The Saudi delegate to the Annapolis farce apparently was spouting off about how there couldn't be a REAL peace conference--or a real peace, for that matter--without the participation of Hamas: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/nov/26/on_hamas_saud_al_faisal_agrees_with_colin_powell_who_agrees_with_brent_scowcroft_who_agrees_with_zb. You know what? He's right. But.............how can you have peace where one side denies the existence, let alone the legitimacy, of the other? See my post yesterday on how Hamas is calling on the U.N. to rescind the 1947 Partition Plan.
As an aside, check out the comments below the link I posted above. They are a very good insight into the mindset of the left.
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Religion of Peace demonstrates its gentle side
Turns out that a 15-day jail sentence and deportation for the teacher who allowed her kids to name their teddy bear Mohammed is NOT enough for some Sudanese. No, they want her executed: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314111,00.html. I could use adjectives like "primitive" and "barbaric", but why bother? Again, for all of you moral and cultural relativists out there, I challenge you to defend this.
Condoleeza Rice goes completely off the freakin' deep end
This is almost beyond belief. I say almost because nothing that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice does surprises me anymore. She is a Palestinian shill, plain and simple. Her latest act of idiocy is to compare the Palestinians' cause to that of the Black Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and to implicitly (in my mind) analogize Israel to a 21st century version of South Africa: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546765483&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
Even James "F-- the Jews" Baker hasn't gone this far (yet). If Israel were run by anyone other than the State Department lapdog Ehud Olmert, it would tell Ms. Rice where to go, but unfortunately, Israel IS run by Tweedledum(b) Olmert. I fear for the future of the country.................
Even James "F-- the Jews" Baker hasn't gone this far (yet). If Israel were run by anyone other than the State Department lapdog Ehud Olmert, it would tell Ms. Rice where to go, but unfortunately, Israel IS run by Tweedledum(b) Olmert. I fear for the future of the country.................
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Disaffected "Youths"
That's who's rioting in France, shooting at the police, etc., etc. Not (gasp!) Muslims, even though the reality of the situation is that it is unassimilated Muslims who are doing just that: http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/psst_french_rioters_are_muslim.
Why, why, why, why, WHY can't our media acknowledge the obvious? Can't the MSM get past its politically correct bias JUST ONCE?
Why, why, why, why, WHY can't our media acknowledge the obvious? Can't the MSM get past its politically correct bias JUST ONCE?
Undoing history
That's what Hamas wants to do. Really! Hamas wants the U.N. to rescind the 1947 partition plan that led to the creation of the state of Israel, so that all of the land can be declared a Judenrein Palestinian state: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929549.html.
The scary thing is, if this (a vote to rescind the 1947 partition plan) went to a vote at the U.N. now, I have no doubt that it would pass by an overwhelming margin. The only countries that are certainties to vote against it, other than Israel of course, would be the United States, Canada, and maybe Australia. I wouldn't trust any country in Europe, that's for sure.
The scary thing is, if this (a vote to rescind the 1947 partition plan) went to a vote at the U.N. now, I have no doubt that it would pass by an overwhelming margin. The only countries that are certainties to vote against it, other than Israel of course, would be the United States, Canada, and maybe Australia. I wouldn't trust any country in Europe, that's for sure.
The latest from the Religion of Peace
That British schoolteacher whose class named their teddy bear "Mohammed", causing her to be arrested, has been convicted of "Insulting Islam", resulting in a sentence of 15 days in prison and deportation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071129/ap_on_re_af/sudan_british_teacher. Personally, I think that the deportation might be a reward, not a punishment, but leaving that aside for the moment, what kind of primitive society punishes "crimes" like this? Why is there no international outcry over this idiocy?
UPDATE (3:50 p.m.): A U.S. Islamic group, to its credit, has slammed the Sudanese court's decision, noting in not so many words how stupid and hypersensitive it makes Muslims look: http://www.aicongress.org/bear2.html.
UPDATE (3:50 p.m.): A U.S. Islamic group, to its credit, has slammed the Sudanese court's decision, noting in not so many words how stupid and hypersensitive it makes Muslims look: http://www.aicongress.org/bear2.html.
Coming up VERY small
Another heartbreaking story involving animal cruelty. A man owns a beagle which gets away from his house. He puts up posters and advertises that he will pay a $500 reward for the return of his dog. Instead, he gets a call demanding $600 by midnight that night or his dog will be killed. He then listens on the phone as his dog is apparently tortured. Around three a.m., he gets a call telling him that his dog has been killed, at which time the line goes dead: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/top_story/20071129_Stu_Bykofsky___Verizon_disconnects_2_lives.html.
I actually feel ill after reading this. I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again. What kind of person tortures animals? Does that life form even deserve the right to be called a "person"? Again, to put all my cards on the table, I am an animal lover--I don't even kill spiders when I find them in the house (I catch them in a glass and put them outside). I own three dogs, so this story hits me pretty hard. Dogs provide their owners with unconditional love. Treat them right and they will by loyal to you forever. So, to read that obviously twisted individuals likely tortured a dog to death both infuriates and nauseates me.
Honestly, if they find the people who did this, they should be treated the same way they treated this poor little dog.
One other thing: The dog owner tried to get Verizon to release the phone number of the phone that called him. Even after being served with a warrant, it took Verizon 12 DAYS to provide the information, and even then, the Philadelphia Police Department, which is investigating the situation, was charged $150. That's disgraceful.
I actually feel ill after reading this. I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again. What kind of person tortures animals? Does that life form even deserve the right to be called a "person"? Again, to put all my cards on the table, I am an animal lover--I don't even kill spiders when I find them in the house (I catch them in a glass and put them outside). I own three dogs, so this story hits me pretty hard. Dogs provide their owners with unconditional love. Treat them right and they will by loyal to you forever. So, to read that obviously twisted individuals likely tortured a dog to death both infuriates and nauseates me.
Honestly, if they find the people who did this, they should be treated the same way they treated this poor little dog.
One other thing: The dog owner tried to get Verizon to release the phone number of the phone that called him. Even after being served with a warrant, it took Verizon 12 DAYS to provide the information, and even then, the Philadelphia Police Department, which is investigating the situation, was charged $150. That's disgraceful.
The "One State" solution
That's what the Palestinians want. They do NOT want a Palestinian state beside Israel; they want a Palestinian state instead of Israel: http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_nov2007.htm#b281107. Let's keep in mind, we just went through the "Annapolis Peace Conference", which accomplished little. However, while it was going on, the Palestinian Authority, which is run by Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, was busy showing maps which do no include Israel. I wonder if the EU or American State Department will even mention this? I'm not holding my breath.
In search of new ways to degrade itself
You have to hand it to the Angry Left; it is nothing if not imaginative: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313869,00.html. Still, this story really bothers me, as the exhibit is being held on public property.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
This just gives me the creeps
There is a story out of the St. Louis area about a distraught 13-year old girl who comitted suicide after being "dumped" online by a "boy" who she had met online but never in person: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/28hoax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. Except.........it turns out that the "boy" was no boy; "he" was the 47-year old mother of a former friend of the dead girl, Megan Meier, who was trying to get back at Meier. Some revenge, huh? The mom is not being charged with any crimes, but has received threats from around the world for what she did.
What would motivate a person to do something like this? I have kids, and they have been hurt by their supposed friends. I would never contemplate doing something this cruel, and cruel is the best word to describe it. I hope that this woman doesn't get another night of peaceful sleep the rest of her life.
What would motivate a person to do something like this? I have kids, and they have been hurt by their supposed friends. I would never contemplate doing something this cruel, and cruel is the best word to describe it. I hope that this woman doesn't get another night of peaceful sleep the rest of her life.
Jews who hate Jews
There are a lot of them around. Sure, everyone knows about the Noam Chomskys and Norman Finkelsteins of the world, but there are plenty of others working in the shadows, all with the shared goal of wiping Israel off the map, or blaming it for all of the world's problems: http://www.nysun.com/article/66878.
I have never understood this self-hatred. I'm not saying that every Jew should be a fanatical supporter of Israel, but I do question why some Jews (and what a shock, they seem to be exclusively on the far left of the political spectrum) seem to feel that Israel alone is responsible for so much that ails this world. If Israel would "just go away", they reason, the world would be a much more peaceful place--sure, because Sunnis and Shiites will start loving each other once Israel no longer exists. Because Muslims in Thailand will stop killing Buddhists once Israel stops existing. Because the West will end its dependency on Arab oil once Israel no longer exists. Because Muslim terrorists in The Phillipines will stop their killing once Israel is gone. Because Pakistan and India will stop squabbling over Kashmir if Israel were eliminated. Because Muslims in the Sudan will start loving Christians in Darfur once Israel ceases to exist.
Funny how those inconvenient truths (Sorry, Al Gore) seem to be ignored by the self-hating Jews.
I have never understood this self-hatred. I'm not saying that every Jew should be a fanatical supporter of Israel, but I do question why some Jews (and what a shock, they seem to be exclusively on the far left of the political spectrum) seem to feel that Israel alone is responsible for so much that ails this world. If Israel would "just go away", they reason, the world would be a much more peaceful place--sure, because Sunnis and Shiites will start loving each other once Israel no longer exists. Because Muslims in Thailand will stop killing Buddhists once Israel stops existing. Because the West will end its dependency on Arab oil once Israel no longer exists. Because Muslim terrorists in The Phillipines will stop their killing once Israel is gone. Because Pakistan and India will stop squabbling over Kashmir if Israel were eliminated. Because Muslims in the Sudan will start loving Christians in Darfur once Israel ceases to exist.
Funny how those inconvenient truths (Sorry, Al Gore) seem to be ignored by the self-hating Jews.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The REAL Holocaust
We all know about Mahmoud Abbas' history as a Holocaust Denier. Turns out, our knowledge was wrong. He ISN'T a Holocaust denier in general. No, he just denies the Jewish Holocaust because, you see, there has been a Holocaust..........the one affecting the Palestinians, of course: http://voanews.com/english/2007-11-27-voa59.cfm.
Read the whole article and tell me if my interpretation of what he said is wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it.
Read the whole article and tell me if my interpretation of what he said is wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it.
Rights are SOOOOOO inconvenient
You have to think that that's what this Quebec separatist is discussing when he says that only an independent Quebec will "guarantee" the preservation of the French language: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/11/26/accommodation-hearing.html. You see, while Quebec is still in Canada, it has to deal with pesky rights and freedoms--though it still does a fairly good job of ignoring those, too. However, if it were independent, it wouldn't be a far stretch to expect to see the English language banned outright.
Get out of (Saudi) jail free card
All it takes for al Qaeda terrorists to be released from Saudi jails is a promise to behave: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313063,00.html. It's a good thing that these people weren't REAL criminals or something worse, like homosexuals or (gasp!) Jews...........
Legitimizing our enemies
The farce that is the Annapolis Peace Conference is set to begin today, with everyone's favourite terrorist state, Syria, in attendance. Given Syria's (at best) ambivalence towards the mythical "Peace Process", the most that anyone could hope for from the Syrians would be that they don't get in the way if something meaningful starts to occur (yeah, right). More likely, Syria will use this conference as photo-op, and to enhance the prestige of one of the more odious regimes on the planet: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010912.
