Sunday, September 28, 2008

Obama Hates the First and Second Amendment

Because of Obama's hatred towards freedom of speech, Dan Riehl suggested hosting the NRA ads Obama's lawyers are trying to silence on our blogs. Obliged.
Cross posted from Stop the ACLU

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Google Shuts Down Anti-Obama Sites on its Blogger Platform

-By Warner Todd Huston

It looks like Google has officially joined the Barack Obama campaign and decided that its contribution would be to shut down any blog on the Google owned blogging system that has an anti-Obama message. Yes, it sure seems that Google has begun to go through its many thousands of blogs to lock out the owners of anti-Obama blogs so that the noObama message is effectively squelched. Thus far, Google has terminated the access by blog owners to 7 such sites and the list may be growing. Boy, it must be nice for Barack Obama to have an ally powerful enough to silence his opponents like that!

It isn't just conservative sites that Google's Blogger platform is eliminating. For instance, has been frozen and this one is a Hillary supporting site. The operator of Come a Long Way has a mirror site off the Blogspot platform and has today posted this notice:

I used to have a happy internet home on Blogger: Then on Wednesday night, June 25, I received the following e-mail:

Dear Blogger user,

This is a message from the Blogger team.

Your blog, at, has been identified as a potential spam blog. You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog.


The Blogger Team

It turns out that there is an interesting pattern where it concerns the blogs that Google's Blogspot team have summarily locked down on their service. They all belong to the Just Say No Deal coalition, a group of blogs that are standing against the Obama campaign. It seems the largest portion of these blogs are Hillary supporting blogs, too.

All I can say is, WOW! If Google is willing to abuse its power like this even against fellow leftists, what does it plan against conservatives, the folks Google hates even more!?

Read more »

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Plan your trip to the Flight 93 crash site for the weekend of August 2nd!

Blogburst logo, petition Are you thinking of visiting the Flight 93 crash site? If you plan your visit for the weekend of August 2nd, you can help stop the gigantic terrorist memorial mosque that will soon start rising from the ground there. August 2nd is the next scheduled public meeting of the Memorial Project, where anyone can sign up to speak during the public comment period. Tom Burnett Sr. (whose son Tom Jr. broke into the cockpit of the hijacked airplane) announced last Friday that he and Alec Rawls will be traveling to Somerset for the August meeting. They will be rallying outdoors, speaking at the public meeting, and visiting the crash site. Mr. Burnett is asking other concerned parties who can make it to please come. The crash site is a beautiful and meaningful place to visit in any case, and here is a chance to make your visit even more meaningful. It is an opportunity to in some small way follow the lead of the heroes of Flight 93 by helping to stop the re-hijacking of Flight 93. Mr. Burnett's announcement came on the Mancow Muller radio show, where Congressman Tancredo was also a guest. When controversy over the Crescent of Embrace design first arose back in 2005, Tom Tancredo was instrumental in forcing the Park Service to alter the design. Last fall he noted that the giant crescent remains unchanged in the so-called redesign and asked the Park Service to scrap the design entirely. On Friday he said that he would help Mancow Muller and Tom Burnett to stop the crescent design (audio, 19 seconds):
Certainly I will do everything I can to help you. I will bring it to the attention of my colleagues. I'll use the time I have on the floor of the House to rail against it.
THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN TANCREDO! Mr. Burnett said that he would join Mancow in going to jail for taking sledgehammers to the crescent memorial if this tribute to the terrorists actually gets built. (Audio, 25 seconds.) Cao has the whole segment of Mancow and the two Toms up as a YouTube video, with her own background graphics. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

ACLU Supports Legalized Unregulated Prostitution

Crossposted from STACLU Since New York Governor Eliot Spitzer brought the topic into the national discussion, I thought it would be interesting to dust off this oldy but goody. I know that some more libertarian leaning people actually agree with the ACLU on this, but I don't. It will be interesting to watch the debate in the comments. Keep in mind that all laws are based on some moral code. That code isn't necessarily that of any one specific religion, but a reflection of the collective morals of the community and general public. It is my belief that issues like this one should be decided at the state level by the representatives of the people. Also keep in mind that even in States where prostitution is legal it is regulated. The ACLU believe it should be unregulated. I think this is the most retarded and absolutist position that the ACLU has on this one. I don't know about you, but I don't want someone being pimped on the same corner my kid catches the school bus. Not only have the ACLU argued before a federal appeals court that having a ban on federal funds to organizations that promote commercial sex work inhibits free speech, but they even advocate the legalization of unregulated prostitution themselves. The ACLU's Policy 211 is straightforward. "The ACLU supports the decriminalization of prostitution and opposes state regulation of prostitution". They base their argument on several points, including that existing laws are discrimination against women, and the right of individual privacy. They argue that what two consenting adults in private do is their own business. However, when you also oppose zoning laws, and regulation you can hardly argue that prostitution is a private business. As for it being a privacy issue, it seems a contradiction to me when they also state that the "public" solicitation of prostitution is "entitled to the protection of the First Amendment". "It's not just the bedroom that the ACLU wishes to make off-limits to public censure, but also the local street corner, presumably even if that corner is regularly used by school children crossing the street." Source And what good would it do for women's rights to decriminalize this? One could argue that women should not be punished for their own exploitation. But how does decriminalizing pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or other sex establishments offer any solution to this? Decriminalization would do nothing but expand the sex industry and send a message to society that it is acceptable. And a system unregulated would do nothing for women's health, and would only promote the spread disease. They don't belive in zoning laws, and do believe in fully legalalized, and unregulated prostitution. So there wouldn't be any law that could keep a prostitution house from being a certain distance from your neighborhood, your Church, or your child's preschool. This is especially disturbing when they think child pornography distribution and possession should be legal, and fight for convicted child molesters to live across the street from elementary schools and parks. This is just one of many in a very long list of extremist positions of the ACLU.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Send the ACLU a Christmas Card

Crossposted from: Stop The ACLU: Its become a popular yearly tradition now to send the Anti-Christian Liars Union grinches a Christmas card. I personally think its ineffective, and that the money you waste on a stamp for the organization to toss in the shredder would be better served towards a good cause. So, I encourage you to save that money, dig a little deeper, and contribute to an organization that fights the ACLU and defends Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund, and the ACLJ are both great organizations that defend Christmas each year. The Alliance Defense Fund does it for free. Why not help groups like that out this year? However, from experience last year...I know that many will insist on sending the ACLU a Christmas card. Afterall, it is tradition. If that is how you want to make your message...we have some great greeting cards and postcards available at our online store. Plenty of other great Christmas gifts too. Send your Christmas card to the ACLU at:
ACLU 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York , NY 10004

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Retro Reprint: Top Ten Reasons To Stop The ACLU

