Bin Laden warns against Iraq unity gov't (AP Report)

Well the Democrats and the rest of the Left were right; Bin Laden confirms it: We are in Iraq for the oil.

One has to wonder if the Democrats will have the courage and honesty to cite Bin Laden as a knowledgeable source, in confirmation of their opposition to the war. Naaah.

As for his assertion that we want to control Iraq and take the oil, if it were only so. Unfortunately, we went in and are still there with the best of intentions, to bring "democracy" and "freedom" to these benighted people.

Muslim Democracy In Action

Pakistan is again demonstrating the style of democracy and "free elections" we can expect in Muslim countries. The death of Benazir Bhutto fits right in with what we can expect from Muslims. If you disagree with a politician or political idea, kill her and the idea. No waiting for the election results in Islam. No problems with hanging chads or malfunctioning machines for them. It makes it so much easier to get consensus, doesn't it? And it is all sanctioned by the Koran and a fatwa.

The idea of bringing democracy to the Muslim world would be laughable, if it had not been so tragic for us in Iraq. A friendly (to us and our interests) military dictatorship or autocratic monarch is the best we can hope for from these countries. These are the modern successors to Caliphs and Sultans - and all that the Muslim mind can be expected to accept.

And... we are letting Muslims into our countries in droves. What insanity on our part. Suicide by immigration and asylum is what we are setting ourselves for.... and LOVING IT. It makes us feel so good, so righteous, to let this vermin into our countries. The papers and TV news positively glow when they talk about the Sudanese, Somalis, Algerians and Iraqis we are bringing in and helping to settle into backwater places in Georgia, Vermont or wherever - all that wonderful DIVERSITY. So what if they contribute to charities that support terrorists? So what if they want to go back to their God-forsaken countries to study Islam more authentically? Woe betide anyone who dares to say a discouraging word. Instant branding as a bigot; a RACIST.

What a hassle for poor Bush that he isn't allowing more Iraqis (and Darfuris and anyone else) in, faster. No need for vetting; they are VICTIMS, after all.

And to make Muslims feel comfortable with America? Sultan Barack Hussein Obama, anyone?

Clintonism

Now that Lurleen …errr... Hillary… Rodham Clinton is running for president, all the old discussions about what exactly the Clintons stood for have resurfaced, with a vengeance. Are they: Ex-lefties who became true moderates of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) ilk, who led the Democratic Party away from its left-liberal suicidal tendencies? Left-liberals to the core (flower-in-her-hair Hillary and a draft-dodging pothead), pretending to be moderates to get elected? Ambitious frauds that will say and do anything ("triangulation") to advance themselves and their beliefs? All of the above?

One thing for sure, they and their followers have been great masters at manipulating the national conversation, able to turn previously contentious ideas into the mundane - the new "conventional wisdom" - with appropriate catch phrases that have become a part of the lexicon of this country. They have been so successful at it, that these ideas have become mainstream thinking to a large swathe of the country, including so-called conservatives like George W. Bush. Among the more successful of these ideas that have been burrowed into the national conscience are:

· "It's all about the children" ("we are not really rewarding lazy, promiscuous, irresponsible women; we are taking care of the innocent kids"), which was originally used to justify extensions of the welfare system in the early Clinton years. It has been so successful at tugging at the conscience of the American people that it is still doing splendid service to this day: Think of S-CHIP and its proposed extension to adults "who care for the children"; all kinds of welfare and educational benefits for illegal immigrants and (by extension) to their parents; and - last but not least - "no child left behind". In fact this trope has been so successful, it has been "franchised". The most notable current application is "It's all about the troops", used as the smokescreen by "respectable" liberals who wish to see Bush (and America) defeated and humiliated in the Middle East. To the left, it is unacceptable that America's interests can be successfully asserted and defended by force.

· "Don't ask, don't tell" as a means to begin the process of getting respectability for homosexuality in this country, starting at "the top of the masculinity chain", so to speak. This phrase, hated and derided by the true believers on the left, was the starting point for the left-liberal agenda to make homosexuality respectable and acceptable as an "alternate life style". Conservatives are so much on the defensive that they are fighting to hold the line at this idiotic idea, to prevent further destruction of our national character and culture.

· “Diversity” is by far the most pervasive and most profound of all the “new paradigms” of Clintonism. It changed the entire cultural argument about who we are as Americans. The Clintonites used it to short-circuit all the then-prevailing arguments about multi-culturism (who hears that word now?), integration, “alternate life-styles” and what it means to be American (no more of the REAL culture war on that front now). The word has become so pervasive that we hear now about nothing but diversity in all its … DIVERSITY: bio-diversity; cultural diversity; business diversity; broadcast diversity; ethnic diversity… ad nauseum (googling the word produced over 73 million hits before Google gave out). It is now cited by the courts as a good unto itself. No mainstream politician would dare argue against it now; George H. W. Bush was the last major party candidate to run against multi-culturism - and he lost in ’92. Junior learned the lesson and campaigned in SPANISH. No one dares to ask why it is necessary for a candidate for public office to campaign in any language other than English (or why we need multi-language ballots), since all immigrants are supposed to pass an English language test for citizenship; hence all voters are supposed to know English.

So let not liberals denigrate the LEFT-LIBERAL credentials of the Clintons; they have done more to institutionalize left-liberal ideas than any rabid leftist, in academia or out, could possibly have done.

Mutaween in Kiryas Joel

It seems we have our own religious police in the more backward communities in the US. Specifically, in Satmar Hasidic communities like Kiryas Joel NY, “vaad hatznius,” the rabbinically appointed "modesty committee" there keeps a look out for proper dress and demeanor. Of course they are not really in the same league as the Saudi or Iranian religious police, since they do not have enforcement mechanisms or the power of government to coerce. They can instigate ostracism for anyone who defies the social mores - and people belong to these communities voluntarily. Still, it is incredible that people in the USA allow themselves to be controlled and constricted in their lives in this way.

The existence of such communities is most disturbing in providing a precedent for crazier "communities" to come. How long before we have demands for Sharia Law in Brooklyn and points West?

Protecting WHAT Americans' Civil Liberties?

The Democrats are holding up the domestic intelligence bill in order to "protect Americans' civil liberties" - and also, no doubt, to provide a lucrative revenue stream for their biggest political contributors, US trial lawyers.

Exactly WHAT Americans are they talking about?

The pending bill would allow the continuation of the government effort to monitor communication of individuals in the USA with foreign connections, usually ones whose communication identities are obtained through information gathered in Afghanistan or Pakistan - both places filled, no doubt, with law abiding, America loving, individuals. To hear the liberals tell it, the government is eager to listen in on your aunt Tilly's innocent conversations with her beloved nieces and nephews. If aunt Tilly's phone number or e-mail address were to be found on a lap top in Afghanistan, then she would be liable to be monitored; the improbability of THAT happening is beyond measure. Not only would her civil rights need protecting, but the whole family would probably need extensive psychological assistance.

The fact is, that the only "Americans" that could be conceivably affected would be Muslim immigrants who have come from their various dirty Muslim countries to burden the US with their presence and who still have contacts with their home countries, the nature of which should worry every one of us, "loyal" Democrats, included.

With all the Democrats' concern about "civil rights", the current hold-up is the Administration's insistence on a measure to give immunity to telephone companies that participated in the warrantless domestic spying program. With the proclivity of our splendid Federal judiciary to break new ground in jurisprudence, denial of this immunity would be a "gimme" for the Democrats' favorite constituents, the trial lawyers - oh and of course for all the Muslims who are affected in even the remotest way by this surveillance regime; all the better to help them establish themselves more firmly in this country. Another convenience store, anyone?

Nothing for aunt Tilly, you can be sure.

Lurleen Rodham Clinton

With Obnoxious Bill prancing about as if he is running for president, one has to wonder whether Hillary is the new Lurleen Burns Wallace. Just as George Wallace used his wife as his front for another term as governor of Alabama, Bill Clinton may have his secret ambition for getting back into power (and the limelight) through his "wife". It must be a Southern red neck governor thing.

As loathsome as the thought of having the louche Clintons back in power is, the entertainment/drama value in their return to center stage would almost be worth the damage to the national image (but definitely NOT worth the damage to our national interests).

If she is elected, we could have another first: First divorce in the White House. The grounds for divorce would most likely be political/feminist. She passed up her chance for divorce on emotional/romantic/fidelity grounds a long time ago.

Islamic Values In Action

Reuters story: "Father says killed daughter in Canadian hijab case". When will we accept that Islam and Muslims are not compatible with western society and western values? The obvious retort from the multiculturalists and politically correct apologists is that this case can't be used to taint all Muslims in western countries. True. That is not the issue.