By convening this conference, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has set the stage for even more violence, because unless Israel totally capitulates to the Arab states (a definite possibility), the Palestinians will ramp up the terrorism, with the full support and connivance of the Arab/Muslim world.
And here's a heartwarming postscript to this whole fiasco. The Saudis refuse to acknowledge Israel at the conference, going so far as to refuse to even enter through the same door as the Israeli delegation: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546733481&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
By convening this conference, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has set the stage for even more violence, because unless Israel totally capitulates to the Arab states (a definite possibility), the Palestinians will ramp up the terrorism, with the full support and connivance of the Arab/Muslim world.
And here's a heartwarming postscript to this whole fiasco. The Saudis refuse to acknowledge Israel at the conference, going so far as to refuse to even enter through the same door as the Israeli delegation: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546733481&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Another promise broken
The Bush 43 Administration had vowed to to have no contact with Egypt's Muslim Brother (which in essence is nothing but a more polite version of al Qaeda). That promise was made only two years ago. Well, it didn't take long for this administration to go back on that word as well: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/FOREIGN/111150040/1003.
Honestly, I am ready for the 2008 election already. This lame duck administration has very little direction, and to the extent that it takes positions on things, they are invariably bad.
Honestly, I am ready for the 2008 election already. This lame duck administration has very little direction, and to the extent that it takes positions on things, they are invariably bad.
The latest from the Religion of Peace
If you are a teacher in the Sudan, never, under any circumstances, let your class of seven-year olds name their class teddy bear Muhammad. It might get you 40 lashes with a whip: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312895,00.html.
For all of your moral relativists out there, how do you justify this? It is primitive, barbaric, and sorry, it is all too indicative of the backwards mentality that prevails in Islam.
For all of your moral relativists out there, how do you justify this? It is primitive, barbaric, and sorry, it is all too indicative of the backwards mentality that prevails in Islam.
Ron Paul, candidate for all
It's not just neo-Nazis who support the Texas Congressman's quixotic quest for the Presidency. Nope, now he's the candidate of brothel owners, too (or one of them, anyway): http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=3913419.
UPDATE (5:15 p.m.): The Wall Street Journal has a good piece on some of the Texas Congressman's "other supporters": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847-email.html.
UPDATE (5:15 p.m.): The Wall Street Journal has a good piece on some of the Texas Congressman's "other supporters": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847-email.html.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The Arab/Muslim World vs.............who?
I can't say Israel, because I don't trust the dhimmi Olmert government to actually defend Israel's interests, and Lord knows that U.S. State Department and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice will do nothing to help the Jewish state: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/11/25/mideast-conference.html.
I honestly am fearful about what is going to happen at Annapolis. I can see a situation where the entire Arab world, with the conniving assistance of the State Department, gets together and beats an already weak Israeli government into submission. The end result of this will be a terrorist state on Israel's southern and western borders, and one which owns half of Jerusalem. I simply don't have faith in the Olmert government to stop this from happening.
I honestly am fearful about what is going to happen at Annapolis. I can see a situation where the entire Arab world, with the conniving assistance of the State Department, gets together and beats an already weak Israeli government into submission. The end result of this will be a terrorist state on Israel's southern and western borders, and one which owns half of Jerusalem. I simply don't have faith in the Olmert government to stop this from happening.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Fort Lauderdale's Sun Sentinel shills for CAIR
Worse yet, the paper isn't even honest enough to admit that it is doing so. In today's edition, it published an Op-Ed by CAIR hack Pervez Ahmed, though if you read through Ahmed's gloating piece on the mistrial in the Holy Land Foundation trial (a true miscarriage of justice, IMHO), you'd never know that Ahmed is affiliated with CAIR, because the newspaper never tells readers that that's who he is: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-cair24forumsbnov24,0,1260489.story.
I'll give CAIR credit. It has done a fabulous job positioning itself as THE voice of the Muslim community in the United States. In so doing, it has also become the prime apologist for every act of Muslim terrorism around the world, and it has attacked each and every piece of anti-terrorism legislation as being "Islamophobic". But, to come full circle, thank YOU, Sun Sentinel, for shilling for the primary mouthpiece for Islamofascist terror in this country.
I'll give CAIR credit. It has done a fabulous job positioning itself as THE voice of the Muslim community in the United States. In so doing, it has also become the prime apologist for every act of Muslim terrorism around the world, and it has attacked each and every piece of anti-terrorism legislation as being "Islamophobic". But, to come full circle, thank YOU, Sun Sentinel, for shilling for the primary mouthpiece for Islamofascist terror in this country.
Expected, but dismaying nonetheless
Australia has decided to move in a different direction, as former Prime Minister John Howard's governing Liberal Party was rudely ushered out of power by Prime Minster-Elect Kevin Rudd's Labour Party: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/11/24/australia-election.html. The results are bad news for the United States, which had counted Australia under Howard as among its closest allies. Rudd will likely move Australia in the same direction as Great Britain, thereby distancing it from the United States. As well, you can expect a move towards China by the Aussies.
All in all, not good news for those of us living here.................
All in all, not good news for those of us living here.................
Friday, November 23, 2007
A big election Down Under
Australia is going to the polls, literally as I write this, and things are looking quite bleak for the longtime Australian Prime Minister, John Howard: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22802562-5013871,00.html. Howard has been a staunch ally of the United States, and has also been outspoken in his support of Israel. If he goes down to defeat, as appears will likely be the case, it wouldn't be surprising to see his successor, Labour's Kevin Rudd, go down the same path as Britain's Gordon Brown (though Rudd will likely be a bit more subtle about it).
Respect towards everyone and everything.......except Jews and Israel
Britain's "Respect Party" is slowly but surely accumulating votes in every election. It has gone from one seat to 19, and there are no signs that this trend will reverse itself anytime soon: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=253&PID=0&IID=1911&TTL=Britain%E2%80%99s_Respect_Party:_The_Leftist-Islamist_Alliance_and_Its_Attitude_toward_Israel. Among Respect's strongest policies is one of implacable opposition (one could say hatred) towards the Jewish State. The growth of Respect is one reason why I think that, shockingly enough, the situation in the U.K. may be even more dire than that in France. Let's keep in mind who Respect's most prominent spokesman is: George Galloway, who does not make any efforts to hide his antipathy towards Israel or the United States.
Venezuela, the next member of the Arab League
Well, it may as well be, considering the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments expressed by its leaders: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/world/americas/21venez.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have long been buddies, united by a hatred of the United States and Israel. Well, retired General Raul Baduel, one of Chavez' erstwhile supporters, has come out against the Chavistas, and he has furthermore met with Jewish leaders in Venezuela. This move has caused considerable consternation among Chavez' supporters, who have started mumbling about "Zionist plots" and the like.
It really does seem as though Venezuela is just a few steps removed from outright anti-Semitic legislation, and if Hugo Chavez gets the changes to the country's constitution that he wants, it is not unreasonable to think that they (anti-Semitic laws) might be next.
It really does seem as though Venezuela is just a few steps removed from outright anti-Semitic legislation, and if Hugo Chavez gets the changes to the country's constitution that he wants, it is not unreasonable to think that they (anti-Semitic laws) might be next.
The U.N. continues its descent into oblivion
It is now official; the United Nations has officially voted to end its scrutiny of Belarus and Cuba, while placing Israel under the equivalent of permanent indictment: http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=59#more-59. It has also weakened the ability of organizations to monitor or criticize its activities.
Not surprisiginly, Australia, Canada and the United States were among seven countries to vote against the changes. More distressingly, 165 others voted in favour of them, including the entire membership of the European Union.
How much more proof do we need that the U.N. is a disgrace? I don't know of any Presidential Candidate who has proposed pulling the United States out of this face of an organization, or turfing out of New York City. If any of the Ron Paulites are still monitoring my blog, could you let me know if your guy is in favour of this? If so, we will have found our second point of agreement (that and putting the U.S. back on the Gold Standard for its currency).
Not surprisiginly, Australia, Canada and the United States were among seven countries to vote against the changes. More distressingly, 165 others voted in favour of them, including the entire membership of the European Union.
How much more proof do we need that the U.N. is a disgrace? I don't know of any Presidential Candidate who has proposed pulling the United States out of this face of an organization, or turfing out of New York City. If any of the Ron Paulites are still monitoring my blog, could you let me know if your guy is in favour of this? If so, we will have found our second point of agreement (that and putting the U.S. back on the Gold Standard for its currency).
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Whether you're American or not, please accept my best wishes for a safe, healthy and happy holiday, and give thanks not only for what you have, but for everything the soldiers overseas are doing for ALL of us.
No blogging tomorrow (Thanksgiving Day), but I should be back Friday.
No blogging tomorrow (Thanksgiving Day), but I should be back Friday.
The latest from the Religion of Peace
Stories like this make me feel all warm and fuzzy: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22793111-25837,00.html. Scroll past the first part of the story and go down to where it describes how the Islamofascist who tried to kill Benazir Bhutto used a one year-old child with a bomb strapped to it to commit the terrorist act. I wonder, did the demented psychotics who thought this up expect that a one-year old was going to get his 72 virgins in paradise?
I'm going to slug the next person who refers to these subhumans as "militants", or "activists", or "fundamentalists". Someone who plans and does something like this is none of these things. They are human vermin, and are worthy only of extermination...............
I'm going to slug the next person who refers to these subhumans as "militants", or "activists", or "fundamentalists". Someone who plans and does something like this is none of these things. They are human vermin, and are worthy only of extermination...............
The latest idiocy from our schools
Some kids in a Pittsburgh high school got together to do an anti-drug message. It included a video to help them make their point: http://kdka.com/school/fake.drugs.candy.2.570232.html. Well, because the video showed kids "snorting" candy, they were all disciplined, and one them, an honours student with a 4.0 GPA, was sent for drug counselling.
Only in our current, bizarro world environment could something like this occur...........
Only in our current, bizarro world environment could something like this occur...........
What is going on with the U.K.?
Maybe one of my readers, Najistani, can explain this one. While the Gordon Brown government is at least paying lip service to the idea of tougher sanctions against Iran, the British bureaucracy is helping subsidize the Iranian economy: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2890957.ece. This is one of those things tha ordinarily would be hard to believe, but in fact is completely in keeping with the prevalent, Islamic-supporting mindset of the British government.
I couldn't have predicted this a year or two ago, but it really does seem as though France and the U.K. have swapped mindsets.......................
I couldn't have predicted this a year or two ago, but it really does seem as though France and the U.K. have swapped mindsets.......................
More of the same
It's official now; the State Department in the United States has issued invitations to its "Peace Conference" in Annapolis next week. The invitation list is quite impressive: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000932.html. It looks as though the dhimmi Israeli leadership will be there, as will Mahmoud "Holocaust? WHAT Holocaust?" Abbas. Beyond that, I doubt very much that any of the other Arab State bigwigs will be there, though I am sure that they will harangue Israel (and the U.S.) from afar: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010889.
I don't think that there is even a slight chance for this project's success. It's a waste of time tha will result in more violence and bloodshed, for which Israel will be blamed.