I wanted to put something up for Labor Day here to get some inspirations sparked. For a while my priorities have been shifted. I want to announce that we will be more active in our original cause and want to thank everyone that has supported us thus far. To get our blogburst reinvigorated, I thought I'd pull out a that explains why we started and what we are all about... Stop The ACLU was started on February 9th, 2004. We started with high hopes, and we realized we were facing a goliath. There were many reasons why we thought the ACLU needed to be countered, and they are numerous. We wanted to provide a way to inform the public of the ACLU's agenda, as the MSM sugar coated it. We wanted to be a central database for people to gather, exchange ideas, and get actively involved in real ways of stopping them. It is a monumental task, exhausting, time consuming, and often frustrating. But it is a fight worth fighting. We would be nothing without our supporters. To all of you, we appreciate the continued support. We have called you to action and you have answered. There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. For this blogburst I decided to list my top ten list. 10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly...
My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment�Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself�I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
ACLU POLICY �The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court�s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual�s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.�ACLU Policy #47
#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them. #7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it's the ACLU's top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU's pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death. #6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border. #5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of "seperation of Church and State", the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history. #4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don't practice the principles they preach.
Take a walk into the NYCLU�s Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you�ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.
#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980's. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it�s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds. �The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that �promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.� The Rockefeller Foundation�s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not �directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.�
#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General�s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.
There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution. #1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one? There are countless reasons the ACLU needs to be stopped. So don't just stand by and complain, do something. Get involved. Here are some ways you can get involved to help us stop the ACLU. Support and donate to organizations fighting them in Court. Here are the ones at the forefront. ACLJ Alliance Defense Fund Thomas More Law Center Join the Stop The ACLU Coalition Help us write Churches to get involved. Tell your Congress to support the Public Expression of Relgion Act of 2005. This legislation seeks to limit attorney's fees in Establishment Clause cases to injunctive relief only. SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at or Gribbit at You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Roots Of The ACLU

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Hat tip: Ban The ACLU This was found on youtube and it's pretty short at 3 minutes. I wish I could find more footage somewhere. It is an accurate account of the ACLU's founding. Does the ACLU's communist founding mean anything about what the ACLU is today? Well, if you plant a lemon seed would you expect the tree to produce peaches? Compare their current goals to the 45 communist goals in the Congressional Record and decide for yourself.
One of the greatest myths about the ACLU is that they started out as a noble cause. The roots of a tree go deep. There is no question that it was founded on communist/socialist principles. There is no question to the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin's, ideals.
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
Only after the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact of 1939, which allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to take over much of Eastern Europe, did Mr. Baldwin become disenchanted with the Soviet version of Communism. Yet Baldwin held Communist/Socialist sympathies to the end of his life. Later in life, he said,...
"Anti-communism never affected our civil liberties very much. And the Communist party in the United States was certainly never strong enough to be a menace at any time in any way. The only menace was the people who believed in a Communist dictatorship, which is a denial of civil liberties. They did not belong with us in a leadership position."Source
Baldwin rid the ACLU board of overt Communists because of his anger about the Nazi-Soviet pact, establishing a policy that read, in part: "The Board of Directors and the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union....hold it inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." Source
While Mr. Baldwin made a great show of the Communist purge in 1940 he never let go of his passion for socialist ideals. Neither did the ACLU. In 1961 numerous communist connections were entered into the Congressional Record. In November of 1964 the ACLU came to the defense of Communist-front organizations. The Union argued that there was a fundamental difference between a Communist-action organization and a Communist-front group. Throughout the 1960s many members of the ACLU took umbrage at the principles of the 1940 Resolution. According to William Donohue's book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, a 1967 Resolution was viewed by many on the board that voted for it to supersede and effectively rendered the 1940 Resolution impotent. In April of 1967 the ACLU board voted to rescind the 1940 decision of ousting Elizabeth Gurley Flynn for her uncompromising support for Communism. More important than the vote to recognize Flynn was the board's conclusion that "the expulsion of Ms. Flynn was not consonant with the basic principles on which the ACLU was founded and has acted for fifty-four years." The board also agreed that language should be drafted to indicate its happiness with the removal of the 1940 Resolution from the ACLU constitution in 1967." Today's ACLU still espouses the ideals of socialism under the guise of liberalism. They still defend Communist propaganda. One of the goals of the Communist agenda is to abolish all loyalty oaths. It is interesting that the ACLU celebrate the fact that they will not sign oaths promising not to support terrorism. Whether today's ACLU is a communist/socialist organization or not their goals most definitely align with the ideologies of socialism. Regardless of what one label today's ACLU there are many dangerous positions in practice that have never changed with them. Their unflinching support of abortion, euthanasia, their strange position on the Second Amendment and their open border policy are just a few examples. They consistently work to thwart the government's efforts to protect its citizens, undermine America's sovereignty, and defend America's enemies. They have defended traitors funding Hamas, the PLO, and confessed Al-Qaeda operatives. All of these seem to support their founder's goal of abolishing of the State itself. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at or Gribbit at You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

No Promises From ACLU

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism. "We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges," said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. "The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law."
I have only one question here. Why does the ACLU of Ohio have a problem giving an oath that they are not terrorists and are not involved with terrorist groups? What the law is attempting to do is ensure people have not supported terrorist organizations.
The law requires applicants under final consideration for a government job, contract or license to complete and sign questionnaires to determine if they have supported organizations on a federal list of terrorists.
Actually this isn't suprising. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because they objected to promising that none of the funds would be used to engage in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state. They got the provision scrapped after a long and vigorous fight, then accepted the funds.
The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations today said they have successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management's Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for "terrorist activities" and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists.
So what was it in this that the ACLU objected to? Here's what the CFC letter said.
"I certify that as of (date), the organization in this application does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on the following terrorist related lists promulgated by the U.S. Government, the United Nations, or the European Union. Presently these lists include the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals List, the Department of Justice's Terrorist Exclusion List, and the list annexed to Executive Order 13224. Should any change of circumstances occur during the year OPM will be notified within 15 days of such change."
Obviously the ACLU had a problem ensuring the exlusion of terrorists from its funds and employment. What a shame. It isn't difficult to understand why the ACLU would object to such terms, after all they have defended numerous terrorists, including an individual that participated in a 15-year conspiracy to finance the group Hamas, laundering millions of dollars, some of which went to buy weapons. With the help of CAIR, they also defended an admitted agent of Al Qaeda that has confessed to attending jihad camps in Afghanistan, and is being charged with lying to the FBI about his terror ties and activities. Palestinian terrorists have also found a friend in the ACLU. I don't see what the problem is. The State doesn't want its money going to individuals that might support terror. What problem does the ACLU have with not supporting terror? Why don't they just come out and say that they do support it? What is absurd is that no one is investigating the ACLU for terror ties. Start out with one or two of its employees, and go from there.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Double Dose of Stop The ACLU

A double dose from Stop The ACLU! First on the your part and encourage your senators to pass legislation to put an end to taxpayer funding of the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda! Second: Celebrate! The Senate just passed legislation to transfer the Mt. Soledad Cross land to the Federal government! A victory sure to be challenged, yet still a huge step in toward victory for freedom!