The issue is the compatibility of Muslim "social customs" and our society. The father was acting as true adherent to Islamic values. Defenders of Islam usually say that "honor killings" are not perpetrated strictly in adherence to Islam but are "Arabic" customs (the distinction must be very reassuring to Muslim girls). Well, this family was Pakistani MUSLIM and not Arab.

It will be interesting to hear what the apologists and the flaks for Islam will have to say on this (don't expect extensive coverage of this embarrassing item in the mainstream press in the US and Canada). The real trick will be how it can all be explained away by Muslim rage at western injustice and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

I love you Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's op-ed piece in the NY Times today is the perfect answer to anyone still searching for "Moderate" Muslims. They do not exist. Those that claim to be in that category are just the flaks for Islam.

As she points out, the texture of violence is in the Koran itself, without any mitigation or compassion. So anyone who is a "true" Muslim and claims to be living according to Shariah law, must adhere to the harsh "word". Islam has never had a "reformation" like Christianity; or rabbinical exegesis like Judaism. It is still the religion of bloodthirsty desert raiders. In no way, shape or form does it belong in a western secular, democratic, society; as is being proven daily in Europe, Australia and America. If we would only look at and accept what we see with our eyes.

Islam is not "the religion of peace". Contrary to what the flaks tell gullible Westerners, the word "Islam" does not mean peace; "salam" is peace (like the Hebrew "shalom"). "Islam" means "surrender", as in surrender to the will of Allah and, by extension, anyone that can convince the ignorant masses of Islam (1.3 billion of them) that he speaks in Allah's name.

Guantanamo - Roach Motel

What is every one's obsession with Guantanamo and its "guests"?

It seems as if a whole industry has come into existence to "protect the rights" of this Muslim trash: lawyers and judges and the entire Democratic Party - and a few Republicans too. For the Democrats and other Bush-hating leftists, the attraction is obvious: anything to embarrass and discredit Bush and America.

The biggest hypocrites of all are the Europeans (and Aussies, regrettably) who feel compelled to fight for their "citizens"; though they really don't know what to do with them when they get them. The charade usually ends with some judge relieving the Euro government of the embarrassment by letting the vermin loose, and incidentally keeping the host county's intelligence service gainfully employed keeping track of the freed "victim of American injustice".

In the US, our energetic Judiciary (and the self-important advocacy industry) can get lots of free publicity and make themselves feel relevant by interfering in an area and a cause that is outside their jurisdiction. Our "guests" at Guantanamo were picked up on the battlefield and through "vigorous" action by our intelligence services; they are neither US civilians who are entitled to constitutional protections nor legitimate POWs from countries that fight in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The possibility that we picked up innocent people and that any of these remain in custody is NIL. Every one of the non-Afghans that was picked up in Afghanistan claims to have been there for "study" (it seems that Afghanistan is world renowned for its educational facilities, although it was obviously a deep secret to non-Muslims) or were there to do charity work. With all these hundreds and thousands of charity givers, it would seem that Afghanistan was a welfare paradise until we invaded it; who knew? The fact is that, rules of evidence not withstanding, all these people were there to learn about, initiate and participate in atrocities against us, our friends and our interests. They deserve never to see the light of day again. EVER

Guantanamo should have been the ultimate Roach Motel; those who check in NEVER check out. Instead, it has been turned into a school for martyrs and a cause for the victimologists to "advocate" for and blather about.

The "resolution" for Guantanamo is to go into the hills of Bosnia, find Ratko Mladic; beg his forgiveness and, if he accepts our apologies, appoint him commandant of Guantanamo. He has the fortitude to deal with our "guests" as he dealt with the Muslims in Bosnia. (Radovan Karadzic should, of course, be named Minister For Islamic Affairs for the EU)

Whew............What a relief

According to today's New York Times, "Nigeria Turns From Harsher Side of Islamic Law". What a relief. This merits front page coverage, since it, presumably, shows the growth of "enlightened Islam".

It seems that, in Nigeria today, they are not fully enforcing the harshest aspects of Shariah. While, previously, the Islamic thugs (errrr.. morality police, known as the Hisbah) " ... roamed these streets in dusky blue uniforms and black berets, brandishing cudgels at prayer shirkers and dragging fornicators into Islamic courts to face sentences like death by public stoning", now they "have largely been confined to their barracks and assigned anodyne tasks like directing traffic..." Also, "New programs have sprung up to encourage parents to send their daughters to hybrid public elementary schools that offer traditional Islamic education along with math and reading, in keeping with Islamic principles (really?????) that call for the education of girls." (pictures of little girls entombed in Islamic garb, here). Of course the U.S. is so thrilled with all this, USAID is helping to fund the schooling.

The article says that " .... even before then, the feared mutilations and death sentences almost never materialized. Public floggings are quite common, and in Zamfara, the first state to adopt Shariah as the basis of its criminal code, at least one man had his hand amputated in 2000 for stealing a cow, but other sentences of mutilation have rarely been carried out." If you can settle for public floggings and the occasional amputation, things are really hunky dory now. Why, maybe in a century or so, they may reach a stage of civilization comparable with 19th century Europe.

No word on whether Muslim "clerics" are allowing kids to be vaccinated against polio, though. They think vaccination is a western plot to make Muslims sterile. If only it were so.

More I.Q. Debate

Well the predictable thought police reaction to the current (slightly open) debate about genes, race and intelligence is in full swing. Typical ploys to intimidate the advocates of any scientifically defined linkage include the usual nit-picking about details that can't possibly be satisfied at this early stage of this long-stifled field of study; the researchers have barley been able to define the parameters (including specific genes) that may be important to study or to form a coherent model, or theory, that can be proved or disproved . The reason for the nit-picking is, of course, that this subject is "too sensitive" to study. As the Times says, the fear is of "The risk of giving ammunition to racists or undercutting principles of equality". In other words, the answer must be predetermined and it must be "positive" (i.e., politically correct) before the question is allowed to be asked.

Very quickly, the poor guy who wrote an article for Slate (a liberal web site) that came to at least preliminary "wrong" conclusions was forced to write a follow-up article entitled “Regrets,” because one of the researchers whose results he relied on had a segregationist remote connection. Of course, by that logic no liberal can ever be trusted to do this kind of research, since he will be sure to reach the politically correct conclusions.

The truth, whatever it is, cannot be hidden forever; if the thought police prevent open, freewheeling, research and discussion, then the more nefarious participants with perhaps more harmful agendas will have the field all to themselves.

NYT: Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds

Well, what do you know? the "surge" in Immigration in the last decade is making America dumber and poorer. That can be the only message from the study of census data by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, discussed in the NY Times article yesterday (on page A20, of course).

Immigration "advocates" can caterwaul all they want to re-spin the data and prattle on about the long term benefits and successful assimilation of the great human tide from the 3rd world that is engulfing the U.S. (and Europe, too), but the hard facts cannot be denied. (BTW how does one become an "advocate" for immigration? Is there a special curriculum, at some college, somewhere? or does it just require a truly expanded conscience, with a dash of facile righteousness?) Overall, we are continuing to accumulate a large, indigestible, underclass with insatiable appetites for "services", and continuing pollution of American culture, because the stream of migrants is endless and self-sustaining ("pull migration", it is called).

Of all the disingenuous arguments made in defense of this great tide of immigration, the biggest lie is the one about how these ignorant, backward, peasants are taking jobs that "Americans don't want". Really? Jobs in construction (carpentry, masonry, electrical) that were at one time considered crafts controlled by the elite of the AFL? Americans don't want them while there is 40% unemployment among ghetto youth? If these inner city kids don't want these jobs, what on earth do they want, instead? Unfortunately, GM has drastically reduced its ranks of VPs, so job opportunities for the uneducated underclass are rather limited. It is inconceivable that, if the tide of human debris, this biomass that is drowning the U.S., is stemmed that a) the job prospects of the American underclass will not immediately improve; b) that many of these jobs that "Americans don't want" (except perhaps for the worst of the migrant farm labor jobs) cannot be upgraded and made "fit" for Americans, if necessary, or they cannot be vastly replaced by automation.

The logic of the pro-immigration people seems to be that this is an endless process (no limits on population growth? Are we to absorb all the human debris that the 3rd world can supply?): People come here to take jobs that "Americans don't want"; being a humane society, we are obligated to take care of their health, provide them with sustenance when necessary, educate their children, so that they can become Americans who reject jobs that "Americans don't want"; then, of course, we would need more immigrants to do jobs that "Americans don't want".