I don't think that there is even a slight chance for this project's success. It's a waste of time tha will result in more violence and bloodshed, for which Israel will be blamed.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The road to nowhere
That's what the Annapolis "Peace Conference" is: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010885. At best, it will be a futile exchange where, once again, one side demands the unobtainable (the "right of return") and denies the undeniable ("Israel is NOT a Jewish state", or so says the Palestinian Authority's Saeb Erakat). At worst, it will further poison the atmosphere in the region--if that's possible--to the point where peace will become completely impossible. And, for this mess we have the Arabist State Department and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to thank.
I know that Ehud Olmert, in between dodging the criminal allegations being advanced against him, seems prepared to give up virtually everything, but even he has his limits (he's basically told Erakat that unless Israel's Jewish identity is formally acknowledged, there's no point in discussing anything).
Again, I ask, "What does the U.S. think will come out of this meeting?"
I know that Ehud Olmert, in between dodging the criminal allegations being advanced against him, seems prepared to give up virtually everything, but even he has his limits (he's basically told Erakat that unless Israel's Jewish identity is formally acknowledged, there's no point in discussing anything).
Again, I ask, "What does the U.S. think will come out of this meeting?"
Monday, November 19, 2007
Isn't this cute?
Mahmoud and Hugo are making nice with each other. Isn't it precious when megalomaniacal dictators play nice?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_venezuela.
Seriously, if this isn't Exhibits 1 and 1A as to why we need to find an alternative fuel source to oil, I don't know what is. Every penny that we pour into the economies of these two enemies of the United States--and that's what they are--will come back to haunt us. Bet on it.
And for those who start screaming "Drill in ANWR! Drill off the coasts" I say, okay.....what happens after that? ANWR won't provide but a drop in the proverbial bucket, and even if they start drilling today, it will be a decade before any oil is produced out of the wells that are drilled. What we need to do is find an ALTERNATIVE to oil, which is doable. If we can build computer chips which are as small as the head of a pin, there is no reason why we can't find an alternative fuel source. None.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_venezuela.
Seriously, if this isn't Exhibits 1 and 1A as to why we need to find an alternative fuel source to oil, I don't know what is. Every penny that we pour into the economies of these two enemies of the United States--and that's what they are--will come back to haunt us. Bet on it.
And for those who start screaming "Drill in ANWR! Drill off the coasts" I say, okay.....what happens after that? ANWR won't provide but a drop in the proverbial bucket, and even if they start drilling today, it will be a decade before any oil is produced out of the wells that are drilled. What we need to do is find an ALTERNATIVE to oil, which is doable. If we can build computer chips which are as small as the head of a pin, there is no reason why we can't find an alternative fuel source. None.
Do I have to boycott THEM, too???
I've previously blogged about the animal-lover side of my personality, and it's going to come out here again: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3882449.
WHY, why, why do the Japanese need to resume hunting Humpback Whales? Are they seriously trying to sell the world on the idea that their culture will wither away and die if they don't kill these animals? Sorry, but that won't fly with me, nor should it with anyone else. It's a barbaric move on their part, and hopefully they will be condemned by the world community for it.
WHY, why, why do the Japanese need to resume hunting Humpback Whales? Are they seriously trying to sell the world on the idea that their culture will wither away and die if they don't kill these animals? Sorry, but that won't fly with me, nor should it with anyone else. It's a barbaric move on their part, and hopefully they will be condemned by the world community for it.
Scientists discover that the world is round
That's the next press release, after a conference discover that, believe it or not, the United Nations is biased against Israel: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1195127536543&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. No really, it's true! In all seriousness, the situation at Turtle Bay is a joke insofar as Israel is concerned.
If there are any Israel-haters or Palestinian supporters who check out my blog, I ask you this: Why the focus on Israel? Are there no other "human rights" disaster areas in the world? Why has Israel been condemned many more times than other country? Do the Chinese not deserve condemnation for Tiananmen Square, or the ongoing repression in Tibet? Do Saudi Arabia and Iran not deserve to be placed under permanent indictment for their abhorrent treatment of women, and (in the Saudi case) for the banning of religious artifacts from any religion other than Islam from their country?
I could go on and on with these questions, but I think that my point is made.
If there are any Israel-haters or Palestinian supporters who check out my blog, I ask you this: Why the focus on Israel? Are there no other "human rights" disaster areas in the world? Why has Israel been condemned many more times than other country? Do the Chinese not deserve condemnation for Tiananmen Square, or the ongoing repression in Tibet? Do Saudi Arabia and Iran not deserve to be placed under permanent indictment for their abhorrent treatment of women, and (in the Saudi case) for the banning of religious artifacts from any religion other than Islam from their country?
I could go on and on with these questions, but I think that my point is made.
Peace process? We don't need no stinkin' peace process!
Not if you're the Palestinians, you don't. You just act in an intransigent fashion, commit terrorist acts, and lo and behold, you will STILL get what you want: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/19annapolis.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
I've asked this question previously, but it bears repeating: Israel is being asked to give up virtually everything for the sake of this farcical peace conference which has zero chance of achieving peace. What is being asked of the Palestinians?
I've asked this question previously, but it bears repeating: Israel is being asked to give up virtually everything for the sake of this farcical peace conference which has zero chance of achieving peace. What is being asked of the Palestinians?
Friday, November 16, 2007
Why?
I read stories like this and I really wonder if humanity is, as it claims to be, an "evolved" species: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-12/gorilla-massacre/gorilla-massacre-video.html?fs=www.nationalgeographic.com.
What would possess people to do things like this? Then again, given what we do to each other, why in the world would I be shocked because we are incedibly cruel and murderous towards animals? I guess that I'm just naive...................
What would possess people to do things like this? Then again, given what we do to each other, why in the world would I be shocked because we are incedibly cruel and murderous towards animals? I guess that I'm just naive...................
All the more reason to get ourselves off the oil crack pipe............
OPEC member Venezuela's leader, Hugo Chavez, and his lap dog, Ecuador, are pushing to have the Cartel become more "political": http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/business/main3513108.shtml.
Translation: Chavez wants OPEC to become more anti-Western in general, and more anti-American in particular. I don't see Mr. Chavez getting his way to any significant degree, even with allies such as Iran to support him, but if he did, you can be sure that it would likely mean even higher oil prices for us, and embargoes and/or boycotts of countries that do business with or supply oil to Israel.
Again, I'll ask this question: How much more incentive do we need to get ourselves off the oil dependency?
Translation: Chavez wants OPEC to become more anti-Western in general, and more anti-American in particular. I don't see Mr. Chavez getting his way to any significant degree, even with allies such as Iran to support him, but if he did, you can be sure that it would likely mean even higher oil prices for us, and embargoes and/or boycotts of countries that do business with or supply oil to Israel.
Again, I'll ask this question: How much more incentive do we need to get ourselves off the oil dependency?
This may bore you, but it fascinates me
I've always wondered why certain countries are allied. Sometimes it is economics, sometimes it is shared values, sometimes it is common geography. Well, how does one explain the consistently warm relationship between Israel and Australia? Since Israel's birth in 1948, those relations have been consistently positive, with only a few bumps in the road: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=253&PID=0&IID=1927&TTL=A_Distant_Affinity:_The_History_of_Australian-Israeli_Relations. It's certainly easy to understand the affinity from the Israeli standpoint; Israel needs all the friends it can find. However, from the Australian standpoint, what does this friendship provide? Israel is not a strategic ally, nor is there a tremendous amount of trade between the two countries. It also doesn't seem to matter which political party is in power Down Under, be it Labour or the Conservatives. As well, Australia has no "powerful Jewish lobby", as is allegedly the case here in the U.S.
As I said, it's hard to explain, but I am glad for it nonetheless.
As I said, it's hard to explain, but I am glad for it nonetheless.
Does this surprise you?
If so, it shouldn't. Apparently, plans were afoot to set the groundwork for a visit by Prince Charles to Israel..........before they were scuttled by his office: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2879783.ece. This would never have come to light if for reasons that remain a mystery, someone hadn't cc'd the Israeli Ambassador to the U.K. on the e-mail exchange discussing the visit.
Whenever it comes to the subject of Israel, I always expect the worst from Europeans in general and Britons in particular. The culture there has become so left wing and sympathetic to "the Palestinian Cause" that Israel really has no chance. Just check out the tone of the e-mail, which rules out a visit because Israel might use it to "burnish" its public image. Well, God Forbid that Israel should ever look good, right? Funny how that didn't seem to be an issue when Prince Charles went gallivanting about the Arabian peninsula.
Whenever it comes to the subject of Israel, I always expect the worst from Europeans in general and Britons in particular. The culture there has become so left wing and sympathetic to "the Palestinian Cause" that Israel really has no chance. Just check out the tone of the e-mail, which rules out a visit because Israel might use it to "burnish" its public image. Well, God Forbid that Israel should ever look good, right? Funny how that didn't seem to be an issue when Prince Charles went gallivanting about the Arabian peninsula.
Ousted Olmert?
Supporters of Israel can only hope that this is the case. There is a very interesting article in today's Middle East Forum on how Olmert's increasingly generous offers to the Palestinians are the hallmark of a desperate--and doomed--Prime Ministership: http://www.meforum.org/article/1802.
I read the article and was struck by the opening lines, where Dhimmi Olmert sputters about how in order for there to be peace, there must always be "concessions". Really? I wonder, Mr. Prime Minister, what the Palestinians are "conceding"? As I see it, the only potential concession that they are making is that they will give up something that they don't have, which is "the right of return". Other than than, it's all on Israel.
Why don't Israel's leaders have a problem with this? And, for more on Israel's apparent death wish, read this: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1107/glick110607.php3. It paints a dismal picture of the current state of Israeli politics.
I read the article and was struck by the opening lines, where Dhimmi Olmert sputters about how in order for there to be peace, there must always be "concessions". Really? I wonder, Mr. Prime Minister, what the Palestinians are "conceding"? As I see it, the only potential concession that they are making is that they will give up something that they don't have, which is "the right of return". Other than than, it's all on Israel.
Why don't Israel's leaders have a problem with this? And, for more on Israel's apparent death wish, read this: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1107/glick110607.php3. It paints a dismal picture of the current state of Israeli politics.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
I'm not the only one..........
............who is noticing the dire situation in which the American economy finds itself: http://www.newsweek.com/id/70378. I've blogged again and again about how the fall of the U.S. dollar is indicative of much deeper problems than either one of our two parties realizes, let alone acknowledges. Well, it's no longer just me who's noticing the problems, and it can hardly be said that the head of the General Accounting Office is an alarmist, or a fool.
I just wonder, what will it take to get other people to notice the situation?
I just wonder, what will it take to get other people to notice the situation?
There go those Jews AGAIN!
Yes, we Jews are QUITE insidious. We trick others into doing our fighting for us, and now, we apparently are stealthily taking over the English language: http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/OPINION/711140434/1029/OPINION03.
Honestly, what would possess the Concord (New Hampshire) Monitor to publish a letter from a person who is obviously a racist?
Honestly, what would possess the Concord (New Hampshire) Monitor to publish a letter from a person who is obviously a racist?
No refugee status for you!