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

American Criminal Liberties Union

From Stop the ACLU:
“Deprivation of an individual’s physical freedom is one of the most severe interferences with liberty that the state can impose. Moreover, imprisonment is harsh, frequently counterproductive, and costly.” This explains why the ACLU holds that “a suspended sentence with probation should be the preferred sentence, to be chosen generally unless the circumstances plainly call for greater severity.” The Union favors alternative sentencing and lists the reintegration of the offender into the community as “the most appropriate correctional approach.” Here’s the clincher: “probation should be authorized by the legislature in every case and exceptions to the principle are not favored.” Prior to 1991, when this policy was revised, the Union said that only such serious crimes as “murder or treason” should qualify as exceptions. The explicit referencing of those two crimes was deleted because of the public embarrassment it caused the organization.
Make sure to read the lengthy yet well researched post in full at Stop The ACLU

Wednesday, July 05, 2006


Usa Today reports on the U.N.'s (possible) reaction to the missile testing conducted by the North Koreans. Don't hold your breath, though, because it's more of the same lame, piddly, childishly scared diplomatic reaction to anything bad happening in the world:
Japan said Wednesday it was considering calling for sanctions against North Korea in a U.N. resolution condemning a series of missile tests by the reclusive communist nation.
Considering? What do you need to consider? Big rocket-propelled cylindrical tubes that can be potentially filled with really nasty stuff were test fired last week! Read the quote above and tell me if it does not read like it was paraphrased from the Team America movie:
Hans Blix: "I'm sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace or else." Kim Jong Il: "Or else what?" Hans Blix: "Or else we will be very, very angry with you. And we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are."

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Valedictorian's Free Speech To Be Defended

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Via The Rutherford Institute
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have agreed to represent a high school senior whose microphone was unplugged by school officials after she began to speak about her Christian beliefs during her valedictory address. When Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God and her faith in Jesus Christ during her commencement speech on June 15, 2006, officials with the Clark County School District unplugged the microphone. Institute attorneys plan to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the school district for having violated Brittany's constitutional right to free speech and equal protection under the law. "This is yet another example of a politically correct culture silencing Christians in order to not offend those of other beliefs," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Brittany McComb worked hard to earn the right to address her classmates as valedictorian and she has a constitutional right-like any other student-to freely speak about the factors that contributed to her success, whether they be a supportive family, friends or her faith in Jesus Christ."
Isn't it ironic that it was probably the fear of a lawsuit that prompted the school to censor Brittany's speech in the first place? It is sad that our culture, including many Christians, have bought into the politically correct culture and allow this censorship to go on. It has gotten to the point that our First Amendment has been turned on its head by activist lawyers like the ACLU. This should be a clear cut case of violating the First Amendment, yet our culture has accepted the insane secularist theories that the First Amendment means the opposite of what it was intended to mean. The old cliche that it is "freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion" are appropiate words of wisdom in our day and age.
Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to file suit in federal district court in defense of Brittany's First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
We wish Brittany and the Rutherford Institute the best of luck with this case. You can support the Rutherford Institute here. See the video of Brittany McCombs on Hannity and Colmes here.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Mt. Soledad Goes To Supreme Court

Yesterday evening the City Attorney in San Diego along with Mayor Jerry Sanders decided to take the Mt. Soledad case to the Supreme Court of the United States. I have already assembled one of our Supreme Court teams to file briefs on behalf of the Members of Congress that we represent, as well as ACLJ Members across the country in this important case. It appears at this time that the City will be asking for both a stay of the Ninth Circuit decision as well as a petition for writ of certiorari. The stay of the decision will allow the monument to remain while the litigation is pending at the Supreme Court. The petition for certiorari will ask the Court to grant plenary review of the Ninth Circuit decision. Generally, under Supreme Court practice, the Circuit Justice in charge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the authority to grant the stay. In this case, the Circuit Justice is Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy can either grant the stay, deny the stay, or refer the stay to the entire Supreme Court for determination. It takes five votes to obtain a stay. In order for the case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court on the merits, it only takes four votes.
Read more about the background on this, and sign the petition asking President Bush to take the land under the federal government’s powers of eminent domain.

Sunday, June 18, 2006


The British left-wing rag "The Guardian" reports that following a raid during which one person was shot in the shoulder by the police (the cops were looking for a chemical weapon that wasn't there), said police are going to... are going to... sorry, it's so incredibly STUPID that I can't mention it myself. Here is what the Guardian says:
The police are considering a proposal to let selected British Muslims examine the intelligence used to mount anti-terrorism raids before they take place, the Guardian has learned.
Yup. You read it. It's really impossible to believe. The Brits are going to voluntarily leak anti-terrorist intelligence before they act on it; not only that, but the intel is going to be leaked to those who are most likely the closest to THE TARGETS! Read the whole article here. And then weep.

