eloquent."

By undermining the foundations of our culture from within, the Gramscian left seeks to render us too weak to withstand the attacks the come from without.

Perversely, although they appear to favor every form of license and the most extreme manifestations of irresponsibility and recklessness, they seek to destroy every traditional human institution (such as church & family) only in order to foster their dystopian State, in which only the State is permitted to mediate any and every aspect of daily life.

Reliapundit adds: The post modern, Gramscian Left wants liberty without Natural Law; this is of course nothing more than libertinage, and it's decadent - perniciously so. These statists are like perverted nannies: they want a strong state in order to mainstream (IOW: force down your throat) their decadence, and also to regulate things like smoking on private property. If he were alive today, the tyrant Caligula would be a member of the Gramscian Left - he'd probably live in SF and vote for Pelosi. Heck: he'd be a big fundraiser for her and the rest of the New Democrats! [Then again, perhaps Caligula was not as bad as toay's Gramscian left: he merely made his favorite horse a Senator; he didn't have sex with it - at least that was never alleged publicly!]

Previous TAB posts on the Gramscian Left HERE and HERE and HERE.