Two deserters from the American Armed Forces who fled to Canada to avoid being sent to Iraq in 2004 have been denied refugee status by the Canadian Supreme Court: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/15/hinzman-decision.html. To be more precise, the Court refused to hear their appeals of earlier decisions denying them refugee status.
I have to say that I am pleased by this decision. Let's not forget that unlike during the Vietnam War, there is no draft currently. Those in the Armed Forces have joined voluntarily, and it seems only logical that if you do join the military, you should go where they tell you. Then again, I will concede (as one Ron Paul supporter keeps harping) that I am not and have never been in the military. So, maybe I have no right to comment at all on this issue.
I have to say that I am pleased by this decision. Let's not forget that unlike during the Vietnam War, there is no draft currently. Those in the Armed Forces have joined voluntarily, and it seems only logical that if you do join the military, you should go where they tell you. Then again, I will concede (as one Ron Paul supporter keeps harping) that I am not and have never been in the military. So, maybe I have no right to comment at all on this issue.
Bad, and getting worse
That's what the situation is in the Middle East: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380783569&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. Whether it be increased (and increasingly effective) rocket attacks from Gaza, the ascendancy of Islamofascism in the West Bank, or a surging Hezbollah in Lebanon, the news is all bad.
Maybe there is a reason for optimism somewhere, but I sure can't find it.
Maybe there is a reason for optimism somewhere, but I sure can't find it.
Selling out Israel
I'm not sure who's more eager to do it, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice or the Confederacy of Dunces otherwise known as Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and the other members of their government: http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4772.
Why is it that Israel is always asked to give up tangible things in return for illusory promises? Israel withdrew completely from Gaza (a move which I naively supported at the time), and what did it get them? Constant rocket attacks. Now Israel's obedient leaders are being told to give up the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Apparently, they are considering doing that as well.
Given Condoleeza Rice's shap tilt towards the Palestinians over the last two years, and the generaly morphing of the Bush 43 Presidency into the Bush 41 Presidency (in terms of their views on Israel), I can't say that I'm surprised by what is going on here. However, I am stunned by the sheeplike behaviour of the Israeli public, which by and large seems to not care that their country is being sold out by its own leaders. I know that I have readers in Israel. PLEASE, PLEASE tell me that I am wrong.
UPDATE (8:55 a.m.): For more on the subject of Israeli leaders selling out their country, and the intransigence of the Palestinians, see Jeff Jacoby's article in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/14/is_israel_a_jewish_state/.
Why is it that Israel is always asked to give up tangible things in return for illusory promises? Israel withdrew completely from Gaza (a move which I naively supported at the time), and what did it get them? Constant rocket attacks. Now Israel's obedient leaders are being told to give up the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Apparently, they are considering doing that as well.
Given Condoleeza Rice's shap tilt towards the Palestinians over the last two years, and the generaly morphing of the Bush 43 Presidency into the Bush 41 Presidency (in terms of their views on Israel), I can't say that I'm surprised by what is going on here. However, I am stunned by the sheeplike behaviour of the Israeli public, which by and large seems to not care that their country is being sold out by its own leaders. I know that I have readers in Israel. PLEASE, PLEASE tell me that I am wrong.
UPDATE (8:55 a.m.): For more on the subject of Israeli leaders selling out their country, and the intransigence of the Palestinians, see Jeff Jacoby's article in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/14/is_israel_a_jewish_state/.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Arrgghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When I read something like this, it just drives me nuts: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11122007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/jerseys_counterterror_farce_382583.htm?page=0.
So, New Jersey doesn't want us to call Islamofascist terrorists by their name, because, you know, that would hurt their feelings. And, we need to involve "academia" in fighting terrorism, which WOULD be a good idea if only so many academics weren't sympathetic to the terrorists and their goals.
What is wrong with these people? This is a classic example of how you cannot fight a politically incorrect war in a politically correct way. It just won't work. It WILL, however, get people killed.
So, New Jersey doesn't want us to call Islamofascist terrorists by their name, because, you know, that would hurt their feelings. And, we need to involve "academia" in fighting terrorism, which WOULD be a good idea if only so many academics weren't sympathetic to the terrorists and their goals.
What is wrong with these people? This is a classic example of how you cannot fight a politically incorrect war in a politically correct way. It just won't work. It WILL, however, get people killed.
I'm a "Chickenhawk"
So says one of the commenters on my Ron Paul blog entries. I have posted the full text of the comment immediately below, but I did want to say this in response to the person who wrote it:
You obviously have very little understanding of what the term "isolationist" means, or even your own candidate's policies. You can call Congressman and aspiring President Paul's policies whatever you want, but that does not change what they are. I posted them IN FULL in an earlier entry, and readers of this blog can interpret them however they want. Regardless, I stand by my characterization.
Second, the term "chickenhawk" is one of the most abusive and invidious comments a person can make. Taking your argument to its logical extreme, only those who are or were in the military (or who are or were in a military zone) should ever be allowed to comment on affairs of a military nature, let alone make policies with respect to military issues. Kind of restrictive, don't you think?
And............you don't know me. You know NOTHING about me other than what I have posted in this blog, as well as what is contained in the brief biography I have posted. Thus, your comment is an indication of complete ignorance as well. For all you know, I could be a military vet who saw action (for the record, I'm not, though I have immediate family members who served and close, personal friends who are seeing action right now). I suppose that this is what passes for political debate in this country now, but that does not make it any more acceptable.
Thanks for stopping by my blog, but if that's what you consider to be an intelligent comment, there's not no need on your part to come back again, let alone post a comment.
Joseph Moroco said...
Ah yes, Another chickenhawk using the term "isolationist" to insult others. The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up. I once was an internationalist. Stupidly so such that I enlisted during the Vietnam war. Okay, so your too old for basic training, fair enough. My good man, there are other jobs you could apply for in the war zone. It appears that we are having a hard time finding diplomats.It is easy enough to blog, heck I do it too. Anything we say hear on the web costs us nothing here in comfortable America. Your Nov 8 post on isolationism and Ron Paul is a silly assertion.
November 14, 2007 8:00 AM
You obviously have very little understanding of what the term "isolationist" means, or even your own candidate's policies. You can call Congressman and aspiring President Paul's policies whatever you want, but that does not change what they are. I posted them IN FULL in an earlier entry, and readers of this blog can interpret them however they want. Regardless, I stand by my characterization.
Second, the term "chickenhawk" is one of the most abusive and invidious comments a person can make. Taking your argument to its logical extreme, only those who are or were in the military (or who are or were in a military zone) should ever be allowed to comment on affairs of a military nature, let alone make policies with respect to military issues. Kind of restrictive, don't you think?
And............you don't know me. You know NOTHING about me other than what I have posted in this blog, as well as what is contained in the brief biography I have posted. Thus, your comment is an indication of complete ignorance as well. For all you know, I could be a military vet who saw action (for the record, I'm not, though I have immediate family members who served and close, personal friends who are seeing action right now). I suppose that this is what passes for political debate in this country now, but that does not make it any more acceptable.
Thanks for stopping by my blog, but if that's what you consider to be an intelligent comment, there's not no need on your part to come back again, let alone post a comment.
Joseph Moroco said...
Ah yes, Another chickenhawk using the term "isolationist" to insult others. The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up. I once was an internationalist. Stupidly so such that I enlisted during the Vietnam war. Okay, so your too old for basic training, fair enough. My good man, there are other jobs you could apply for in the war zone. It appears that we are having a hard time finding diplomats.It is easy enough to blog, heck I do it too. Anything we say hear on the web costs us nothing here in comfortable America. Your Nov 8 post on isolationism and Ron Paul is a silly assertion.
November 14, 2007 8:00 AM
Bush Derangement Syndrome run amok
You can't really avoid Bush Derangement Syndrome ("BDS") no matter what your politics may be. If you're a Democrat or to the left of the political spectrum (or a Ron Paul supporter), you probably are affected by it. If you're a Republican or conservative, you've most likely been the victim of it. This is truly a shame, because it is such a powerful force that it effectively makes it impossible to have a genuine, sane debate on either the man or his policies: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010861.
Bush 43 has done plenty with which I disagree. You can start with his view on illegal immigration, go to his profligate spending and take off from there. However, I often find myself in the occasionally uncomfortable position of defending the man simply because those who hate him do so with such vitriol and with such a complete lack of rationality that there is little other choice. Those affected by BDS use their hatred for the man to justify just about everything and anything, whether it be wildfires in California (see the comments made by California's Lieutenant Governor just a few weeks ago) or 9/11 (the whole "mindset" of the 9/11 Truth Movement is a collective example of BDS).
How can there be a rational debate where one side is completely irrational?
Bush 43 has done plenty with which I disagree. You can start with his view on illegal immigration, go to his profligate spending and take off from there. However, I often find myself in the occasionally uncomfortable position of defending the man simply because those who hate him do so with such vitriol and with such a complete lack of rationality that there is little other choice. Those affected by BDS use their hatred for the man to justify just about everything and anything, whether it be wildfires in California (see the comments made by California's Lieutenant Governor just a few weeks ago) or 9/11 (the whole "mindset" of the 9/11 Truth Movement is a collective example of BDS).
How can there be a rational debate where one side is completely irrational?
France has what it takes, we don't
For all of the (well-deserved) ridicule that France receives regarding its "military prowess", The French can and must receive credit for the way they deal with wacko Islamofascist clerics in their country. In short, they toss them out of the country: http://www.meforum.org/article/1803. What do we do here? The answer, unfortunately, is "not much". Any moves against radical Islam are immediately met with public cries of condemnation by CAIR and lawsuits by the ACLU.
I honestly wonder sometimes whether there isn't a mindset on the left which believes "Better dead Americans than irritated or inconvenienced Muslims".
I honestly wonder sometimes whether there isn't a mindset on the left which believes "Better dead Americans than irritated or inconvenienced Muslims".
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Ron Paul.....Ron Paul........Ron Paul............Ron Paul, Part Four
I know that I'm just inviting abuse from the Ron Paul supporters out there, but here I go again, anyway. I've blogged previously about how I perceive the Republican Presidential Candidate's policies as being isolationist. Some may disagree with that view, and that's fine. I have no problem when people disagree with me. The thing is, I can't seem to shake my impression that the Texas Congressman, if he isn't an anti-Semite, is certainly very cozy with those who are: http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/ron_pauls_jewish_problem.
Like the article asks, if a known neo-Nazi personally contributes money to your campaign, why is there is even a question that the money should be returned immediately?
Like the article asks, if a known neo-Nazi personally contributes money to your campaign, why is there is even a question that the money should be returned immediately?
Where's all that oil money going?
Not just to fund terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere (though that undoubtedly is still the prime destination for the money). No, it also goes to buy stuff like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111200802.html.
In case you're wondering why the Saudi Prince's name sounds so familiar, he's the guy who offered the former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, $10 million to help with the "rebuilding" after 9/11, though he added as a precondition that the U.S. had to "re-examine" its policies in the Middle East. Giuliani, in not so many words, told him what he could with his "gift".
In case you're wondering why the Saudi Prince's name sounds so familiar, he's the guy who offered the former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, $10 million to help with the "rebuilding" after 9/11, though he added as a precondition that the U.S. had to "re-examine" its policies in the Middle East. Giuliani, in not so many words, told him what he could with his "gift".