Saturday, June 17, 2006


According to Time who gets the info from a book excerpt.
Al-Qaeda terrorists came within 45 days of attacking the New York subway system with a lethal gas similar to that used in Nazi death camps. They were stopped not by any intelligence breakthrough, but by an order from Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri. And the U.S. learned of the plot from a CIA mole inside al-Qaeda. These are some of the more startling revelations by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind, whose new book The One Percent Doctrine is excerpted in the forthcoming issue of TIME. It will appear on early Sunday morning. U.S. intelligence got its first inkling of the plot from the contents of a laptop computer belonging to a Bahraini jihadist captured in Saudi Arabia early in 2003. It contained plans for a gas-dispersal system dubbed "the mubtakkar" (Arabic for inventive). Fearing that al-Qaeda's engineers had achieved the holy grail of terror R&D — a device to effectively distribute hydrogen-cyanide gas, which is deadly when inhaled — the CIA immediately set about building a prototype based on the captured design, which comprised two separate chambers for sodium cyanide and a stable source of hydrogen, such as hydrochloric acid. A seal between the two could be broken by a remote trigger, producing the gas for dispersal. The prototype confirmed their worst fears: "In the world of terrorist weaponry," writes Suskind, "this was the equivalent of splitting the atom. Obtain a few widely available chemicals, and you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot – and then kill everyone in the store." The device was shown to President Bush and Vice President Cheney the following morning, prompting the President to order that alerts be sent through all levels of the U.S. government. Easily constructed and concealed, mass casualties were inevitable if it could be triggered in any enclosed public space. Having discovered the device, exposing the plot in which it might be used became a matter of extreme urgency. Although the Saudis were cooperating more than ever before in efforts to track down al-Qaeda operatives in the kingdom, the interrogations of suspects connected with the Bahraini on whose computer the Mubtakkar was discovered were going nowhere. The U.S. would have to look elsewhere. Conventional wisdom has long held that the U.S. has no human intelligence assets inside al Qaeda. "That is not true," writes Suskind. Over the previous six months, U.S. agents had been receiving accurate tips from a man the writer identifies simply as "Ali," a management-level al-Qaeda operative who believed his leaders had erred in attacking the U.S. directly. "The group was now dispersed," writes Suskind. "A few of its leaders and many foot soldiers were captured or dead. As with any organization, time passed and second-guessing began." And when asked about the Mubtakkar and the names of the men arrested in Saudi Arabia, Ali was aware of the plot. He identified the key man as Bin Laden's top operative on the Arabian Peninsula, Yusuf al Ayeri, a.k.a. "Swift Sword," who had been released days earlier by Saudi authorities, unaware that al-Ayeri was bin Laden's point man in the kingdom. Ali revealed that Ayeri had visited Ayman Zawahiri in January 2003, to inform him of a plot to attack the New York City subway system using cyanide gas. Several mubtakkars were to be placed in subway cars and other strategic locations. This was not simply a proposal; the plot was well under way. In fact, zero-hour was only 45 days away. But then, for reasons still debated by U.S. intelligence officials, Zawahiri called off the attack. "Ali did not know the precise explanation why. He just knew that Zawahiri had called them off." The news left administration officials gathered in the White House with more questions than answers. Why was Ali cooperating? Why had Zawahiri called off the strike? Were the operatives planning to carry out the attack still in New York? "The CIA analysts attempted answers. Many of the questions were simply unanswerable."
Read the whole thing. Allah Pundit says the point to take away is Al Qaeda has crude WMD capabilities. Have a great evening! Suitably Flip feels better and better about that 40% cut in New York's federal anti-terror funding. AJ Strata wonders if Time and Suskind expose a critical US intelligence asset inside Al Qaeda's organization simply to make money? It seems likely - sadly. But hey, I'm sure they think it was worth the Pulitzer. I wonder if this will change the ACLU's mind about random searches in the NY Subway. Time says they will have more tomorrow, but the main question will remain: Why was it called off? Jeff Goldstein:
My preliminary thoughts are these: whatever you happen to feel about George Bush, one thing is clear: When it comes to defending the homeland against al Qaeda, he has not hesitated to act in the decisive way he and his advisors see fit. To that end, he has proven himself unafraid to use substantive military force, and largely immune to the opinions of both the western media and international elites. Whether or not this factored into al Qaeda’s thinking is dubious. But I have long believed that one of the reasons we haven’t seen the kind of attacks here that we see in, say, Israel, is that the US, should it ever decide to go on the full offensive, cannot be restrained—particularly if public opinion shifts toward a desire to see the enemy eradicated, even if doing so requires a shift in the collective moral calculus of the nation.
Macsmind reminds us that we should take this news with a grain of salt.
Back in 2004, Powerline caught Suskind perpetrating a hoax with his hit book on Bush, using proven liar Ex Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil as a witness.
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Thursday, June 08, 2006


The Left is just so confused about what to say and what to do on daily basis that even the death of a scum sucking, bottom feeding piece of amoeba feces such as Zarkawi leaves them incapable of connecting with reality. The value seeking folks at the progressive discussion board perfectly illustrate that state of moral vacuity mixed in with thorough confusion. Here are a few examples of how the mind of the vacuous left works. (Surgeon General's Warning! Reading the following without proper mental preparation may cause the following side effects: blurry vision, excessive drooling, excessive moral relativism, worshipping of windbags such as Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand, and fake support of our troops).
vic·to·ry Pronunciation: 'vik-t(&-)rE Posted by elgati on Thu Jun-08-06 09:02 PM Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French victorie, from Latin victoria, from victor 1 : the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist 2 : achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties n I don't see how the word applies to a targeted assassination.
Am I the only one to see the Kerry-like flip-flopping here? But there's more...
2329303, Not to make a direct comparison... Posted by BlueStateModerate on Thu Jun-08-06 09:44 PM But the assasination of Hitler would have been a huge victory for the Allies in WWII. While our cause isn't as honorable as it was then, al-Zarqawi is just as evil. These are bad guys, and every time the military takes a terrorist out, I'm going to be happy. That doesn't mean that we should be there, but since we are, I'll cheer for any victory for the US. A US victory is always greater than a victory for al-Qaeda.
Now, we may not agree with the entire premise of this post, but at least it has the merit of celebrating the fiery demise of a blood thirsty murdering bastard. But, as you might have guessed, the definition of a "bad guy" is the wrong one, according to fellow poster LynntheDem:
WE are the "bad guys" here. Posted by LynnTheDem on Thu Jun-08-06 09:57 PM It's that simple...and that horrendous.
Next thing you know, LynnTheDem is going to compare Zarkawi to Gandhi, both in thoughts and methods. And we Conservatives are supposed to be the fascists? Let us now turn our fascinated attention towards poster knight_of_the_star, who doubts that Zarkawi is eating ham slices in whatever hell any benevolent deity chose to stick him in, despite the efforts of the same BlueStateModerate who showed a promising spark of reality (see above):
2329361, He was also reported dead in November 2004 Posted by knight_of_the_star on Thu Jun-08-06 10:34 PM Which one is it? 2329410, This time. Posted by BlueStateModerate on Thu Jun-08-06 11:13 PM 2329455, I'm waiting for better proof Posted by knight_of_the_star on Fri Jun-09-06 12:13 AM Like DNA.
knight_of_the_star probably also believes that the Mossad actually did warn all the ugly evil Jews who employed at the World Trade Center not to show up for work on 9/11, and that his pillow tells him the George bush is evil while he sleeps. One word for you, buddy: Valium. It should help you relax a wee bit. Poster rocknation, proving that he has the IQ of half of his name, wonders whether the Zarkpig was actually killed a while back, then frozen, then dumped into the farm that our fighter planes took out:
2329430, Was the body checked for freezer burn? Posted by rocknation on Thu Jun-08-06 11:33 PM If Bush knew where he was all along and just waited for the most politically opportune moment to kill him, then yes, it WAS a stunt.
A theory indeed more convoluted than knight_of_the_star's. Double dose of Valium for you! I guess their most delusional thought is that they could actually come up with a valid foreign policy while unmedicated. now wonder they fight so hard for drug coverage reform: they seem to be doing them all!