Is this not disingenuous? What is the true agenda behind this very blatant illogic? The Liberals are so sure they have this country's majority Whites on the moral ropes (cry racist loud enough and you can make them cringe and accept any ridiculous argument), that they no longer feel the need to even present coherent logic (let alone a defensible truth) for what they are trying to accomplish. Any fig leaf will do.

Gillian Gibbons-Welcome To Islam

It seems that Ms Gillian Gibbons got off lightly for daring to name a teddy bear Mohammad, at least according to American media and the BBC. Only 15 days in jail? Are Muslims going soft in defending the Prophet, "peace be upon him"? Why, before you know it, people will be discussing the truth and validity of his "message" and of the Koran itself.
Naaaah .....These demonstrations of fanaticism ensure the continued (even enthusiastic) obsequiousness of the Western media and "intelligentsia"

It restores one's faith in the barbaric nature of Islam and its adherents every time they react this way for any perceived "insult" to the the Prophet, "peace be upon him".

As for Ms Gillian Gibbons, serves her right; her and all other well meaning, woolly headed, people who try to provide help to, and to "engage" with, Muslims anywhere. If you lie down with dogs, expect to wake up with fleas - or a few lashes, at least.

Why Only Muslims?

Another article today in the NY Times by Andrea Elliott (she got a Pulitzer Prize for her puff pieces about an Imam spreading the “good word” on Islam to America), this time about Jihadists in Morocco with all the same questions about WHY? However, neither she nor any of the other pontificators on this subject ever ask the most pertinent (and obvious) questions, perhaps because the answers cannot support the reporters’ or publishers’ ideological needs: The need to spread “understanding” and “tolerance” and, above all, to avoid any grounds for criticism of “the other’s” culture. Questions that could be asked or topics discussed:

· All the subjects of this article come from very large families (eight to fourteen siblings) living on the very edge of poverty in overcrowded quarters, yet there are never any questions about why they feel they can/must have such large families that cannot be supported by the family unit and, in most cases, by the country’s economy. The result is an excess population that is foisted on more advanced countries (in this case, Spain) who are then excoriated for not accommodating this large, indigestible, alien influx. Or they are expendable biomass, suitable to be used as human bombs. What are these countries doing about controlling their populations? Of course, being Muslim countries, they cannot be questioned on this subject since this is “cultural” and has a hint of externally-imposed population control (“killing the Muslims”). One phenomenon of these large broods is the pride of many families in the “martyrdom” of their sons and daughters, most pronounced amongst the Palestinians. In countries where the population is vanishing, we treasure (some might say, worship) every child. We make rational decisions about how many children we can support, and the countries are then lectured about the need to take in the hordes for humanitarian and economic reasons. Westerners deny themselves large families so that they (or their governments) can be better able to support these unfortunates. And beware if you don’t accommodate them in the style to which they want to be accustomed, they are fully entitled to blow you up. Such idiocy.

· Above all the question to be asked is: Why only Muslims? Other cultures and societies are also overflowing with miserable people, but they don’t generally go around blowing up societies that they wish to join, or indulge in “jihad” and martyrdom for their faith (defenders of the Muslims always bring up the Tamils in Sri Lanka as a counter to the uniqueness of Muslim barbarity, but their mad actions are usually political assassination by extreme method). There are criminals galore in the human tide that is invading –unchallenged- the US and Europe, but only the Muslims are radicalized and politicized and primed to commit mass murder. What is there in Islam itself that produces this fanaticism? No other religion, cult or even political “ism” has “clerics” preaching this kind of violence. No other religion can extract from its source material rationales and justifications for this kind of barbarity in “defense of the faith”. The source of this mad behavior is Islam itself. No rationalization required. Just about every account of the individual Muslim madmen that “martyr” themselves (whether they are born Muslim or convert) seems to have the same progression: Somewhere along the line, the person changes his lifestyle (they seem to nearly always start out as drunkards, fornicators and/or drug addicts); then become “serious”; start attending a mosque (if we are unlucky it will be a “radical” mosque being supported by some Western government and the Saudis); pray 5 times a day; blah, blah, blah; THEN they meet up with some “radical cleric” (seems to be a lot of them around) and really go nuts. Perhaps the solution is simply to shut down all the mosques to prevent the perpetuation and spread of this hateful religion.

Face it: Islam is the problem. It is the mad cow disease of religions. When someone is seriously infected… well, we all know what happens to cows that get infected with mad cow disease.

C.I.A. Officer Admits Guilt Over Hezbollah Files

Nada Nadim Prouty, another wonderful addition to the US of A.

When will we ever learn that "immigrants" from Muslim countries are always dangerous ... toxic?

The DNA Age

Credit the NY Times for carrying a front page article on Sunday about the sensitive subject of DNA, race and intelligence. This is the ultimate taboo subject for the liberal intelligentsia in the West and it is out of character for the Times to discuss this in a fairly balanced manner. Of course, they did have the usual repeated warnings about the "danger" of the subject voiced by various scientists and sociologists. This is tolerable and acceptable even, in a balanced article (a rare thing in the NY Times on politically incorrect topics).

Of course, the issue is not whether and to what extent something called "intelligence" is genetically determined (probably it is to some extent, at least) or that "race" has a genetic basis; it was absurd to ever deny that. The issue is that the denial was for "sociological" and ideological reasons, not scientific ones.

It is unacceptable for so-called "knowledge elites" to put any field of scientific study out of bounds because the research may lead to "unacceptable" conclusions, a rationale that is given very frequently for opposition to research in the field or to even casual comments (see, for example, poor Dr. James Watson). It is especially disingenuous for liberals who insist on the absolute pursuit of truth, even if it upsets the sensibilities of more conservative people, as long as they are white and christian of course; NOT any member of a "protected" class, naturally.

Obama in Orbit

A column today in the NY Times by Mr. Roger Cohen (another deracinated Jew?) makes the case that Obama is the only candidate worthy of consideration because the 3rd world (especially Muslims) can "find itself" in him

This is the most ridiculous – even outrageous - column that Mr. Cohen has written recently (he also recently wrote that we all must subscribe to Al Jazeera - English, which presents, for Western audiences, a sanitized version of what it puts out in its Arabic service - the better to get first hand the rantings of Osama Bin Laden and his followers). By his logic, we must only elect a black (preferably Muslim) president from now on, to appease and to “bridge the chasm” between us and them. By his logic, the French did well in turning their government over to Petén and Laval after disturbing the “environment” by standing up to Nazi Germany. And, of course, the British would have done the right thing by turning to Oswald Mosley instead of that provocateur Churchill, after Chamberlain was found to be not docile enough to appease Hitler. This liberal notion that we have to engage the Muslims and show them contrition and understanding for the “sins of Bush” is at the very heart of why liberalism (at least its foreign policy) is, and will hopefully continue to be, a dying creed. All the liberal media pleas for “understanding”, “engagement” and “tolerance” of Muslim outrage will surely suffer the same fate as the earlier “progressive” pleas for understanding of and engagement with Communism (see, for example, the electoral fate of Henry Wallace and Adlai Stevenson).

It is the Muslims who must try to engage us and explain to us their outrageous and barbaric behavior, not the other way around.

It is precisely the “attributes” that this column praises in Barack Hussein Obama (“Kenyan father, a Kansan mother, an Indonesian stepfather, a childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia and impressionable experience of the Muslim world”) that make him unacceptable as a candidate for the presidency of the United States.

Justice for Jews from Arab Countries

An organization by the name of "Justice for Jews from Arab Countries" is trying to bring attention to the issue of Jews forced out of Arab countries before, during and after Israel's war of independence. A meeting was to be held in New York this week on this subject; naturally, not well covered by US media, as this would muddy up the great victimhood story of the Palestinians. The NY Times article on the planned meeting (no follow-up) was buried in the back pages, as was the original cause when first brought to the UN in January 1948 - and ever since. The story of the collusive activity of the Arab League back in 1947 (even before the official establishment of Israel) is buried, not ever to be resurrected by the western media (and definitely NOT by any Arab "investigative journalist").

This cause is just and must be pursued. Even if there may never be full compensation for the Jewish victims individually, the Jewish communities in the Muslim world were ancient, educated and relatively wealthy. They had extensive community assets and many historical/religious buildings, literature and artifacts. These must be accounted for and returned to the Jewish world, wherever and whenever possible.

A corollary to this story should be a comparison of the fate and current status of the Jewish and Palestinian refugees who left their respective homelands in nearly equal numbers.