Groundhog Day
I really feel as though the Middle East is imitating this movie. Israel keeps offering concessions, the Palestinians keep denying that Israel exists, or they deny its Jewish character: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923076.html.
What am I missing here? What is it that I see that is obviously escaping Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice? How can Israel be expected to have any type of meaningful peace with the Palestinians when the latter does not even acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state?
What am I missing here? What is it that I see that is obviously escaping Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice? How can Israel be expected to have any type of meaningful peace with the Palestinians when the latter does not even acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Maybe it's what he should be doing, anyway
Supermodel (and apparently, supertwit) Kate Moss apparently was at a function recently where she met British Tory leader David Cameron. Only.............she didn't realize that he was the leader of one of the two major political parties in the U.K. No, no, she thought that he was employed in a different profession: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxrtaYtPMzmopkgmn2gpHE4m4afQ.
Yes, she thought that he was a plumber, and complained to him at great length about her plumbing issues. All I can say is, if only Sean Penn were so well-informed.................
Yes, she thought that he was a plumber, and complained to him at great length about her plumbing issues. All I can say is, if only Sean Penn were so well-informed.................
Don't worry about Iran!
Iran has every right to seek out nuclear power, weapons, or whatever it wants: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071112_Iran_has_a_right_to_seek_nuclear_capability.html. What struck me most about this incredibly naive Op-Ed was the line in the fourth paragraph from the end, where the writer asserts that Iran needs the weapons to protect itself against various, unspecified "external threats". One can only presume that he means the United States and/or Israel.
Of ourse, the only reason that either one of those two countries could even be considered a threat to Iran would be because the Iranians are seeking to construct a nuclear weapon, but that point seems to escape him.
Of ourse, the only reason that either one of those two countries could even be considered a threat to Iran would be because the Iranians are seeking to construct a nuclear weapon, but that point seems to escape him.
Munich-ing Israel
The U.S. State Department has apparently assured Syria that the Golan Heights will be on the agenda of the upcoming "peace" conference in Annapolis: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/922706.html. I don't suppose that the Israelis were consulted before this offer was extended. Pretty generous of the State Department, don't you think? What's next, an offer to return Israel to the 1947, original mandate lines?
A marked man
Walid Jumblatt has never been shy about speaking his mind, and now he has apparently called for Lebanon and and Israel to make peace: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1192380772811&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. Of course, with Hezbollah in complete control of South Lebanon, that will never happen, but I'll give him credit for making his statement anyway. You also have to think that his statements will certainly not endear him to the Syrians or their proxies in Lebanon. I'd be surprised if he makes it more than six months before he is assassinated.
Veteran's/Remembrance Day Followup
After I went to bed last night, I couldn't fall asleep. I tossed and turned for a while, and eventually just gave up and got out of bed. I went downstairs and turned on the computer, and in my e-mail inbox was a link to two YouTube videos honouring Canada's soldiers who have falled in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They brought a tear to my eye, and I think that the videos could be equally applicable to vets and their families here in the U.S. My own father was a WWII veteran, and I have close friends and colleagues who are serving now. So, this whole subject is one that is very near and dear to my heart.
To the veterans out there, THANK YOU again. THANK YOU for everything that I have, and I know that without your sacrifices I would have nothing. THANK YOU for giving up your futures so that my family could have its [future].
To my readers, many of whom have families of their own, think of all families out there who have lost mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, aunts, uncles and cousins, and say a prayer for them.
Here is the full text of the e-mail I received:
Don Cherry may be gruff and loud, but that man has a heart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzgSI2PO8s0
Bryan Adams "Remembrance Day" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj0WX0jtJJI
To the veterans out there, THANK YOU again. THANK YOU for everything that I have, and I know that without your sacrifices I would have nothing. THANK YOU for giving up your futures so that my family could have its [future].
To my readers, many of whom have families of their own, think of all families out there who have lost mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, aunts, uncles and cousins, and say a prayer for them.
Here is the full text of the e-mail I received:
Don Cherry may be gruff and loud, but that man has a heart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzgSI2PO8s0
Bryan Adams "Remembrance Day" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj0WX0jtJJI
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Veteran's/Remembrance Day
Today is Veteran's Day in the United States, Remembrance Day in Canada. To all of the veterans out there, to any military personnel who may read my blog, you have my appreciation, gratitude and respect. Thank you.
Some sporting thoughts for the second Sunday in November
1) What's wrong with Kansas? Well, nothing, at least not when it comes to the football team. The Jayhawks are a shocking 10-0, and yes, I know, they haven't "beaten anyone". Well, who had Ohio State beaten in getting off to a 10-0 start (before losing yesterday at home to Illinois)? Uhh.............no one, that's who. But, OSU is a "name" program, Kansas is not, so no one said boo about the Buckeyes string of victories over nonentities and the teams in what is a mediocre Big Ten this season. All the Jayhawks have done is beat every team they have played this season, and they have a couple of chances at signature victories in the next few weeks, with games against the #6 Missouri Tigers and (assuming they win that one) the #3 Oklahoma Sooners. My thought is that if Kansas wins both of those games, they'll be playing for the National Title in January, and deservedly so.
2) I know that it's gotten lost in the hoopla over the New England Patriots and (to a lesser degree) the Indianapolis Colts, but the NFC now has two 8-1 teams in the Dallas Cowboys and (!!) the Green Bay Packers. A lot of people thought that Dallas would be the class of the NFC, and the Cowboys have lived up to those expectations. Still, they were shellacked in their meeting at home with the Patriots (48-27), and I believe that if they were to meet a healthy Colts team, the result would be similar (a Dallas loss). The fact of the matter is that the NFC just isn't as good as the AFC right now.
3) Who's going to sign A-Rod? Until someone else does it, I still see him ending up back on the Yankees, no matter what the two sides are saying right now. A-Rod is going to make a run at Barry Bonds' steroid-fueled home run record, and I still think that the Steinbrenner clan would like that to happen when he is wearing Yankees' pinstripes. However, there are some teams with a lot of money who will be more than happy to throw some of it Rodriguez' way, among them the Chicago Cubs (though what would they do with Aramis Ramirez?), the San Francisco Giants (he's the perfect fit for a franchise that needs a superstar to follow Barroid Bonds), the Anaheim Angels (Vlad Guerrero can't do it all by himself) and the Los Angeles Dodgers (A-Rod loved playing for Joe Torre, who coincidentally happens to be managing in La-La land now). Ultimately, someone is going to make him even richer than he already is............
4) So far, those trades by the Boston Celtics for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen haven't worked out too badly for the Celtics, have they? Boston is off to a 5-0 start for the first time in a generation, and while I can't see Boston competing with any of the big teams out west (San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix, and even Houston) in a playoff series, it is establishing itself as the "team to beat" in the East. Honestly, how much fun is it live in Boston right now? The Red Sox have won two of the last four World Series'. The Patriots have won three Super Bowl titles in the past six seasons and are prohibitive favourites to win #4 this season. Now the Celtics are adding to the neverending parade in Beantown. Only the Bruins aren't meeting their end of the bargain, though even they are much better this season.
5) Speaking of hockey, we are seeing some amazing starts to the season by a few teams. The Ottawa Senators are off to a 14-2 start. The Detroit Red Wings are right behind them at 13-2-1. The Philadelphia Flyers have already won 10 games, a mark they didn't reach until January last season. Conversely, no team has gotten off to a horrible start, at least not yet. This could be a very fun season.......................
2) I know that it's gotten lost in the hoopla over the New England Patriots and (to a lesser degree) the Indianapolis Colts, but the NFC now has two 8-1 teams in the Dallas Cowboys and (!!) the Green Bay Packers. A lot of people thought that Dallas would be the class of the NFC, and the Cowboys have lived up to those expectations. Still, they were shellacked in their meeting at home with the Patriots (48-27), and I believe that if they were to meet a healthy Colts team, the result would be similar (a Dallas loss). The fact of the matter is that the NFC just isn't as good as the AFC right now.
3) Who's going to sign A-Rod? Until someone else does it, I still see him ending up back on the Yankees, no matter what the two sides are saying right now. A-Rod is going to make a run at Barry Bonds' steroid-fueled home run record, and I still think that the Steinbrenner clan would like that to happen when he is wearing Yankees' pinstripes. However, there are some teams with a lot of money who will be more than happy to throw some of it Rodriguez' way, among them the Chicago Cubs (though what would they do with Aramis Ramirez?), the San Francisco Giants (he's the perfect fit for a franchise that needs a superstar to follow Barroid Bonds), the Anaheim Angels (Vlad Guerrero can't do it all by himself) and the Los Angeles Dodgers (A-Rod loved playing for Joe Torre, who coincidentally happens to be managing in La-La land now). Ultimately, someone is going to make him even richer than he already is............
4) So far, those trades by the Boston Celtics for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen haven't worked out too badly for the Celtics, have they? Boston is off to a 5-0 start for the first time in a generation, and while I can't see Boston competing with any of the big teams out west (San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix, and even Houston) in a playoff series, it is establishing itself as the "team to beat" in the East. Honestly, how much fun is it live in Boston right now? The Red Sox have won two of the last four World Series'. The Patriots have won three Super Bowl titles in the past six seasons and are prohibitive favourites to win #4 this season. Now the Celtics are adding to the neverending parade in Beantown. Only the Bruins aren't meeting their end of the bargain, though even they are much better this season.
5) Speaking of hockey, we are seeing some amazing starts to the season by a few teams. The Ottawa Senators are off to a 14-2 start. The Detroit Red Wings are right behind them at 13-2-1. The Philadelphia Flyers have already won 10 games, a mark they didn't reach until January last season. Conversely, no team has gotten off to a horrible start, at least not yet. This could be a very fun season.......................
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Another Israel-hater
This one doesn't come as much of a surprise. Former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has weighed in on the Arab-Israeli dispute..............and guess which side he blames? I know, it's a tough one: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3469518,00.html.
In Boutros-Ghali's warped view, the Arab/Muslim world holds no responsibility whatsoever for the current situation. Nope, it's ALL on Israel. Everything that has gone wrong, or anything that hasn't happened but could or should have, is because of Israel.
I guess that you can just add him to that incredibly long list of U.N. jackasses who hate the Jewish state.
In Boutros-Ghali's warped view, the Arab/Muslim world holds no responsibility whatsoever for the current situation. Nope, it's ALL on Israel. Everything that has gone wrong, or anything that hasn't happened but could or should have, is because of Israel.
I guess that you can just add him to that incredibly long list of U.N. jackasses who hate the Jewish state.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Christmas shopping for al Qaeda
ABC News is reporting that al Qaeda may have plans to hit shopping malls in the Chicago and Los Angeles areas over the Christmas shopping season: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-fbi-a.html. I am assuming that the government is already aware of this information and is investigating it. I am curious, however, as to why this would not be front page news in the Chicago Tribune or Los Angeles Times. You would figure that this would be something that would interest the readers of those respective newspapers, but what do I know? And, I have little doubt that the ACLU would scream bloody murder if either Chicago or Los Angeles Police stepped up surveillance of areas where Muslims live in either city. It's simply not acceptable to "profile" those who want to kill us, after all...............