Tuesday, May 30, 2006


Crossposted from Stop The ACLU If you are a pedophile, the ACLU is looking out for you. The argument is old hat for the ACLU, who believe not only that pedophiles and sex offenders should have the right to live next to playgrounds and elementary schools, but that they even have the right to instruct their perverted buddies on how to rape little boys. These positions are quite disturbing to most Americans, especially those of us with children. It is even scarier when there are loony judges out there that actually rule in favor of these twisted views. Luckily, the Supreme Court shot the ACLU down this time.
The American Civil Liberties Union-Indiana, suing initially on behalf of a female inmate, had filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the policy. The Indiana Department of Correction imposed the policy in 2001, stating that inmates with a record of sex offenses involving children "shall not be permitted to receive visits from minors." The agency amended the rule a year later to allow some visits under certain conditions, including one that the intended visitor had not been a victim of the offender. The DOC justified the restrictions by arguing that sex offenders are at high risk of repeating the crime and often know their victims. According to court records, visitations occur in areas with 25 to 30 tables and as many as 100 people often supervised by a single guard. The agency knew of past incidents when children were sexually abused in visiting areas. DOC Commissioner J. David Donahue said the policy was aimed at protecting the public, and it will remain in effect. "The Supreme Court's review supports the policy," Donahue said. The ICLU argued the policy violated prisoners' constitutional right to maintain family relationships and that it was cruel and unusual punishment. "We're very disappointed," Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU-Indiana, said Tuesday.
Before long, they will be supporting things like this in America.
Cut the age of consent to 12, and eventually get rid of it altogether, on the grounds that restricting sexual relations with kids "just makes children curious." Allow private possession of child pornography. Allow daytime pornography broadcasts. Provide sex education for toddlers. Make adolescents aged 16 and up eligible to be prostitutes and appear in porno films. Legalize sex with animals. Legalize going naked in public. Legalize all drugs. Provide taxpayer-financed "free" train rides.
Don't doubt it, they already support the legalization of child porn distribution, and possession. The also already support legalizing all drugs. Dan Rhiel thinks Peta may be on board with it too.

Friday, May 26, 2006


Always Remember

Technorati :

Wednesday, May 24, 2006


According to the New York Times, the ACLU is planning on suppressing board member criticism of its policies and internal administration.
Really, there is nothing to say about that. Well, maybe this: you DOUBLE-FACED, HYPOCRITICAL, LYING BASTARDS! You have the cojones to tell us what is right and wrong, you whine day in and day out about how we live in a police state, and now you come up with THIS? I'm going to calm down now, you worthless brown-shirted fascist pigs, and let you utterly despicable turds self-destruct.

Technorati : , , ,

Tuesday, May 23, 2006


The Associated Press reports the Israeli arrest of Hamas assassin Ibrahim Hamed.

RAMALLAH, West Bank - A top Hamas military commander, linked by Israel to attacks that killed 78 people, including five Americans, surrendered Tuesday after Israeli troops surrounded his hideout and threatened to demolish it with him inside. The army said Ibrahim Hamed, 41, masterminded "some of the most deadly terror attacks against Israel in recent years," including suicide bombings at a pool hall in central Israel, an outdoor cafe in Jerusalem and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where five Americans and four Israelis died.

Where was he hiding ?

Before dawn Tuesday, a dozen jeeps and two armored personnel carriers surrounded his hideout, an apartment building in downtown Ramallah, just 200 yards from the home of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

And honestly, you have to love the way the IDF has the people they arrest do the perp walk:

Using a loudspeaker, troops then called out Hamed's name in Arabic. They told Hamed they would demolish the building with him inside if he didn't surrender, Azzam said. Hamed emerged before dawn, and stripped to his underwear after being ordered to do so by Israeli troops using a loudspeaker. He was cuffed and taken to a nearby building.

Technorati : , ,

Saturday, May 13, 2006


Andrew McCarthy, over at the National Review, is asking some very relevant questions of members of Congress, especially of those acting like their water just broke:

  • Do you maintain databases of American citizens for fundraising purposes?
  • Do those databases contain names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and other identifying information?
  • Do the databases contain information about the interests of the citizens who have been entered into them? About candidates or causes to which they have previously donated money?
  • Are those databases searchable? If so, what search criteria do you use to divide these American citizens into various categories?
  • Do you do targeted mailings for purposes of raising funds or pushing particular issues?
  • When you target, how do you know whom to target? That is, what kind of information do you maintain in your databases to guide you about which potential donors or voters might be fruitful to tap on which particular issues?
  • Do you trade information about American citizens with other politicians and organizations in the expectation that they might reciprocate and you all might mutually exploit the benefits?
Heather MacDonald writes on the contrast between the civil liberties hand-wringing and the real scope of NSA data mining in the Weekly Standard:
Only a paranoid solipsist could feel threatened by the recently revealed calling analysis program. Since late 2001, Verizon, BellSouth, and ATT have connected nearly two trillion calls, according to the Washington Post. The companies gave NSA the incoming and outgoing numbers of those calls, stripped of all identifying information such as name or address. No conversational content was included. The NSA then put its supercharged computers to work analyzing patterns among the four trillion numbers involved in the two trillion calls, to look for clusters that might suggest terrorist connections. Though the details are unknown, they might search for calls to known terrorists, or, more speculatively, try to elicit templates of terror calling behavior from the data.

As a practical matter, no one's privacy is violated by such analysis. Memo to privacy nuts: The computer does not have a clue that you exist; it does not know what it is churning through; your phone number is meaningless to it. The press loves to stress the astounding volume of data that data mining can consume--the Washington Post's lead on May 12 warned that the administration had been "secretly . . . assembling gargantuan databases." But it is precisely the size of that data store that renders the image of individualized snooping so absurd.

True, the government can de-anonymize the data if connections to terror suspects emerge, and it is not known what threshold of proof the government uses to put a name to critical phone numbers. But until that point is reached, your privacy is at greater risk from the Goodyear blimp at a Stones concert than from the NSA's supercomputers churning through trillions of zeros and ones representing disembodied phone numbers.

And even after that point is reached, the notion that 280 million Americans who have not been communicating with al Qaeda are at risk from this quadrillion-bit program is absurd. What exactly are the privacy advocates worried about? That an NSA agent will search the phone records of his ex-wife or of themselves? This quaint scenario completely misunderstands the scale of, and bureaucratic checks on, such data analysis programs.

Technorati : , ,

Friday, May 12, 2006


A Washington Post-ABC News poll has 63% of Americans approving of the NSA surveillance program. Pelosi, Reid, and other marshmallow-spined clueless non-vertebrates must have their eyes rolling in the back of their brainless cranial cavities.

According to another report by the Washington Post, the Democrats are ending their quest to impeach the President on the grounds that the NSA surveillance programs are unconstitutional. Another impeachment issue was the Iraq war.

The poor nether-region-bleeding Democrats are indeed between a rock and a hard place: either they continue to whine about what 63% of the country approves of, and they look like what they are, which is rigidly ideology-beholden activists totally disconnected from the average Joe or Jane, or they take a bow (which is their chosen option) and end up looking like a bunch of deer caught in the headlights.

2008 is gonna be a hoot, folks.

Technorati : ,

Monday, May 08, 2006


On February 26 of this year, I posted my reactions to an article written by former President Jimmy Carter about how Hamas was not a threat to anyone despite their election victory. Well, the Georgian Peanut Buddha is back at it again in the pages of the International Herald Tribune, claiming that the funding freeze Hamas is being subjected to amounts to illegally punishing the innocent.

Innocent Palestinian people are being treated like animals, with the presumption that they are guilty of some crime. Because they voted for candidates who are members of Hamas, the United States government has become the driving force behind an apparently effective scheme of depriving the general public of income, access to the outside world and the necessities of life.