The Arab world left their brethren to fester and suffer in refugee camps until the present time, wards of the United Nations, supported and sustained by the West. There they sit, having babies as their only discernable negative contribution to the world - that and elaborations of violence and terrorist "enterprise". They get sympathetic lip service from the Arabs, and money only to sustain violence and hatred. They are the poster children of victimology; the beloved of the fashionable Left, everywhere.

The Jewish refugees dispersed around the world and managed to prosper and thrive by their own efforts and the support of their fellow Jews, wherever they landed. The majority, of course, went to Israel where, after much hardship (and virtually no international non-Jewish support), they have successfully integrated themselves into Israeli society and gotten on with their lives.

It is emblematic of the ignorance of the western media about the history of the Middle East conflict that no one ever challenges the Arab and Iranian spokesmen about their constant assertions that Israel is essentially populated by European Jews in "compensation" for the Holocaust and that, in the extreme Hamas and Iranian view, these Jews must return to Europe so that "Palestine" can be returned to its rightful owners. In fact, Israel is now largely populated by Sephardi Jews, the refugees from the Arab world (and Iran) and their descendants. Where should they "return" to?

Barack Hussein Obama----REALLY?

Has this country completely lost it? Are we seriously considering this son of a foreign-student groupie (to put it kindly) and a Kenyan goatherd (not the greatest role model having, apparently, abandoned his family to return to the hills of Kenya under mysterious and unexplored circumstances), with a hidden Muslim background: his father AND stepfather; his grandmother in Kenya; his schooling in Indonesia; who knows what else.

According to the adulatory article in the Sunday NY Times (November 4, 2007), "Obama's supporters believe that his life story and the angle of vision it affords him hold out the possibility of curing the harm they would say we have done to ourselves ...."; also "The great project of the foreign-policy world in the last few years has been to think through a
'post-post-9/11 strategy,' ..." the bottom line of which is the standard Carterite, left-liberal, rubbish about how we must see the world through the eyes of others; that is, in a nut-shell, subvert America's interests and safety, if necessary, to make others like us. It was this post-Viet Nam mentality, as practiced by the 1st post-Viet Nam president, Carter, that gave us the Ayatollahs in Iran and all their progeny. The devil to these foreign policy establishment "experts", who look at Obama with dewy eyes, is of course Bush and his followers who say morally unambiguous things like "you are with us or you are against us". To the nuancers , it is America's responsibility to make nice with these people rather than the other way around (after all, they bombed us first). Even the Bushies have fallen for this idiocy, to some extent, by their pathetic attempts to win the "hearts and minds" of Muslims (the Karen Hughes fiasco).

As always, the liberal "intelligentsia" let their ideology (wishful thinking, actually) replace common sense; thus Obama, with his colorful "back-story", is the new Great White Hope (pun intended) to bring about the longed-for Nirvana: The Brotherhood Of Man (maybe we need a new, more gender neutral, phrase now). Never mind the murkiness of the back-story; the idiocy and outright danger of Islam, to which he may still be sympathetic to an unknown extent. Compared to Obama, the "unclean" Sharpton may be the more reliable choice for a "president of color" that the liberals (and other deluded, well-meaning, white Americans) long for. At least we know what he wants out of it: what every self-respecting street hustler wants; money, power and self-aggrandizement.

Ultimately, one has to believe in the good sense (liberals might say "prejudice") of the great American white majority in keeping this "icon" out of any position of power in this country.

A plague on the politics of the state of Illinois for foisting this ivy league hustler on the nation.

You Go, Girl

Ann Coulter's column this week about The Anti-Defamation League is true if, as is her usual, slightly over the top. Along with the ADL, Ms Coulter mentions such organizations as the ACLU, which though she doesn't say it, are very heavily Jewish influenced and supported.

Jewish groups fall all over themselves to "engage" and accommodate Muslims and any other "3rd world" personage (e.g., any "African American" or "post-colonial" radical) in the immediate vicinity even to the ultimate destruction of the Jews in America and elsewhere.

Their eagerness to display liberal tolerance, open-mindedness and worship at the feet of the Goddess Diversity is the present day manifestation of the Jewish Ghetto mentality to appease the goy. They reserve their anger for the defeated and discredited white & European anti-Semites who have been pretty much discredited and de-fanged in the West; they are available, easy and even comical targets for the display of facile righteousness by Jews and their right-minded allies in the larger "educated" culture in the US and Europe.

Also, confronting Muslims and other fashionably-oppressed people would upset and embarrass this self-selected "intelligentsia" (Jews and secular Gentiles, alike) tremendously; it would put into question their deeply held faith and accepted beliefs about the nobility of the "oppressed"; the need to "engage" (chat-chat over ACTION at any cost); and the (obviously mistaken) ideas about the equal validity of all faiths and creeds, no matter how crude, violent and oppressive they might be (non-judgementalism writ LARGE).

More than any other groups, Jewish "progressive" lawyers have been in the forefront in the battle to defend, and give comfort to, Muslims accused of any anti-terrorist deed or thought. One wonders what Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and his followers think, in their hearts, about all the Jews rushing to defend them in court, for free. For people like these, who give no quarter in the cultural and religious battle that they are fighting, the concept of aiding anyone who is trying to destroy you (as they are here to do to all of us, and to the Jews in particular) this must be a true affirmation of the beneficence of Allah.

As for these "progressive" Jews..... The Sonnderkommandos were Jewish, too.

S-CHIP and The Dream Act -- It's All About The Kids

One of the great contributions of the Clinton Administration (perhaps the greatest) to the revival of the "progressive" agenda is to label previously-unpopular initiatives as being for the benefit of "children", thus pricking the conscience of the youth obsessed (and increasingly childless) white middle class and mostly put the conservatives (who, after all, are the proponents of "family values") on the defensive. This "camel's foot into the tent" tactic allows the gradual introduction of programs and the setting of precedents for them; every expansion is just a little step (naturally, also for the benefit of the "children").

S-CHIP and the "Dream Act" are two classic examples. For S-CHIP, after introducing the program, naturally we must increase the covered class for the "health of the children" (WHO could be against that?) and, "oh by the way" we need to cover their parents. It wouldn't do to have the parents of the "children" die prematurely and leave them orphans (Bush put a stop to that, at least). Next would have been their adult guardians, etc. etc. The aim, of course is to have Government financed and run health care for all. If that is the goal (and it may be a good goal, any way), "progressives" should have the courage of their convictions and SAY what they are trying to achieve, even if their plan is to do it in an orderly manner, in stages. Just have a plan and SAY IT, and let the country decide.

The "Dream Act" is another effort in the "progressive" agenda to wipe out any limitation on immigration, especially of the poor and "people of color" to hasten the arrival of the Liberal Nirvana , a "majority minority country" - and, incidentally, to increase their electoral base. Next would have been the granting of amnesty for the parents of the "dream kids"; after all, would we be so heartless as to leave these poor kids all alone in this big cruel country, separated from their kin?

Liberals: Have the courage of your convictions.

Another Casualty Of Ideological Correctness

Goodbye, Dr. Watson. Your apologies and supplication were for naught. Trying to correct unacceptable views never gets you back in the good graces of the thought police. Alas, even science has them now.

All your years of eminent work in science have been wiped out because you dared to voice contrary opinion, whether it may have some basis in fact or not. It really doesn't matter.

On certain subjects, it is impermissible to raise unpleasant doubt. Scientific enquiry or speculation are simply not permitted on on sensitive topics. So much for freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

Poor Dr. Watson

It seems that Dr. James D. Watson, eminent geneticist, has committed the ultimate sin: talking about race and intelligence. He was dis-invited, ostracized, humiliated and made to eat his words post-haste. Liberals (and cowardly conservatives, too) freely admit that this subject cannot be discussed, let alone researched scientifically. They spout all kinds of gibberish justifications about how intelligence can't be defined; different kinds of intelligences; etc. etc. ; a cloud of obfuscation to hide in.

The bottom line is, of course, that they cannot accept the risk that there is some correlation between racial groups and any type of intelligence, however many types there are or however defined.

The question is: what are they afraid of? Could it be that they really suspect/expect that there is a strong genetic (not necessarily "racial") aspect to mental capability which is inherited? Logically, of course, there must be, since everything in our physical make-up, including the brain and the nervous system, is generated through the instructions in our inherited genes.

The arrogant "knowledge elite" must feel that only they are sophisticated enough to make the subtle distinctions in the findings of any research that is conducted; the rest of us "can't handle the truth". Such a mind set insists that any race-related physical or mental differences must be denied and denounced rapidly and emphatically, before anyone can draw any unpleasant conclusions or make embarrassing assertions. It leads to ridiculous denials, for example, of racial differences in athletic abilities, requiring people to deny what is obvious, measurable and plain to see.