UPDATE (9:03 a.m., Saturday): Sure enough, the protesting has begun: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gEBi7jBE6u4K4jS7EHGWQiZ5nRSg.
UPDATE (9:03 a.m., Saturday): Sure enough, the protesting has begun: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gEBi7jBE6u4K4jS7EHGWQiZ5nRSg.
Doubleplus Unlove of Israel in Norway
Anti-Israel sentiment in Scandinavia is nothing new. For great reporting on this subject area, go visit Tundra Tabloids (on my blogroll), where there is a steady stream of stories on how much those supposedly tolerant Scandinavians detest the Jewish state. The latest comes out of Norway, where the line was long ago crossed from what could be considered legitimate criticism of Israel and simple anti-Semitism: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&TMID=111&LNGID=1&FID=381&PID=0&IID=1919.
I don't know what it is about the far left (which describes most of Scandinavia) and its enthrallment with the Palestinians. Still, the longer that this goes on, the more that it seems to pervade society as a whole. This is worrisome, indeed, for any supporter of Israel.
I don't know what it is about the far left (which describes most of Scandinavia) and its enthrallment with the Palestinians. Still, the longer that this goes on, the more that it seems to pervade society as a whole. This is worrisome, indeed, for any supporter of Israel.
No safe place in Israel
That's what the IDF believes will be the case when (not if) there is another war between Israel and Syria and/or Hezbollah: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/922044.html.
The front between Israel and Syria has been quiet for 34+ years. I have a hunch that at some point in the next few years (and likely sooner), it's going to get quite hot, and when it does, all hell is going to break loose in the region. The next war may not even start there--if Israel gets wind that an Iranian nuke is imminent, that could be the trigger point.
Watch and worry, my friends. Watch and worry...................
The front between Israel and Syria has been quiet for 34+ years. I have a hunch that at some point in the next few years (and likely sooner), it's going to get quite hot, and when it does, all hell is going to break loose in the region. The next war may not even start there--if Israel gets wind that an Iranian nuke is imminent, that could be the trigger point.
Watch and worry, my friends. Watch and worry...................
Global Warming
I've stayed away from this subject, mainly because I had a hunch that my views on it probably didn't "match up" with those of many, if not most, of my readers. Generally, I have believed that while I am not convinced that human activity is the primary or even a contributing cause to global warming, it was far better to err on the side of caution and to do what we can to reduce carbon emissions. However, today I read a short article from John Coleman, whose credentials regarding the weather are pretty impressive--he founded the Weather Channel. His view is essentially that the whole "human beings are causing global warming" is full of you-know-what: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/.
Much of the appeal of the Global Warming argument is emotional. We see pictures of forlorn-looking polar bears or seals nosing around and we want to do what we can to help them. That's only natural, and as an animal lover, Lord knows I would do whatever is within my limited power to help out these unfortunate creatures. Still, the stampede to immediately declare Global Warming an uncontroverted fact, and the equally immediate blanket condemnation of anyone who dares raise a voice questioning it is...............well, how do I put this............"unscientific". It has become like a religious dogma which cannot be questioned, and that is not right. This is not a matter of history, such as the Holocaust, World War I, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, or whatever. It is an ongoing phenomenon.
All I am saying is that this issue needs further, intense study. And as an aside, Kyoto is not the answer--it imposes no obligations whatsoever on either China or India, both of which will in relatively short order surpass the United States in terms of their carbon emissions. Does that mean that we should all ignore the issue and go out and by eight-cylinder SUV's? No, but let's just keep a sense of perspective on this whole issue, okay?
Much of the appeal of the Global Warming argument is emotional. We see pictures of forlorn-looking polar bears or seals nosing around and we want to do what we can to help them. That's only natural, and as an animal lover, Lord knows I would do whatever is within my limited power to help out these unfortunate creatures. Still, the stampede to immediately declare Global Warming an uncontroverted fact, and the equally immediate blanket condemnation of anyone who dares raise a voice questioning it is...............well, how do I put this............"unscientific". It has become like a religious dogma which cannot be questioned, and that is not right. This is not a matter of history, such as the Holocaust, World War I, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, or whatever. It is an ongoing phenomenon.
All I am saying is that this issue needs further, intense study. And as an aside, Kyoto is not the answer--it imposes no obligations whatsoever on either China or India, both of which will in relatively short order surpass the United States in terms of their carbon emissions. Does that mean that we should all ignore the issue and go out and by eight-cylinder SUV's? No, but let's just keep a sense of perspective on this whole issue, okay?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Ron Paul.....Ron Paul........Ron Paul............Ron Paul, Part Three
Sure enough, a Ron Paul follower responded to my post and told me to "educate" myself about Congressman Paul's vision of foreign affairs. He also provided me with a link to a Ron Paul Webpage which outlines the latter's foreign policy vision. The link is below. Here it is, verbatim, with my response below:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
The Original Foreign Policy
December 18, 2006
It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.George Washington
Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
MY RESPONSE: Sorry, Congressman, but you are apparently not living in the Twentieth Century, let alone the Twenty-First. The reality of today's world is that the United States OF NECESSITY must have at least some involvement "overseas". You can claim that you are not isolationist, but I stand by my characterization. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..............
I also note the following in your statement. First, you can't even bring yourself to call Israel by its proper name. That alone speaks volumes to me about who and what you are. Second, you claim that it is "offensive" to say that times have changed? Really? I find YOUR position to be offensive. At best it is incredibly naive, but it could also be fairly characterized as dangerous. In the 1700s and 1800s, there was no such thing as jet travel, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, terrorism (on the worldwide scale such as it exists now), etc., etc. I could go on and on. Do you suppose that if we pull all military forces back to our shores, these things will just go away?
Let me give one specific example. Let's say that we do exactly as you wish. The U.S. ends all foreign alliances and brings all troops home, no matter where they are in the world. Let's say then that the Saudi Government is overthrown by an even more radical government which then promptly cuts off oil supplies to the United States. Under your rationale, we could and should not do anything. They haven't attacked us, after all. Our economy, which is already not doing well, would collapse completely. Would you do nothing in that situation? If you are true to those principles which you claim to hold, the answer would have to be "yes".
Ultimately, I know that I am never going to win an argument with a Ron Paul supporter. Like the Deaniacs of 2004, they're far too invested emotionally in their candidate's success. That said, I'm not just going to pretend that Ron Paul's policies are aything other than what they really are, which is to say, isolationist.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
The Original Foreign Policy
December 18, 2006
It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.George Washington
Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
MY RESPONSE: Sorry, Congressman, but you are apparently not living in the Twentieth Century, let alone the Twenty-First. The reality of today's world is that the United States OF NECESSITY must have at least some involvement "overseas". You can claim that you are not isolationist, but I stand by my characterization. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..............
I also note the following in your statement. First, you can't even bring yourself to call Israel by its proper name. That alone speaks volumes to me about who and what you are. Second, you claim that it is "offensive" to say that times have changed? Really? I find YOUR position to be offensive. At best it is incredibly naive, but it could also be fairly characterized as dangerous. In the 1700s and 1800s, there was no such thing as jet travel, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, terrorism (on the worldwide scale such as it exists now), etc., etc. I could go on and on. Do you suppose that if we pull all military forces back to our shores, these things will just go away?
Let me give one specific example. Let's say that we do exactly as you wish. The U.S. ends all foreign alliances and brings all troops home, no matter where they are in the world. Let's say then that the Saudi Government is overthrown by an even more radical government which then promptly cuts off oil supplies to the United States. Under your rationale, we could and should not do anything. They haven't attacked us, after all. Our economy, which is already not doing well, would collapse completely. Would you do nothing in that situation? If you are true to those principles which you claim to hold, the answer would have to be "yes".
Ultimately, I know that I am never going to win an argument with a Ron Paul supporter. Like the Deaniacs of 2004, they're far too invested emotionally in their candidate's success. That said, I'm not just going to pretend that Ron Paul's policies are aything other than what they really are, which is to say, isolationist.
Ron Paul.....Ron Paul........Ron Paul............Ron Paul, Part Two
The Congressman from Texas and aspiring Presidential candidate was on the radio locally between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. today. One question he was asked was under what circumstances he could ever envision U.S. troops being used unless there was a direct attack on the United States. His response: "Never". On one hand, I'll give him credit for being straightforward. On the other, you can't help but think that this foreign policy is completely divorced from reality. He is an isolationist in the mold of Charles Lindbergh and Pitchfork Pat Buchanan (who, not surprisingly, is supporting Paul). As well, I think that you judge a candidate by the company he or she keeps, and Ron Paul has received an awful lot of support from the fringe right, including Neo-Nazi publications such as Stormfront. The Ron Paul freaks out there can deny this all they want, but it is a matter of public record.
Now, as obscure as my blog is, I still have no doubt that once I click on the "publish post" button, one of those Ron Paul supporters who apparently have nothing to do with his or her time than scan the internet for articles about their candidate will zero in on this blurb. Whether it merits a mention, like my last blog entry on him did, remains to be seen, of course.
Now, as obscure as my blog is, I still have no doubt that once I click on the "publish post" button, one of those Ron Paul supporters who apparently have nothing to do with his or her time than scan the internet for articles about their candidate will zero in on this blurb. Whether it merits a mention, like my last blog entry on him did, remains to be seen, of course.
France looks hard, finds spine
How ironic it is that as the United States drifts away from Israel, France of all countries is increasingly supportive of the Jewish State: http://www.nysun.com/article/66067. You can't say that French President Nicholas Sarkozy is doing this because it is politically expedient, or because of international pressure. If anything, the "easy" thing for him to do would be to continue the policies of his loathesome predecessor, Jacques Chirac. Certainly, no one else in Europe is going in this direction.
Given Sarkozy's moves, I am sure that somewhere, Jacques Chirac is fuming.........
Given Sarkozy's moves, I am sure that somewhere, Jacques Chirac is fuming.........
Here's where a lot of that oil money is going
I previously blogged about the dangers that our oil dependency posed to us. First and foremost is that we are directly funding nations and regimes whose interests are directly antithetical to ours. They use the money from that oil revenue to buy arms which are used against our troops or our allies. They also fund "Middle East Studies Programs", which by and large are nothing but anti-American, anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic think tanks: http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3622&cid=1&sid=103.
Honestly, do we need any more reasons than what I have listed above to justify finding another way to fuel our cars, planes, homes, etc.?
Honestly, do we need any more reasons than what I have listed above to justify finding another way to fuel our cars, planes, homes, etc.?
Sir Winston Churchill. NOT an anti-Semite
Sir Winston Churchill is rightly regarded as one of the seminal figures of the Twentieth Century. However, there has always been an undercurrent of whispering, something alone the lines of "Well, you know, he didn't like the Jews too much........."
Turns out, that is not the case: http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010834. Given his long reputation for being a proponent of what was right, as opposed to being for what was politically expedient, I am unsurprised by this information.
Turns out, that is not the case: http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010834. Given his long reputation for being a proponent of what was right, as opposed to being for what was politically expedient, I am unsurprised by this information.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
We made our bed..............