Big frickin' whaaaah for the Palestinian technocrats and other assorted paper pushers. Where was Carter when Ward Churchill called the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" or "technocrats of the Empire" ?

(...) Regardless of these intricate and long-term political interrelationships, it is unconscionable for Israel, the United States and others under their influence to continue punishing the innocent and already persecuted people of Palestine. The Israelis are withholding approximately $55 million a month in taxes and customs duties that, without dispute, belong to the Palestinians. Although some Arab nations have allocated funds for humanitarian purposes to alleviate human suffering, the U.S. government is threatening the financial existence of any Jordanian or other bank that dares to transfer this assistance into Palestine.

The (gasp!) innocent people of Palestine? And (re-gasp!) persecuted too? Does the Ayatollah of Peanut Buttah mean the same group of innocent people who relinquished control of their destinies to a terrorist group who denies Israel's right to exist (and has more than once bloodily proven that they really mean it)? What his Peanut Butter Chunkiness obvioulsy mistakes for influence is merely taking note of the election results and of Hamas' victory, and acting in our best national interest, which is by the way NOT funding a bunch of people who danced in the streets when the planes hit on 9/11. It's not a question of illegally interfering with internal Palestinian affairs. It's a question of refusing to continue to feed the hand that flicks us the bird when it's not busy using suicide bombers to shred innocent Israelis (innocent as in "civilians"), or fometing left-wing support right here in the U.S. It's a question of doing to Palestinian authorities what Palestinian supporters in this country have advocated we do to to Israel for a long time, which is divest. So let's do it. Let's divest not from Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, but from Palestine, a corrupt, incompetent regime at best, and a murderous, politically suicidal regime at worst (ever heard about "expect the worst while hoping for the best?").

It is almost a miracle that the Palestinians have been able to orchestrate three elections during the past 10 years, all of which have been honest, fair, strongly contested, without violence and with the results accepted by winners and losers. Among the 62 elections that have been monitored by us at the Carter Center, these are among the best in portraying the will of the people. One clear reason for the surprising Hamas victory for legislative seats was that the voters were in despair about prospects for peace. With American acquiescence, the Israelis had avoided any substantive peace talks for more than five years, regardless of who had been chosen to represent the Palestinian side as interlocutor.

The miracle is that Carter believes this. Would the Palestinians really have voted for anyone else that Arafat when he was still alive? How could they, when their fearless leader is the only one they knew? How could they, when their sheepish mentality leads them to follow anyone, as wind-baggish as he may sound, as long as he promises to both create a viable geo-politcal entity and push the despised Jews back into the sea? Things have gotten even worse since Arafat has been pushing bloody daisies, with Mahmoud Abbas proving himself to be a weak-wristed leader whose primary duty seems to be to stay in power by placating both sides in the conflict in a desperate game of obscene personal survival. Describing the Palestinian voters as misunderstood, homeless yet decent souls yearning for peace is even more insulting to one's intelligence after reading the Hamas Covenant, which is not exactly the ideological framework for peaceful negotiations with Israel, and which has not been renounced or even just modified. Further digging his own grave of smarmy moral relativism, Jimmy Carter himself admits, albeit unwillingly, that Palestinian financial management skills never were up to par:

The day after his party lost the election, Abbas told me that his own struggling government could not sustain itself financially with their daily lives and economy so severely disrupted, and access from Palestine to Israel and the outside world almost totally restricted. They were already $900 million in debt and had no way to meet the payroll for the following month. The additional restraints imposed on the new government are a planned and deliberate catastrophe for the citizens of the occupied territories, in hopes that Hamas will yield to the economic pressure.

Would it kill anyone to ask Abbas and his government to account for the money we're showering them with, for a change? $900 million in debt the day after the election (in other words, before we decided to tell them that the check would NOT be in the mail ?) Only some one like the Great Peanut Poobah himself, with his own sterling presidential economic record (note to Carter-adoring-tax-loving-Democrats: that was sarcasm!), could blissfully overlook such a number. What about changing the order of things, and demanding that Abbas and his democracy-illiterate cronies prove that they can organize a system of economic and political checks and balances BEFORE we give them the means to survive? No one made a peep when King Hussein of Jordan forcefully kicked the Palestinians out of his country because their population had grown so much that they tried to kill him and take over (Amman, the Jordanian capital, was surrounded by Jordanian troops and occupied by Palestinian gunmen in a battle that lasted for several that left about 400 dead). When Arabs fight amonst themselves, it practically becomes an internal matter, regardless of the situation; it's just a little tiff, nothing to see here, and anyway, how dare you judge us, you racist pigs? Throw Israel into the mix, and them we get the usual lopsided humanitarian bullcrap, such as "innocent" and "persecuted". For once that an Arab political entity had seemed to have achieved some kind of communion, as unholy as it may be, between its leadership and its people, it organized and defined itself along the most confrontational and nihilistic lines possible. Mr. Carter would be well served by understanding that the Palestinian idea is merely tolerated by the Arab world because it is a way for them to childishly respond to any justified accusations of wrongdoing. 9/11 ? Hear the Arab mouths scream "justified reaction to the plight of the Palestinian people". Oil prices used as a political tool ? "This is just business, not like what you are doing to the Palestinians!" Saddam giving 25 grand to the family of each Palestinian sucide bomber who goes boom ? "This is just a sign of their desperation! No tanks, no fighter jets, how are they supposed to resist and fight for their future?" What he pathetically disguises under the pretense of sappy humanistic feelings is the same capacity to lead by error, a dubious quality he learned when serving as a failed Commander-in-Chief whose was ultimately reponsible for Operation Eagle Claw. People died then. As a citizen, Mr. Carter luckily limits himself to the attempted killing of the last shred of common sense. Even now, he just can't shoot straight. Technorati : , ,

Wednesday, April 05, 2006


From a letter written by congresswoman Cynthia McKinney(D-GA) to Governor Schwarzenegger of California, pressing for is pardon of scumbag Stanley "Tookie" Williams, and dated 12 December 2005:
Capital punishment amounts to a form of torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, which in the case of the death penalty continues until the person dies.

Monday, April 03, 2006


From Michelle Malkin's blog:
Members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards beat themselves with chains during a religious gathering against cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad, that were published in European newspapers, in Tehran, Iran March 29, 2006. (REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl).
Sweet. Now if we could only switch their chains for AK-47s, maybe the problem would be finally solved.

Saturday, April 01, 2006


British polemicist Christopher Hitchens is still a leftist, and was a at time a Communist. And that gives him even more weight when he writes about what he would have liked to see happen right before the Iraq war started (pay special attention to the last 2 paragraphs). It's arguments like this that make the beam in the eye of the rest of the left so visible.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006


The UN just can't help it. It's hopeless. Take a look above at its High Commission For Human Rights poster promoting the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (it was March 21st 2006, so if you skipped it, start writing a groveling letter of apology to every ethnic or religious group you have ignored).