These are the same people who insist that all things must be submitted to scientific scrutiny, including, of course, the creation story in the Bible. What is theirs to assert is truth, what others may wish to assert or question, any "inconvenient truth", must be denounced vociferously as "RACIST" - the ultimate denunciation

Ahhhh it must be wonderful to be the keeper of the flame of political correctness and righteous opinions.

The Truth, the Whole Truth.....

Peter King, R-NY, is in trouble for speaking the truth: There ARE too many Mosques and way too many Muslims in America, living their own cloistered life; their primary loyalty to Islam and the Umma rather than to America. This will be the litmus test of the character and courage of Rudy Giuliani. King is his "homeland security adviser", a position that he is very qualified for. He is also one of the few politicians in politically-correct and immigrant-obsessed NY who has the courage to tell the truth about the danger that Muslims pose to America. Our insane immigration policy is flooding this country with backward, ignorant and DANGEROUS people. Spending any time at all in the International Arrivals Building at JFK is a terrifying and sickening experience as the hordes of Burqa- and sherwal-clad mass of human debris comes pouring out of the Customs area. We are supposed to be screening people who come here (Whites need not apply) but our screen seems to have gaping holes in it.

The pressure on Giuliani is already building. The question is: can he handle the truth and does he have the character and conviction to stand up to the politically correct mob, that is now America's "free press"?

Ulm - Then and Now

How ironic. The city of the Jew Albert Einstein is now the city of Turks and crazy Muslim converts. For a 1000 years the Germans have been persecuting the Jews, finally resorting to mass murder to get rid of them. Well, now they have their ideal replacements: People who are more fanatical and murderous than the Germans themselves. A marriage made in heaven.

Perhaps the God of Israel is taking His vengeance at last.

The Last Refuge of Scoundrels

Poor Jena LA. It has been invaded by all the scoundrels and street hustlers looking for a little free publicity and to "raise their profile". Naturally, all they have to do is say the secret word "racist" and the duck descends in the form of the national media to shower the gift of free publicity on them, and to induce white America to wallow in guilt and beg forgiveness - again and again. A sleepy little town with a local high school problem is made to bear the guilt of the nation on its shoulders.

It has become the greatest blackmail scheme (no pun intended) for the "reverends", who seem to instantly appear out of nowhere with their followers (and, naturally, the press!) to do their "sidewalk act". It would be interesting to know (a question that is never asked!) what all these people do for a living, how they can take the time off to go to these traveling road shows, and who is paying their way there. Most likely, the US taxpayer, who, it seems, has been paying "reparations for slavery" since at least the New Deal.

As for the "leaders", it serves America right for allowing our guilty conscience about slavery (it's been over for a long time now!) to give these charlatans the run of the airwaves for so long!

Surely the cry of RACISM has become the last refuge of scoundrels.

Happy Ending

With the James Report to Congress on Iraq, today, we have come the full circle. None of the commentators seem to have picked up on the interesting point that the only Iraqi institution that seems to be working (obviously, the one that the US military would be most knowledgeable in dealing with) is the Iraqi army. If we are to curtail our military activity and turn security over to the Iraqi military, guess what? We would be opening the way to another Arab/Muslim military dictator. What a surprise.

Realistically this should have always been our hoped-for outcome. All neo-con fantasies about Arab/Islamic democracy were just that-- fantasies. If our military trainers have done their job well in Iraq, we will end up with a military strongman who is sympathetic to our interests; a Moustache Muhammad or maybe a Shiite Moustache Ali that we can have some measure of control over.

Of course it will be interesting to see the reaction of all these people who are demanding that the US military disengage and only play a support ("shopkeeper/teacher") role in Iraq, when a military man, not obviously antagonistic to American interests takes over the country. Will there be calls for us to "re-engage" or more strident calls for us to leave all-together, thus opening the way for a different strongman who wouldn't be ours, or influenced by us at all.

Another Saddam? Oy Vay

The Audacity of Kleptocracy

President Felipe Calderón of Mexico is mad at us for not taking his excess population off his hands and turning them into earners of foreign exchange for Mexico. What bold-faced chutzpah. He is actually annoyed that we are trying to enforce our own immigration laws. He considers Mexico to be anywhere a Mexican lives, so that he has a right to tell us what we can and cannot do with the Mexican biomass here in the USA, whether they are here legally or illegally.

He says that ”Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.” In other words, for purposes of relieving Mexico of its poor, the US is really an extension of Mexico. But, of course, this is not a symmetrical relationship: We certainly can’t go over the border and do what we do best (invest; start businesses. Or whatever under the protection of US law, The Kleptocracy wants us to be their dumping ground and cash cow - and we are not allowed to complain or react.

Well, the US has been lying down and exposing its throat to all manner of 3rd world human debris for so long that they now expect it as their right.

If indeed Mexico is wherever Mexicans are, then we should carry this logic forward to its natural limits and annex Mexico: “One country; two peoples”. At least this way all Mexicans would get the benefits of American law and justice and the Americans would be able to invest and own assets in Mexico protected by American law.

"Vengeance Is Mine" saith the Lord

Europe's Muslim problem must be divine retribution for Europe's persecution and massacre of its Jewish population.

For a 1000 years Europe isolated, persecuted, forced conversion of, and finally tried to annihilate people whose only wish was to be integrated into European society and to contribute to science, art, culture and the economy. When given the chance, Jews contributed in all these areas far above their proportion of the population.

Well Europe has succeeded in making itself virtually "Juden Frie" and then??????

Why they "welcomed" Muslim "guest workers" and colonial refuse. Then....... the deluge. How delicious.

Instead of the productive Jews, anxious to assimilate and contribute, Europe now has an indigestible, DANGEROUS mass within it that will overwhelm it and destroy its way of life.

Only one thing will complete re-payment of Europe's debt to the Jews: Europe must take in all the Palestinian refugees; in fact, ALL the Palestinian Arab population. Just think what a wonderful addition to Europe they would be. By every account of European (e.g., BBC) reporting on the Palestinians, their population consists entirely of noble peasants; urban intellectuals and heroic freedom fighters. Nary a dud in the bunch. What an improvement over the riff raff floating into Europe from North Africa, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh. etc. etc.

Divine retribution, indeed.

RIP Diana: Symbol of Western Decadence & Decline

If she were Catholic, she would have been (at least) beatified by now: a symbol of “goodness”; “tolerance”; “caring”; the ultimate in multi-cultural openness ..blah ..blah ...blah..

In fact, she is a symbol for (the epitomy of)

1. The triumph of mediocre celebrity; before Paris Hilton, there was (and is) Diana.
2. The triumph of facile righteousness: “right thinking” and “right action” at no personal cost; achieving easy “moral” victories that require no real personal sacrifice. She was the prime example of the current Euro-American intellectual fashion that holding and promoting a politically correct idea is an end in itself and that actually examining the truth and consequences of a particular idea is not required, as long as that idea is “sincerely” held and fits the currently accepted view by the “progressive” social set.
3. “Multiculturalism Gone Wild”: Her penchant for pursuing, and giving herself to, Muslim men became the final hall mark of her presence on this earth. Whether she actually “loved” any of these slimy men or she did it mostly to shock and embarrass her former husband’s family (much as white girls who openly went with Black men did in the old American social order, when THAT had shock value) is really immaterial. The fact that she would so debase herself and her position (the mother of the future “Defender of the Faith”) made her a hero to the advocates of the “multicultural enterprise” (as it is sometimes grand-eloquently called). In fact she is now the patron saint of all English shop-girls whoever aspired to catch a rich Arab for fun and profit. Sadly, conspiracy theories about her death that posit the idea of an “honor-killing” by the British establishment are really farfetched because the sense of honor that would be required to carry them out has been lost in the debased Britain that she so eloquently symbolizes.

Burying the lede

As always, the NYT, in its relentless commitment to "diversity", buries important stories relating to the negative consequences of having an extensive Muslim presence in America . Two articles: "New York City Police Report Explores Homegrown Terrorism" (buried: page B3) and "Muslim Groups Oppose a List of ‘Co-Conspirators’ " (buried: page A19) get the standard Times (and most other Liberal media) treatment. One wonders why these articles which, respectively, represent an official NYC police study and US Justice Department action, and both point out (implicitly if not explicitly) the dangers posed to America by having unintegratable Muslims running around freely in this country, with the usual "rights" assertions, don't get more play in the media.