...........now we have to lie in it. Decisions were made years ago by many corporations to transfer production bases to China, which had the dual effect of destroying our manufacturing base and giving the Chinese an incredibly powerful form of leverage over our economy. By doing this, U.S. dollars began to flow OUT of the United States, and into the hands of China's central bank. Now, the Chinese Government is flexing some of that newfound economic muscle: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/11/07/dollar-overseas.html. Specifically, it's going to sell off Greenbacks, thereby driving down the value of the currency even further.
I've said before and I'll say it again: China IS our enemy. They're not "in your face" the way Iran is, but that's just because they are more subtle in the ways they choose to exercise their power. Make no mistake about it, however. China, Russia, Iran, they all want the same thing, which is a cowed, economically-hobbled United States. Worse yet, with our short-sighted (and arguably non-existent) economic policies, we have allowed our enemies to exert control over our economy, and to control (to a large degree) the value of our currency.
The situation is to put it mildly, bleak, and it will take years for us to come back from this.
UPDATE (5:05 p.m.): That thud you heard is the other shoe dropping. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 360 points today, based on the neverending credit woes AND the seemingly unstoppable fall of the dollar: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street.
I've said before and I'll say it again: China IS our enemy. They're not "in your face" the way Iran is, but that's just because they are more subtle in the ways they choose to exercise their power. Make no mistake about it, however. China, Russia, Iran, they all want the same thing, which is a cowed, economically-hobbled United States. Worse yet, with our short-sighted (and arguably non-existent) economic policies, we have allowed our enemies to exert control over our economy, and to control (to a large degree) the value of our currency.
The situation is to put it mildly, bleak, and it will take years for us to come back from this.
UPDATE (5:05 p.m.): That thud you heard is the other shoe dropping. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 360 points today, based on the neverending credit woes AND the seemingly unstoppable fall of the dollar: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street.
Alan Dershowitz has some advice for the Democrats
Alan Dershowitz has some advice for the Democratic candidates for the Presidency: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010832. In short, he wants them to stop kowtowing to the loony left of the party. While some may listen to him, all you have to do is hear any speech by Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson or even John Edwards to know that many are not.
My question is, will anyone in this country care what they say, or are they so disillusioned by the past eight years that no matter who the Democrats nominate, that person will win?
My question is, will anyone in this country care what they say, or are they so disillusioned by the past eight years that no matter who the Democrats nominate, that person will win?
Another indictment of the U.N.
Readers of my blog know that I was and am a huge fan of John Bolton, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The only reason he still isn't the Ambassador is that the Democrats saw an opportunity to embarass the Bush Administration by refusing to approve his nomination, and they took full advantage of it (not the President Bush fought very hard to get Ambassador Bolton confirmed; it was another lame effort by an increasingly ineffective President).
In any event, Mr. Bolton has put the pen to the paper and written an excellent Op-Ed in the New York Post excoriating the do-nothing diplomats who seemingly want to see a nuclear-armed Iran: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11062007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dithering_diplomats_959824.htm?page=0. It's well worth the read. He has also written a memoir, "Surrender is not an Option", which I intend to buy in the next few days. It looks like it will be a fascinating read.
In any event, Mr. Bolton has put the pen to the paper and written an excellent Op-Ed in the New York Post excoriating the do-nothing diplomats who seemingly want to see a nuclear-armed Iran: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11062007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dithering_diplomats_959824.htm?page=0. It's well worth the read. He has also written a memoir, "Surrender is not an Option", which I intend to buy in the next few days. It looks like it will be a fascinating read.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Going south
That's what the U.S. Economy is doing, not that anyone has noticed. We ignore the warning signs and focus on minutiae instead. Does anyone realize that just five short years ago, the American dollar was worth $1.64 Canadian. Now, it is worth 92.6 cents Canadian: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/11/06/cdn-dollar.html. Five years ago it was worth 1.09 Euros. Now, it is worth 0.69 Euros. An identical decline has taken place against the British Pound, which is now worth just about $2. Oil prices are just shy of $100 a barrel, for no reason that anyone can discern. The National Debt is completely out of control, and the budget deficit, while it has shrunk somewhat, is still very much a problem. This has left us in a position where we have had to borrow money overseas from such "friends" as the Chinese and yes, those reliable allies of ours, the Saudis.
I'm no prize-winning economist, but the way I see it, this economy is heading for a colossal collapse, the likes of which it has not seen since 1929, if ever, and when the crash happens, it will be ugly.
I'm no prize-winning economist, but the way I see it, this economy is heading for a colossal collapse, the likes of which it has not seen since 1929, if ever, and when the crash happens, it will be ugly.
Britain's Jews under attack
I have blogged previously about the perils facing Jews in Europe in general and the U.K. in particular. England has about 300,000 Jews, a tiny percentange of the overall population. Great Britain's Jews are outnumbered by a figure of better than ten to one by the Muslims in that country.
So, I guess that it shouldn't be a surprise that there has been a dramatic rise in anti-Semitism in that country, especially over the last seven years: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anti-semitism.html.
I know that I have readers "on the other side of The Pond". I'd love to know from you why you stay there. I know that it's "home", but how much of a home can it be where a growing percentage of the other residents can't stand you? Or, does this article overstate the problem?
So, I guess that it shouldn't be a surprise that there has been a dramatic rise in anti-Semitism in that country, especially over the last seven years: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anti-semitism.html.
I know that I have readers "on the other side of The Pond". I'd love to know from you why you stay there. I know that it's "home", but how much of a home can it be where a growing percentage of the other residents can't stand you? Or, does this article overstate the problem?
Iran is playing a game we don't understand
Here's a fact for all of you: Persians invented the game of chess. They are true experts in the art of brinksmanship. At the same time, even if we were as good as the Iranians at playing these games, the current regime of Mad Mullahs is not working according to the same script we are: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/05/do0503.xml.
Simply put, the Iranian leadership is not in the business of making idle statements or threats. When they say that they want Israel wiped off the map, that's what they mean and what they will try to accomplish. When they say that they want nuclear power, it's because they are going to try and use it for reasons that we don't consider rational, but which they see as perfectly legitimate. We misinterpret them at our own tremendous peril.
Simply put, the Iranian leadership is not in the business of making idle statements or threats. When they say that they want Israel wiped off the map, that's what they mean and what they will try to accomplish. When they say that they want nuclear power, it's because they are going to try and use it for reasons that we don't consider rational, but which they see as perfectly legitimate. We misinterpret them at our own tremendous peril.
The boycott that dares not speak its name
Supposedly, boycotting Israel is illegal in the United States. Yet, we fall all over ourselves doing business with the Saudis and other countries who have strictly enforced the economic embargo of Israel: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/05/africa/ME-GEN-Syria-Israel-Boycott.php. And now, the Arab/Muslim states are meeting to discuss how best to reinforce that boycott. Think that we'll do or say anything to stop it? Me, neither............
Do we want to win?
One question that has been vexing me of late has been the question of whether we really want to win the wars we are fighting, be they in Afghanistan, Iraq, the mythical "War on Terror", etc., and it appears as though I am not the only one pondering this issue: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827.
Honestly, I do believe that we need to ask ourselves if we are committed to winning these battles. It's only the occasional crank or historical revisionist who questions the tactics employed by the Allies in fighting the Germans, Italians and Japanese in World War II. Yet, there is no ignoring the fact that in that war, the Allies (who supposedly held the "moral high ground") killed tens of thousands of civilians. And you know what? Horrible as it may sound, I don't have a problem with it. Wars can't and don't end in ties. They are either won or lost. It seems to me as though either FDR or Sir Winston Churchill would have sneered with contempt at the way we are fighting our wars now. They have become politically correct exercises in which the "rights" of those who we are fighting are of much greater concern to our media and the chattering elites than are the lives of American servicemen and women (except where the numbers of those U.S. casualties can be used as a P.R. weapon against an Administration that same media and those elites despise).
Further, I place much of the blame for this lack of will to win squarely at the feet of President George W. Bush. Yes, our descent into P.C. warfare began long ago, but I keep hearkening back to his instruction to the American public after 9/11: "Just keep shopping". Pay no mind to the smoking wreckage of the Twin Towers or the disfigured Pentagon. Just keep shopping. Don't worry about sacrifice or inconvenience; just keep shopping. How can we fight a war to win when for the most part we don't even know that we're in a war?
Just keep shopping........................
Honestly, I do believe that we need to ask ourselves if we are committed to winning these battles. It's only the occasional crank or historical revisionist who questions the tactics employed by the Allies in fighting the Germans, Italians and Japanese in World War II. Yet, there is no ignoring the fact that in that war, the Allies (who supposedly held the "moral high ground") killed tens of thousands of civilians. And you know what? Horrible as it may sound, I don't have a problem with it. Wars can't and don't end in ties. They are either won or lost. It seems to me as though either FDR or Sir Winston Churchill would have sneered with contempt at the way we are fighting our wars now. They have become politically correct exercises in which the "rights" of those who we are fighting are of much greater concern to our media and the chattering elites than are the lives of American servicemen and women (except where the numbers of those U.S. casualties can be used as a P.R. weapon against an Administration that same media and those elites despise).
Further, I place much of the blame for this lack of will to win squarely at the feet of President George W. Bush. Yes, our descent into P.C. warfare began long ago, but I keep hearkening back to his instruction to the American public after 9/11: "Just keep shopping". Pay no mind to the smoking wreckage of the Twin Towers or the disfigured Pentagon. Just keep shopping. Don't worry about sacrifice or inconvenience; just keep shopping. How can we fight a war to win when for the most part we don't even know that we're in a war?
Just keep shopping........................
Monday, November 5, 2007
Another President Clinton would be NO friend of Israel
I have long said that if Senator Hillary Clinton succeeds in her goal of becoming President (and I am becoming increasingly convinced that she will), one of the countries that will notice a dramatic change in its relationship with the United States will be Israel. Let's not forget, the Junior Senator from New York's best buddy when she was in the White House as First Lady was Mrs. Yasser Arafat, Sula Arafat. Well, now it's not just me anymore who is warning supporters of Israel that the changes they would witness in the American-Israeli relationship would not be positive ones: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380734117&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
Far too many Jewish supporters of Israel blindly vote Democrat in every election. They need to be aware that the consequences of doing so yet again in the 2008 Presidential Election could be dire indeed for the Jewish state.
Far too many Jewish supporters of Israel blindly vote Democrat in every election. They need to be aware that the consequences of doing so yet again in the 2008 Presidential Election could be dire indeed for the Jewish state.
An underreported story
A documentary filmmaker of Iranian descent with both Canadian and French citizenship has been jailed in Iran and is now facing an imminent trial for what amounts to saying things that the regime doesn't like: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/11/03/iran-filmmaker-solouki.html. This is despite the fact that her documentary hasn't even come out yet.
I know that I'm beating a dead horse on this one, but again, I'd like to remind everyone that these are the freaks with whom the Iraq Study Group and President Peanut Farmer would like us to talk.
I know that I'm beating a dead horse on this one, but again, I'd like to remind everyone that these are the freaks with whom the Iraq Study Group and President Peanut Farmer would like us to talk.