Not only does it show blatant bias towards against "that intolerant country that is the home of the Lego", but it makes the wrong point: Islam (a.k.a. "that group of people who were so offended by that intolerant country that is the home of the Lego") is not a race, but a religion.

Hitler made that same mistake decades ago concerning the Jews. Does that mean the UN will start buying trains to resettle the umworthy ?


And a good way to go is to have some crazed Islamists blow me up/chop my head off/stab me repeatedly in broad daylight on a street/run me over in a Walmart parking lot.

To make that happen, here are the long promised Mohammed cartoons (I'm not the first one to show them, for sure, but it feels so good to be an intolerant Zionist oppressor).

Tuesday, March 28, 2006


A gentleman named Malle Hawking seems to have built an aircraft carrier made out of... legos. The monster is 5 meters long, 1,40 meters wide, 1,20 meters long, and weighs over 160 kilograms. Electrical lights illuminate the deck, the hangar and the aircraft (cockpits, I take it). It is also outfitted with rotating radars, a working elevator and a motorized catapult.

Who would have thunked it ?

Sunday, February 26, 2006


Former President Jimmy Carter, in a desperate attempt to prove that he is better at peanut farming than posing as a public figure, has penned an article in the Washington Post (dated 20 February 2006) in which he displays a childish idealism that makes believing in the tooth fairy look like scientific dogma.

"(...) Although Hamas won 74 of the 132 parliamentary seats, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas retains the right to propose and veto legislation, with 88 votes required to override his veto. With nine of its elected members remaining in prison, Hamas has only 65 votes, plus whatever third-party support it can attract. Abbas also has the power to select and remove the prime minister, to issue decrees with the force of law when parliament is not in session, and to declare a state of emergency. As commander in chief, he also retains ultimate influence over the National Security Force and Palestinian intelligence.(...)"

In other words, the leader of the corrupt, ideologically split government of a country that does not technically exist still has more power than a terrorist organization that has thrived on said leader's incapacity (or unwillingness) to eliminate the violently extremist fringe groups that threaten the Middle East process, to the point of becoming part of the very political structure it has so often jeopardized through its murderous actions. Sorry, I won't trust the worm inside the apple just because I'm told the apple isn't completely rotten yet.

"(...) The role of the prime minister was greatly strengthened while Abbas and Ahmed Qureia served in that position under Yasser Arafat, and Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the "road map." This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, "We want a peaceful unity government." If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance. (...)"

The role of the prime minister was only strengthened because of the fact that Yasser Arafat was sick and dying. Even so, it only has and still does exist in a very tribal, undemocratic manner (the need for a leader, any leader, to legitimize the cause instead of a people, and to run the government as did Arafat, doling out money from private bank accounts to buy allegiances instead of earning them). One could hardly think of Ahmed Qureia as a prime minister in a strengthened position. He ended his tenure miserably under the double cloud of Palestinian and Israeli scorn. Futhermore, if the role of the Palestinian prime minister was strengthened in such a positive way, what happened to the peace process, and its Palestinian negotiating figureheads such as Hanan Ashrawi or Saeb Erakat ? Until Arafat's death, you couldn't watch a TV report on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict without them being a part of it. Now, it's complete radio silence.

"(...) During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.(...) Unfortunately, these steps are already underway and are well known throughout the Palestinian territories and the world. Israel moved yesterday to withhold funds (about $50 million per month) that the Palestinians earn from customs and tax revenue. Perhaps a greater aggravation by the Israelis is their decision to hinder movement of elected Hamas Palestinian Legislative Council members through any of more than a hundred Israeli checkpoints around and throughout the Palestinian territories.(...) This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies.(...)"

Hamas has all the legitimity it needs. As President Carter himself wrote (see the second paragraph of his article) , it is so legitimized that 9 of its 74 elected candidates (12%) are guests of the Israeli prison system, a fact that does not seem to have bothered the . Legitimity and increase in domestic influence of a terrorist group are both issues that Carter should have worried about before said terrorists were elected to be part of a political structure bankrolled by the international community. Why should Israel financially support a "government" whose legislative branch comprises 56% of individuals who are members of an organization itself sponsored by states such as Iran and Syria? To appease a bunch of murdering thugs who have already proven that they are way beyond appeasement every time they send a brainwashed youth to detonate himself in a crowd of Israeli civilians? President Carter has obviously fallen victim to the myth of the nihilistically romantic resistance movement. It is not up to us to make Hamas feel welcome in an international community of civilized dialogue which is so foreign to them, but it is up to Hamas to prove that they deserve entrance in that arena. (This is a lesson he should have learned after his very own experience with Iran). Let us not forget that even after Abbas has proposed the post of prime minister to a Hamas member (as moderate as the media might describe him to be), his organization still has not renounced its well known intent to wipe Israel off the map. What does President Carter propose to do to achieve that goal? Facilitate their accession into Palestinian leadership until he experiences another Iranian fiasco ?

"(...) It would not violate any political principles to at least give the Palestinians their own money; let humanitarian assistance continue through U.N. and private agencies; encourage Russia, Egypt and other nations to exert maximum influence on Hamas to moderate its negative policies; and support President Abbas in his efforts to ease tension, avoid violence and explore steps toward a lasting peace.(...)".

Maybe not; but it does violate logic to refer to the Palestinian's own money in the midst of a debate on the suspension of international funding that is nothing less than vital to their survival; it boggles the mind to still advocate for the mediation and support of the UN despite their obvious bias towards the Palestinian terrorist elements (does anyone remember "Zionism is racism"?); it boggles the mind to even mention Russia and Egypt, countries both plagued by Islamic fundamentalism to a point where any mediation of theirs would just smack of a vain attempt to appease their own Islamofascist killers; finally, if past experience is a guide, believing that Abbas is either capable or willing to ease tension and avoid violence, since his own weakness has played a pivotal role in Hamas gaining so much, reeks of of ignorant idealism.

Technorati : ,


The BBC has an article that proves that the fizzing sound that the Democratic Party is making as it dissolves is travelling around the world.

Technorati : , ,

Thursday, February 23, 2006


Saturday, February 11, 2006


It is indeed unbearably tempting to make fun of the French and their "soft" culture anytime we can. Their lack of support when we rolled into Iraq didn't help either. But, believe it or not, they have much to teach us on how to fight Muslim fundamentalist terror, as shown in this Foreign Policy article.

Technorati : ,

Sunday, January 29, 2006


Sun Jan 29, 11:35 AM ET, BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The troubled trial of Saddam Hussein collapsed into chaos moments after resuming on Sunday as the former Iraqi president and his defense team stormed out and guards dragged his half-brother from the courtroom. (...) Saddam's lawyers threatened to boycott future sessions unless the chief judge apologized, and called for the trial to be moved abroad, saying a fair hearing in Iraq was impossible. (...) "I am the judge and you are the defendant," Abdel Rahman told Saddam as he checked an outburst by the former Iraqi president, who complained: "This is an American court and it's rules are American ... you cannot force me to stay in court." (...) "I want to leave," Saddam, dressed in a dark suit and a white collared shirt, then told the judge. Then leave," said Abdel Rahman. "It is a tragedy. I led you for 35 years. How can you lead me out of court? Shame on you," said Saddam, who is on trial for crimes against humanity. He then left the courtroom, and was followed by his former vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, and Awad Hamed al-Bander, a former chief judge in his Revolutionary Court.
Here's a good way of nipping this bullshit in the bud: put some of this on his chair.