The 1st article is about an NYPD study about how Muslim immigrants can and do get "radicalized" in America (the usual BS about alienation ...blah ...blah). Not discussed, of course is why it is only Muslim immigrants who get radicalized and not immigrants from a myriad other backgrounds do not succumb by the same logic. Of course, the "game-changer" here is Islam itself: It is a doctrine of fanaticism and violence. Nothing more ... nothing less.

The 2nd article is about the US Government naming a slew of Muslim "charities" as "un-indicted co-conspirators" in a Texas terrorism trial. As expected, the usual suspects in the "civil liberties" industry and, of course, the Muslim groups themselves are howling about how this "could ratchet up the discrimination faced by American Muslims" and stigmatization of Muslims (can someone who is guilty really be stigmatized?) Again, any counterarguments are not presented (they "didn't do it", etc. etc.?), probably because they can't be. So it is all the usual obfuscation about discrimination; "diversity" of views; whatever. Again, no discussion of why no other ethnic groups have these "issues" with their charities.

Seems to be a pattern there, right?

Tancredo For President

According to the Times, "During a debate in Iowa on Sunday and in other recent campaign appearances, Mr. Tancredo said that the United States should reserve the right to bomb Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, in retaliation for a major terrorist attack on American soil."

Hooray for Mr. T. Along with his stellar position on immigration, his approach to the Muslim barbarians clinches my vote for him.

Unfortunately, his non-PC positions means he will have no chance to be nominated and, just as sad, people who can't vote in Republican primaries will never have a chance to register their support for him.

Naturally, all in the political establishment were "shocked" by his forthright positions ; a State Department spokesman called his statement “absolutely crazy.” He is the only sane one who understands the mentality of Muslims: They only respect force and brutality that is equal to their own.

Too bad.

But TANCREDO IS RIGHT and all the others are cowards and fools.

"Peace" Democrats --- Then and Now

It is quite remarkable to compare the words and actions of "Peace" Democrats during the Civil War (called "Copperheads" then) with the Democrats of today prattling about the (misnamed) "war on terror". The arguments used then: "let's negotiate with the South"; the "reasonable" argument of seeing things from the "others'" perspective; blah.. blah are pretty much the same arguments and course of action being touted now on how to deal with the Islamic world. Maybe there is a genetic component to being a Democrat that has not been recognized as yet.

In the Civil War. Union troops escorted one of the more inflammatory Democratic leaders, Clement L. Valladigham, to the Confederate lines and expelled him from Union territory. He eventually ended up in Canada (shades of Vietnam era deserters). If we could only escort the "Peace" Democrats (big, fat Ted, as a start) to Wazirstan now The sight of Pelosi, Boxer and H. Clinton in burqa would be so enjoyable and would do wonders for the morale of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. As for Ted, well the Afghans do enjoy a bit of "boy flesh" now and then.

What we must "get out" of Iraq

It is outrageous what the anti-war movement, most especially supposedly "responsible" politicians, are proposing that the US do about Iraq. The visceral hatred of George Bush and everything he does that drives the Democrats is now being abetted by Republicans who are running scared for their political lives (apparently, their political survival is more important to them than the country's interests and its honor).

Stipulations: 1) The Neo-cons who drove the war were incredibly naive, uninformed and incompetent. The war was NOT for Halliburton or "oil" or Israel or any of the other bugaboos of the Left; it was fought to "liberate" people who are incapable of understanding the meaning of liberty or to exercise liberty responsibly (AKA Muslims); 2) The Administration fought the war stupidly and incompetently.

All that said, the US has invested a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq and it would be unconscionable to leave there in defeat and without reward. THAT is what any withdrawal or "re-deployment " would be, no matter how the war opponents may wish to characterize it. As a minimum, our war aims must be:
1. We must not be defeated or even be perceived to be defeated. We can only leave when we SAY we want to leave after completion of our mission, whatever we choose to define the mission to be. The mission must include the installation of an unambiguously friendly regime in the country; at least as friendly as our other Arab "friends" in the region.

2. "Leaving" must include our ability to retain military bases and troops in Iraq to fight any local insurgency we choose to fight and, MOST important, to offer a visible threat to our state enemies in the region, Syria and Iran. They must be able to see that we are within easy striking distance of their territory, with a credible force and with full freedom of action.

To Al Qaida or Not to Al Qaida... That is the question

In classic Liberal fashion, we keep having the endless discussions (hair splitting extravaganzas) about whether there is an "Al Qaida" connection to every outrage that is committed in Iraq, Europe, the US or whatever (and in the dissection of every plot that is uncovered) in the name of Islam. The chorus is especially loud whenever poor George Bush says we are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq or makes any connection, no matter how peripheral, between the war in Iraq and 9/11. Of course, he is paying for his original dissembling after 9/11 about who, or what, the real enemy is. If he had been forthright and called our enemy by its true name, ISLAM itself, rather some nebulous characterization as a "war on terror", the logic of the current fight in Iraq would be self-evident. That is who the enemy is. The only aim of the Liberal (and sadly, some conservative apologists for the Arabs, too) obfuscation is to divert attention from the real enemy, a group "of color" (i.e., any group that is non-Western and not Jewish/Christian), for whom any blame for anything is unacceptable and antithetical to their world view and ideology.

Whether the plotters and perpetrators are "Al Qaida" or "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" or "home grown" British Muslims or visiting doctors and engineering students, the common thread is ISLAM. Nothing more and nothing less.

It was Muslims, in the name of ISLAM, who attacked us on 9/11; 7/7l Madrid; Bali Kenya; USS Cole; whatever. Let's stop the hair-splitting and get on with the job of isolating, expelling and, if necessary, extirpating all Muslims from within our midst. Nothing else will give us security and peace of mind.

The Craziness Continues ...and Continues

What is it going to take to finally convince Europe and the USA of the danger in their midst: The vast and growing and "alienated" Muslim population? When are we going to finally wake up and understand that it is Islam in its fundament (not "fundamental" Islam) that is the problem and the rationale for all the violent acts being perpetrated or attempted in our countries?

After every outrage all the "progressives" expound another rationale for the action: downtrodden, alienated, outraged people. Could be anybody really; just happens to be Muslims who are the fashionable downtroddens now. So much easier to explain when the perpetrators are of the "underclass". All the tired old Marxist clichés can be trotted out. But the fact is that the perpetrators can be and ARE of all classes and educational backgrounds: pizza deliverers; taxi drivers; DOCTORS, even. And what is the common denominator for all of them? Islam, of course.

Oh for all the didactics: Wahabis; fundamentalists; extremists; etc. etc... ad nauseum. They are all observers, adherents, "the faithful" to Islam. They all use basic Islamic doctrines ("defense of the faith"; Jihad or whatever) as the motivation and rationale for their actions.

Face the facts: Muslims can never be trustworthy citizens of a western style democracy as long as their first loyalty is to the Umma and not to the interests of their country of citizenship and residence.

It is well past time to rethink policies on immigration, asylum and student visas. Muslims must be excluded from entry into and, most particularly, long-term residence in our countries.

Plots, Politics and the Weight of Page 1

Last Sunday, the new Public Editor at the New York Times tried to defend the Times' coverage of the story about the Muslims (from the Caribbean, yet), who were arrested for plotting to blow up a fuel line at JFK Airport. He was trying to answer complaints that the paper downplayed the story in order to deny credit to the Bush Administration "war on terror".

The issue of coverage on this story was not only about the Times' unwillingness to credit the Bush Administration with any positive coverage on the "war on terror". In fact the New York Times is unwilling to give prominent coverage to any story that might impugn the actions of Muslims (ANY Muslims), especially domestically.

If anyone were to dispassionately review the Times' coverage of domestic terror-related stories in the US, they would find that it is almost always buried deep in the National or Metro sections. It must pain the writers at the Times to even mention that the suspect or perpetrator is a Muslim. The masquerade is especially hard to keep up, one would imagine, since Muslims have such distinctly MUSLIM names! Whether it is conviction of the guys who conspired to blow up the subways in New York; various imams and "scholars" involved in buying weapons for the Jihadists; the killings in Seattle or the attack at the El Al terminal in LA (whatever happened in these cases, anyway?), the Times is reluctant to give the stories anything above the minimum requirement to cover "all the news that is fit to print (minimally)". It must pain their editors to cover any story that contradicts the Times mantras: "diversity" and "tolerance".

The Times very prominently displays when a Muslim is found not guilty or (more usually) some soft-headed judge over-rules the Government and releases a Muslim suspect. The Times is also happy to play up, on its front pages, the touchy feely stories about "good" and "wise" Muslim imams giving advice to young Muslims about "dating" or other American customs. Of course the Imam in Brooklyn (later in New Jersey) also said it is his duty to convert America to Islam, but that was buried in the last paragraph.