Muslims across the world are mad. Actually, mad would be a mild description. They are MAAAAAAAD. Very irate. Pissed. They're ready to blow (ok, ok, that one was easy. At least I got it out of my system...). What would make them crawl out of their skin so much ? Look at the reactions:
(...) Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador from Denmark and Saudi religious leaders have urged a boycott of Danish products." (AFP) "In a demonstration on the West Bank, members of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades threatened Danes in the area and told them to leave immediately, the Danish news agency Ritzau reported on Sunday." (AFP) "Because the Danish media had continued to show disrespect to the Prophet Mohammed and because the Danish authorities failed to take any responsible action on that, Libya decided to close its embassy in Copenhagen," the Libyan Foreign Ministry said in a statement. It also threatened to take unspecified "economic measures" against Denmark. (AFP)
So why, you ask ? Why oh why ? Because of this: This is a sample of a few cartoons posted by the Danish newspaper "Jyllands-Posten" last September. Since then, Muslims are in a tizzy. All Muslims ? Well, not exactly. "Prime Minister Rasmussen explained Denmark's position on that (the drawings), which was very satisfactory to me as a Muslim," Karzai said." according to the AFP (that would be Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai, who is, the last time I checked, a... Muslim). Oh, and that position explained to him was merely the fact that the Danish government had no control over the free expression of a private newspaper in what is a democratic society. But that is not the real problem. The real problem is this: an international religious community that serves as the ideological canvas that motivates and feeds the biggest terror crisis ever is getting all bent out of shape over a few cartoons. Now let me clarify. Every Muslim is not a terrorist. Muslims as an entire religious community are not going to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. Islam as a mainstream religion does not condone sawing off the heads of bound hostages before broadcasting such animalistic behavior on the internet. What I am saying is that Islam at large has done a piss-poor job of dissociating itself from its radical fringe. It has sought to dissociate itself from the butchering bastards in its midst only by playing the "oppressed minority" card to the hilt. No real cooperation in the Global War on Terror, just a lot of whining, as if the cover of politically correct wailing were enough to convince the rest of the world. Meanwhile, what is considered mainstream press in the Arab world gleefully bashes the West and its perceived Israeli proxy like this: Recognize Auschwitz ? Notice the Israeli flags. And for those who do not read Arabic, the sign reads "Gaza or the Israeli Annihilation Camp." Cute, ain't it ? Here's more: The apple represents the Arab world. And to those who would want to use the argument that this type of slight cuts much deeper in the Muslim world than in ours because religion and society are intertwined so much closer, just look at the complainants: Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians... The usual gallery of rogues. This is not religious; it's political. Childishly so. Suck it up and move on, you pussies...

Friday, January 27, 2006


A blurb posted yesterday on caught my attention:
Survey USA National Senator Approvals by CA Pol Junkie Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:28:38 PM PDT (From the diaries -- kos) Survey USA has their latest 50 State Senate approval poll out. There's juicy data on key incumbents: Conrad Burns (#100) 42% approve, 51% disapprove Rick Santorum (#98) 44% approve, 46% disapprove Jon Kyl (#94) 44% approve, 39% disapprove Mike DeWine (#93) 47% approve, 41% disapprove Jim Talent (#86) 50% approve, 38% disapprove Lincoln Chaffee (#74) 53% approve, 38% disapprove Of the bottom 21, 18 are Republicans...
Wow, now that is indeed scary. Unless of course, you click on the link and peruse the survey yourself. With a little math, you shouldn't be that worried. Let me explain: The post only looks at the bottom 21 senators , and points out that out of those 21, 18 are Republicans. However, before you pack up your essentials and prepare the wife and kids for a run for the hills, take a look at the top 20. Out of THOSE senators, 10 Are Republicans, 9 are Democrats, and then there is Jim Jeffords of Vermont (aka Jim "I-was-a-Republican-and-I-had-enough-balls-to-leave-the-Republicans-but- not-enough-to -join-the-Democrats-so-I-became-an-Independent" Jeffords). So, even if we simplistically divide the top 20 into Republicans/non-Republicans, it's still a 50/50 tie. Not perfect, but a far cry from this "Republicans are at the bottom of the barrel" nonsense.

Thursday, January 26, 2006



Via the Jawa Report (see my blog roll), Radioblogger has posted an interview (transcript and audio) of Joel Stein, who is a columnist for the LA Times, by Hugh Hewitt. Mr Stein has penned a column titled "Warriors and Wusses", in which he exposes a clear distaste for the US military. Well, not only that... he also exposes an obvious cluelessness about the subject he so inaptly criticizes. Call me crazy, but aren't the best opinions informed ones ?


I must have been kidding myself when I told myself this would never happen. Sorry, Israel... I really am. If you want to know how bad these guys are, look here.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006


Read this news snippet from the North Korean News Agency and tell me if you can blame me:
Pyongyang, January 24 (KCNA) -- New songs of high ideological and artistic value have been created this year to inspire the servicepersons and working people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the general onward march of the Songun revolution. The songs that laud the great Songun revolutionary guidance of Kim Jong Il touch the heartstrings of the people. The song "Indelible Footmarks" contains the ideological content that the footmarks imprinted by Kim Jong Il on the path of virgin snow and ice-covered cliff path while pushing his military jeep will remain long in the minds of the people in the efforts for building a great prosperous powerful nation. There is the song "Road to Front Associated with Comradeship". It says in an appealing melody that he continues his inspection tour of frontline units in spite of the rain or snow and shows ardent love and comradeship, sharing roast potatoes with darling soldiers on a steep mountain pass. The song "View of Snow-covered Jong Il Peak" lyrically describes that the beautiful frostwork on the trees of Jong Il Peak capped with snow in February when the people auspiciously celebrate his birthday, is the pride of Korea and the people bearing the scenery in their minds look up to and follow the great man. "Song of General Onward March of Songun Revolution" reflects the will of the soldiers and people of the DPRK to advance forward vigorously along the road of the Songun revolution, going through all trials and difficulties under the leadership of Kim Jong Il. And the song "Our Army, Our People" reflects the will of the servicepersons and people to keep the traditional beautiful trait of assisting the army and helping the people in fuller bloom. These songs also powerfully arouse the army and people to the general advance in the new year. Many other songs including "To Mother" and "What can I do for Motherland?" contain the determination of the soldiers to live a brilliant life in defence of the leader and motherland. They let the soldiers and people be aware of their mission assigned by the times.