Let's Annex Mexico

All this rubbish about "regularizing" the human debris pouring in over the border would be settled if we annexed Mexico. It is the ONLY logical solution. Apparently we can't live and prosper without the hordes of Mexican workers, but at the same time we are paying very dearly for the contamination of our country, not to mention the costs for their medical, educational and general welfare expenses (they do see to have a LOT of babies). So why not annex Mexico? That way we can utilize its resources to help the Mexican biomass.

We would certainly do a more honest job of using these resources for the betterment of the Mexican people than the kleptocrats who rule that country now.

If we have to take the people, then let's get the resources too.

History Revised

The 40th anniversary of the 6 Day War has brought out all the revisionist fantasies of the Left in the US, Europe and Israel. the (Bolshevik) party line is that Israel was better off without liberating Judea, Samaria and Gaza and conquering the Sinai and the Golan. If Israel had only been willing to cower and shake before the Arab threats, they would be safer now and there would be PEACE with their Arab neighbors. The sad truth is that there is not even a drop of truth in this fantasy. It is only Liberal/Leftist wishful "thinking" and revisionist history. Before 1967, the Arabs were fully convinced, and STATED SO, that they could destroy Israel at the very next opportunity; many Israelis were convinced of that too. If Israel had not conquered Sinai, the Egyptians would never have made peace. If Israel had not conquered Golan, the Syrians would not even be contemplating any kind of accommodation (they can never accept PEACE, per se).

If Israel had not liberated the Jewish homeland, the Palestinians would not be begging for a "two-state" solution. And, if Israel had not demonstrated its prowess, NO ONE would be discussing a "lasting peace". People conveniently forget that even after the war and UN resolution 242 (the land-for-peace rubbish) the Arabs met at Khartoum and declared the three no's to Israel - no peace, no recognition and no negotiation. It was only much later that Sadat, acknowledging the sad state of the Arab world, and in order to get US aid, broke the log jam by going to Jerusalem (JEWISH Jerusalem) and offering peace for the return of the Sinai.

Let us not let the Leftist rubbish re-write history.

No question, Israel made many mistakes after 1967:
1 They should have immediately expelled the Muslim "clerics" off the Temple Mount and returned it to Jewish control ( the caterwauling would have long ago died down, by now)
2 They should have "encouraged" the Palestinian Arabs to follow the Egyptian and Jordanian armies out of Gaza, Judea and Samaria, by whatever means necessary.
3 They should NOT have fallen for the Oslo trap. At a minimum, they should have imposed their own three no's before agreeing to Oslo: No Jerusalem for the Arabs; no "right of return"; no dismantling of ANY Jewish settlements in the Jewish homeland (NO JUDEN RAUSS in the Holy Land).

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory

Article in NYT today: "Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory"

FINALLY! An American Reporter (NY Times, no less) understands about these people. Last two paragraphs tell it all: They need a dictator!

It's Not Just Arabs and Israel, Is It?

From AP: Muslims from Guyana & Trinidad plan a "chilling" attack on JFK fuel line; "seven men were arrested in what officials called the early stages of a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and destroy FBI offices and other building"s; "authorities broke up a plot to bomb underwater New York City train tunnels to flood lower Manhattan"; "six people were arrested a month ago in an alleged plot to unleash a bloody rampage on Fort Dix in New Jersey"
ALL are Muslim (immigrant and local converts) not all are Arab. Isn't it time we woke up that the problem is Islam itself and not any particular grievance by a group of "aggrieved" people. In an article on creeping Islamism in Turkey in the times yesterday, Kadim Yildirim, a history teacher in Turkey put it correctly: Islam is not like other religions. It influences every part of your life, even your bedroom."
WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE DOING IN THE USA? AND WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO LET MORE IN? Do we have a death wish?

For God's sake (and all our own sakes), when are we going to wake up? We never will as long as the Liberal establishment keeps feeding us the rubbish about lovely Muslims, like the article in yesterday's Times about Muslims in CA, who have an AMERICAN (Really?) Imam who discusses dating and other modern American trivia. How sweet; how "American" of them.

Why?......Why?......Why?......Why?......

Another article in the Times today about the non-assimilation of Muslim Turks into Germany (remember, Turkey is supposed to be one of the most advanced and moderate Muslim countries in the world, now).

The question never asked or answered is WHY? Why do western countries have to put up with these people? Especially why they have to let these people continue to immigrate to our countries (in this case, "pull migration" by arranged marriages from their home country). Turks have been in Germany since the 50's and, if anything, as they grow in numbers, they are more insular and un-assimilated than ever.

Surely, one has to evaluate our principles and values (human rights; multi-cultural drivel; WHATEVER) and apply them logically. Yet the people in western countries and, more importantly, the Government and "opinion makers" just stand frozen like "deer in the headlight" while their societies, institutions and value systems are systematically being overrun, while they have endless "intellectual" discussions about "rights", diversity (that new "holy of holies") and other misapplied principles.

Never before in the history of human civilization have people stood so quietly by while their whole way of life was transformed: not by invasion and military conquest but in the defense of puerile and grossly misapplied principles.

Phew!!!!!!!! We thought were were in real trouble!

AP Story: "While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely. That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely."

Thanks goodness. Only 13% of them want to kill us. Considering that there are estimated to be (no one knows the true number) seven million Muslims in the US now, only 900,000 want to kill us. What a relief.

I wonder: do the adherents of any other religion consider violence against their fellow countrymen a legitimate way to defend their faith? Ahhh Islam, The peaceful religion.

Yipeeeeeeee The End Of White America

The NY Times was positively ecstatic the other day as it reported that the number of non-white people in America now OFFICIALLY exceeds 100 million (it probably is much higher since no one knows how many 3rd world illegals there are here).

It is positively astounding how the (white) "knowledge elite" (AKA the Liberal Establishment) can't wait to have the white majority and European character of the USA surpassed (and in their fondest wish, suppressed) by any means possible. It is surely worthy of mass psychological analysis to determine what the basis of this hatred is: Is it self-hate (which is certainly prevalent among the Jewish part of Liberalia)? Maybe it is facile Marxism (certainly prevalent, too) which identifies "people of color" with the Marxist lumpen-proletariat and ascribe to them (against all evidence) the nobility of character that Marxists ascribe to the down-trodden.

Since the mass of lower-class whites (definitely not part of the Liberal Establishment) are considered to be red neck yahoos without the noble sensibilities of the knowledge elite, the Liberals romanticise the non-white under-class (genital cutting, anyone? homophobia, anyone? purdah, anyone?) as the possessors of the elite's own sensibilities, which will bring America to a higher state of enlightenment once they become the majority and can control the American electoral process (naturally, they will be smart enough to allow themselves to be guided by the elite and not by their own charlatan, 3rd world leaders). Notice how Liberals fight even against merit-based immigration, vice the "pull migration" of family "re-unification" of the under-class illegals.

The insanity of it all. Never has any society with a distinct ethnic and (superior) cultural majority been so hoodwinked into giving up its own majority status and been lulled into the suppression of their own culture in the name of such abstract (and misapplied) principles as "equality" and "fairness" and the fear of being branded "racist".

The Craziness Continues

"Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack Fort Dix and slaughter scores of U.S. soldiers". What are these people doing here?

When will America wake-up? This isn't just about Arabs. All Muslims are toxic. Some of these people were taken in as refugees from Kosovo. We housed these "poor, mistreated" Kosovars at Ft Dix when they came in. This is how they repay America. They will never have any loyalty except to Islam. Islam is the Mad Cow disease of religions.

WAKE UP, AMERICA

The Inmates Are Taking Over the Asylum

The sustained drum beat from Liberals and deceived Conservatives to legitimize illegal aliens in the US has an even more outrageous note now. Last year, and this year again, we have the spectacle of people who are here illegally, prominently participating in the demonstrations to legalize their law breaking. Such audacity. People who have no legitimate standing in this country are now demanding that we change our laws for their benefit.

Certainly, the demonstrations are being arranged by self-appointed "advocates" and ethnic politicians, always looking for more "constituents" to enhance their power base. Liberals are big on the sanctity of the law and the well-ordered society but have become seduced by their vision of America as the multi-culturalist paradise and a warped sense of "justice" for the "downtrodden" to abandon any sense of the sanctity of the law. The propaganda is relentless.

The NY Times ran two articles in the last week about deportation of illegal aliens, both, of course, featuring injustice and pain to the "children", the hook to excite the sentiments of well meaning (and generally uninformed) people , especially "family-values" conservatives. In both cases, American-born children of illegals have supposedly been left parent-less by deportation of parents. There seems to be a general acceptance of the principle that all families can only be united in the USA; if these parents are so concerned, they should not have put themselves and their children in such a situation by flouting our laws. The solution is quite simple, really: take the children with you. The abuse of our constitutional provision on citizenship at birth requires new thinking, including the amendment of the Constitution, if deemed necessary. A child born to people here illegally must not be granted automatic citizenship.

What would our system of laws be if it can be construed that laws are inoperative if an illegal act harms the "children"? Defense lawyers and advocates would have a field day making one outrageous claim after another. Americans need to be a little more selective when indulging in this kind of facile righteousness.

The other facile argument that is made is that you can't deport 12 million people (resources; impact on the economy; etc.) . By this logic, any crime must be forgiven if committed often enough or if every individual criminal cannot be apprehended and brought to justice; if enough unsolved murders are committed (gang wars, anyone?) then we can't prosecute any murders. What idiotic logic. The important thing is that the crime is not forgiven and that criminals are brought to account as the forces of the law can manage it. Illegal immigration needs to be criminalized and all levels of government must be obligated to enforce the law and to turn the miscreants to the proper government agency when he/she is identified. In such a blatant act as the mass flouting of the immigration laws, all methods must be utilized, including profiling and roundups. Suggestion for the first place to start roundups: taxi garages in the large cities to get rid of at least some of the Muslims here illegally from the Middle East and South Asia; people may have conveniently forgotten the participation of Arab taxi drivers in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. America must re-establish control of its borders, even if the methods to be used against the downtrodden are not politically correct.

The Craziness Accelerates

"Rewriting the Ad Rules for Muslim-Americans" - NY Times Article 28 April 07.

America's rush to cultural (and physical?) suicide continues. In the heedless pursuit of short-term profits, American business "accommodates" Islam and Muslims; bending our culture and institutions to "embrace" the adherents of this retarded religion. Major corporations are being urged to advertise to Muslims in their own terms (I don't recall such efforts being made for, say, the Amish or ultra Orthodox Jews, however), even to supporting a Koran cable channel. How frightening is that?

The coda says it all. The last line in the article quotes a Muslim woman: “We should be included,” Ms. Fouz said. “We live here.” Yes, in America but not of it.

Non-Judgementalism Run Amuck

The tragedy at VA Tech is perfect illustration of the consequences of the creed of non-Judgementalism that has been the ruling doctrine of the Liberal elite that have set the philosophical rules that have guided this country, more or less, since the 2nd World War and, most definitely since the Warren Court rulings in the 1960s and 70s, where all social ills, all "injustices" and all discrimination were made aright by the will of the Liberals in academia, the media and, most importantly, the courts.

It was sickening to hear and read these "Laputians" explain how nothing could be done, really, to stop Cho Seung-Hui without somehow trampling on his "rights" and his individual "autonomy", as if these were some holy writ, instead of newly-established orthodoxies and creeds by the "social science" industry; made into law by activist judges and Liberal politicians during the lamented decades, past.

Most disheartening is that these doctrines are now almost beyond debate; even Conservatives have been brainwashed into accepting them with very little question. Indeed, it seems that the tenured radicals in our universities have accomplished their goals of brainwashing the "knowledge elite" to accept these ideas as established truths. Along with the myriad newly invented rights, the basket of ideas and truths that have become the new conventional wisdom in America (and all the West, really) include the whole politically correct agenda: "multiculturalism"; "diversity"; and above all, non-Judgementalism. Communist brain washers have now been supplanted by the politically correct crowd in the West.

Of course, the Liberals need an excuse for what transpired (woe is them: the killer is an Asian and not some white male red-neck). The blame goes to "the gun lobby" and local (mostly white) small town cops and magistrates who, somehow, did not execute the elaborate rules set up to separate Cho Seung-Hui from the rest of society. Also, the first echoes of the politically correct, racialist explanations about Cho Seung-Hui's "alienation" from a cruel (and racist?) society because of his Asian "background" have begun to be heared. The fact is that guns have been available in America since its founding without any such notable and tragic events occurring. However the license to exercise "freedom" and "autonomy" and the urge to "empowerment" that allow people to act out in this way are of recent vintage.

When will the people of America and Europe wake-up to the nonsense that has been embedded into our society and social norms by the Liberals? The Laputians need to be removed from intellectual primacy in this country.

Liberal Hubris

What a perfect example of Liberal hubris: Governor Jon Corzine is in an SUV; front seat; no seat belt (probably speeding, too, but we'll never know that since the State Police would be his flunkies).

Liberals are always ready to "instruct" (nay, to require) the boobery to do what is "correct". However, these rules and instructions do no have to apply to the Liberals themselves; they are above such things, since they operate at a higher plane of knowledge and conscienceness than the rest of us. Whether it has to do with integrated public education (where do the Kennedys send their kids to school, I wonder?), drug use/sobriety, or any other aspect of facile righteousness, the Liberals' motto is: "Do as we say, not as we do".

Ahhhhhh hubris.

Imus The Boob

People are outraged at Imus for being politically incorrect. He has been doing this throughout his entire career, but he has now hit on the two most sacred "protected" groups in the U.S.: Blacks and women. Poor fellow, you'd think he'd know the sacred cows in America by now.

He deserved to be pushed off the air but not for what he said. Rather for abasing himself before that charlatan, street hustler, Al Sharpton.

Why I love George W. Bush

Whatever the complaints about W (even incompetence), he is the only U.S. President now and inthe forseeable future, who has sent U.S. troops overseas to kill Muslims. That act alone validates his presidency.

I only wish he would tackle Muslims in America as didgently. please, no more fitr celebartions or prayer meetings at the White Gouse.

God Bless George W. Bush.

Palestinians aren't starving, after all

"Aid to Palestinians Rose Despite an Embargo" - NYTimes 21 March 07
After all the caterwauling about the poor Palestinians and the "embargo", it seems that they are being taken care of in the same old way, as the world's oldest and most dependent charity case. If anything, they are becoming more dependent than ever. It seems that, whether in Greater Israel (AKA the West Bank and Gaza) or in the camps in other Arab countries, the Palestinians have come to expect that the world (but definitely not their "fraternal" Arabs) will support them. They can just sit back and breed: they have one of the world's highest birth rates. Of all the misdirected charitable instincts, the West's financial support of the Palestinians is the greatest blunder.

By taking on this responsibility since 1948, at virtually NO COST to the Muslim world (whatever happened to Al Umma Al Arabiyya?), the West has guaranteed that the Palestinian people and their thuggish leaders can be intransigent without any real penalty to their survival. Just think what would have happened if, starting in 1948, the Arabs were obliged to take care of the Palestinian refugees in their countries and in "occupied" Gaza (occupied by the Egyptians) and the West Bank (occupied by Jordan). It would have been much more likely that they would have been willing to compromise with Israel and get to a final settlement; otherwise, the Arab countries would have had revolutions on their hands. Instead, the West (through the UN) took on the support and sustenance of these ignorant people, with essentially no requirement that they behave or do anything to better their lot. The only incentive they have is to BREED.

In contrast, Israel took in Jewish refugees from Europe (with compensation money from Germany, over time) and from the Arab countries, with no compensation or assistance from any international organizations; the only help was from charity contributions by Jews from around the World. Israel worked very diligently, under very hard circumstances (including lots of complaining by the Middle Eastern Jewish refugees), to integrate the refugees within one generation.

The consequence of all this, of course, is that there is now a Palestinian refugee problem but no Jewish refugee problem. The Palestinians were encouraged to sit there and fester, to be held up as victims by the people who had victimized them the most, their "brother" Arabs. The goal - and it has been wildly successful - is to hold them up in Israel's face (with the loud assistance of the Left in the West) to ensure that Israel can never exist in peace. One can only wonder at the cynicism of the Left (or is it just plain anti-semitism?) in their current obsession with the "Palestinian People" and their victimhood. In the years immediately following World War II and the de-colonization struggles thereafter, many millions of people were made refugees: in Eastern Europe; in India/Pakistan; Vietnam; all over Africa. Yet the "Palestinian Cause" is the only one that the Left seems to have cottoned on to. If the Left's concern is genuine (if naive), it only goes to show that it is better to be cynical and cruel (like the Arabs) rather than caring and responsible, like Germany, Israel and all the Western countries that have taken in refugees from around the world.

Cruelty and cynicism work.