The greatest form of racism
It's not anti-Semitism. It's not anti-Black sentiment. No, it's Islamophobia: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20071105_Confronting_Islamophobia.html. This story was one the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer's "B Section". I guess that all of CAIR's propagandizing is finally working. It has succeeded in transforming this mythical "fear of Moslems" (and gee, let me ask, why in the world would ANYONE be scared of Moslems? It's not like Moslems engage in terrorism, or anything like that.) into the #1 form of racism in the West, and our politically correct media buys right into it.
Terrorism Central
Put this one in the "things that don't surprise me at all" department. Apparently, the MSM is just getting around to discovering that (shocker of all shockers!) Saudi Arabia is the source of much of the terrorism that is going on around the world: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2801017.ece. I know, I was stunned, too!
Undoubtedly, this story will be buried here in the U.S................if it gets covered at all.
Undoubtedly, this story will be buried here in the U.S................if it gets covered at all.
The King is dead, long live the King!
The Angry Left has long had an obsession with excoriating President Bush (and again, for the record, it's not like he's done anything to make me happy of late, but the level of vitriol directed at him borders on the insane). However, in a little over 14 months, he will no longer be the President, so where does that leave the Angry Lefties? Well, nature abhors a vacuum, so they're now directing their ire increasingly at the presumed Republican frontrunner, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010822.
In the Angry Left's world, Giuliani combines all their "favourite" elements of the Bush 43 Presidency (militaristic, evil, etc.) with several new qualities (offensive, boorish, etc.). Just wait until the former mayor of New York actually does receive the Republican nomination for the Presidency. It wll get really ugly, then..............
In the Angry Left's world, Giuliani combines all their "favourite" elements of the Bush 43 Presidency (militaristic, evil, etc.) with several new qualities (offensive, boorish, etc.). Just wait until the former mayor of New York actually does receive the Republican nomination for the Presidency. It wll get really ugly, then..............
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Some sporting thoughts for the first Sunday in November
1) Now, there is no doubt as to which is the best football team in the NFL. The New England Patriots have definitively stamped themselves as "the team to beat" by walking into Indianapolis and handing the Colts as 24-20 loss, Indy's first defeat since Week 12 of last season. New England is now 9-0, and has history in the form of the first 16-0 season in NFL history in its sights. There are some major obstacles in its path, in the form of games against Pittsburgh and Baltimore, but barring injuries, I think that the Patriots can do it.
2) When I first became interested in college football, around 1980 or so, the Nebraska Cornhuskers were one of the teams that were considered the gold standard of the sport. While I am no fan of Nebraska football, I do believe that it is better for the sport when the big name programs live up to their billing--we all need teams against which we want to root. Coming into this season, the Cornhuskers had won 37 out of their last 38 games against the Kansas Jayhawks, with many (if not most) of those games being incredibly humiliating blowouts. Yesterday was payback time for the long-suffering Jayhawks. Kansas is a pretty good team this year, and came into the game with an 8-0 record. Nebraska, on the other hand, was 4-5 and boasted a defense that, to put it charitably, is sieve-like. The ingredients were there for a blowout the other way, and that's what we got. By the time the carnage was done, the Cornhuskers were on the very short end of a 76-39, history-making defeat. The only word I can come up with is "unbelievable"...............
3) I don't know it is about the Toronto Maple Leafs that brings out the worst in my Montreal Canadiens, but Toronto is now 2-0 against Montreal this season after yesterday's disheartening 3-2 Leafs victory. There is no greater pain for a Montreal fan than losing a game to the Toronto Maple Leafs, whose fans are like Yankees fans, only without the track record of success. Toronto styles itself as the city which invented Hockey, a "fact" which certainly hasn't been true since the city's last Stanley Cup title in 1967. By way of reference, Montreal has 10 titles since that date. Still, it is agonizing to watch the Leafs, a slower, less-skilled team than the Canadiens, consistently win games against their rival.
4) The last sports column I did was before Game Four of the World Series, which my Boston Red Sox then led three games to nothing. That night, the Sox completed their four game sweep of the overmatched Colorado Rockies Though I am big fan of the team, I doubted them all season, particularly in August and September as they almost completely frittered away a 14 1/2 game lead over its archnemesis, the New York Yankees. Still, Boston hung on to win the division, swept Anaheim in the first round of the playoffs before stumbling briefly against the Cleveland Indians in the American League Championship Series, falling behind three game to one. The Sox came back to win Game Five and didn't lose another game in the post-season. That makes it two World Series titles in four seasons for Boston, and when you combine that with the turmoil surrounding the New York Yankees (no more Joe Torre, and possibly no more A-Rod, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera), it's a good time to be a Red Sox fan!
5) Back to college football. In addition to the Nebraska-Kansas game, a lot of attention was focused on the Notre Dame-Navy game. Why would there be so much attention on a game between another storied program having a horrific season (the Fighting Irish are 1-8) and a middling team from on the Service Academies? Well, Notre Dame hadn't lost to Navy since 1963, when Roger the Dodger Staubach was lining up under center for the Midshipmen. There had been 44 consecutive losses for Navy in that time, the longest winning streak by one Division 1A team against another in history. That streak is now over, after the Midshipmen's 46-44, triple overtime win. Old habits die hard for me, and I despise the Fighting Irish almost as much as I love the Miami Hurricanes. Since Miami is struggling this season, I have to take my "victories" where I can get them. Watching Notre Dame lose yesterday qualifies!
2) When I first became interested in college football, around 1980 or so, the Nebraska Cornhuskers were one of the teams that were considered the gold standard of the sport. While I am no fan of Nebraska football, I do believe that it is better for the sport when the big name programs live up to their billing--we all need teams against which we want to root. Coming into this season, the Cornhuskers had won 37 out of their last 38 games against the Kansas Jayhawks, with many (if not most) of those games being incredibly humiliating blowouts. Yesterday was payback time for the long-suffering Jayhawks. Kansas is a pretty good team this year, and came into the game with an 8-0 record. Nebraska, on the other hand, was 4-5 and boasted a defense that, to put it charitably, is sieve-like. The ingredients were there for a blowout the other way, and that's what we got. By the time the carnage was done, the Cornhuskers were on the very short end of a 76-39, history-making defeat. The only word I can come up with is "unbelievable"...............
3) I don't know it is about the Toronto Maple Leafs that brings out the worst in my Montreal Canadiens, but Toronto is now 2-0 against Montreal this season after yesterday's disheartening 3-2 Leafs victory. There is no greater pain for a Montreal fan than losing a game to the Toronto Maple Leafs, whose fans are like Yankees fans, only without the track record of success. Toronto styles itself as the city which invented Hockey, a "fact" which certainly hasn't been true since the city's last Stanley Cup title in 1967. By way of reference, Montreal has 10 titles since that date. Still, it is agonizing to watch the Leafs, a slower, less-skilled team than the Canadiens, consistently win games against their rival.
4) The last sports column I did was before Game Four of the World Series, which my Boston Red Sox then led three games to nothing. That night, the Sox completed their four game sweep of the overmatched Colorado Rockies Though I am big fan of the team, I doubted them all season, particularly in August and September as they almost completely frittered away a 14 1/2 game lead over its archnemesis, the New York Yankees. Still, Boston hung on to win the division, swept Anaheim in the first round of the playoffs before stumbling briefly against the Cleveland Indians in the American League Championship Series, falling behind three game to one. The Sox came back to win Game Five and didn't lose another game in the post-season. That makes it two World Series titles in four seasons for Boston, and when you combine that with the turmoil surrounding the New York Yankees (no more Joe Torre, and possibly no more A-Rod, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera), it's a good time to be a Red Sox fan!
5) Back to college football. In addition to the Nebraska-Kansas game, a lot of attention was focused on the Notre Dame-Navy game. Why would there be so much attention on a game between another storied program having a horrific season (the Fighting Irish are 1-8) and a middling team from on the Service Academies? Well, Notre Dame hadn't lost to Navy since 1963, when Roger the Dodger Staubach was lining up under center for the Midshipmen. There had been 44 consecutive losses for Navy in that time, the longest winning streak by one Division 1A team against another in history. That streak is now over, after the Midshipmen's 46-44, triple overtime win. Old habits die hard for me, and I despise the Fighting Irish almost as much as I love the Miami Hurricanes. Since Miami is struggling this season, I have to take my "victories" where I can get them. Watching Notre Dame lose yesterday qualifies!
Friday, November 2, 2007
President Peanut Farmer tries to make nice with the Jews
Even the left-leaning Jewish publication, The Forward, can barely hide its distaste for President Peanut Farmer in this article: http://www.forward.com/articles/11935/. The ex-President attempted to meeet with various Jewish leaders, and was pretty much rebuffed by all of the big names. And, as it turns out, his meeting with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was at HIS request, and he obtained the meeting basically as a courtesy.
Ah, the USSR, we miss you dearly, Part Two
I am very happy to report that the University of Delaware has apparently discontinued its "re-education" thought police tactics: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thefirecache/8585.html.
This is a rare bit of good news in the academic world, where the politically correct left has been on a seemingly unstoppable march for years now.
This is a rare bit of good news in the academic world, where the politically correct left has been on a seemingly unstoppable march for years now.
Why I have a soft spot for Albanian Muslims
This is one of the truly underreported stories from World War II. Albania did not have a large Jewish population before the War, but after it began, the Jewish population of the state increased greatly as refugees from other, Nazi-occuppied countries flooded in. Then, the Nazis invaded and took over Albania too, and one of the first things they did was demand that the Albanian authorities turn over a list of Jewish people living in the country. The Albanian officials refused, and consequently, at the end of the War, there were actually MORE Jews in Albania than when the Germans invaded: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1192380676042&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
Maybe today's Albanian Muslims aren't the same people as the ones who saved many Jews 60+ years ago, but I still feel a debt of gratitude towards them..........
Maybe today's Albanian Muslims aren't the same people as the ones who saved many Jews 60+ years ago, but I still feel a debt of gratitude towards them..........
We Jews are UNITERS!!
How do I know this? Because only Israel could bring together Sunni Islamofascists, Shiite Islamofascists and Lebanese Christians (!!) under the umbrella of Hezbollah, as the terrorist state within a state prepares for the next, inevitable war with Israel: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/01/MNOISNC32.DTL&hw=Israel&sn=003&sc=697. I can sort of understand Sunni and Shiite interests here; after all, the one thing they hate more than each other is Israel. But, the Christians? What are they getting out of this?
UPDATE (2:45 p.m.): Thanks to reader Asher Abrams who in the comments section provided me with a link to a Lebanese blogger who with some conviction says that the article I quoted above is, to put it mildly, full of you-kn0w-what: http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2007/11/dilettante-journalism.html.
I'll keep following this story, because what the San Francisco Chronicle reported as fact may very well not be the case.
UPDATE (2:45 p.m.): Thanks to reader Asher Abrams who in the comments section provided me with a link to a Lebanese blogger who with some conviction says that the article I quoted above is, to put it mildly, full of you-kn0w-what: http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2007/11/dilettante-journalism.html.
I'll keep following this story, because what the San Francisco Chronicle reported as fact may very well not be the case.
Gaza could be worse than South Lebanon
As a matter of fact, cancel that. It WILL be worse than South Lebanon: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/FOREIGN/111020054/1003. Hamas, with the overt assistance of Iran and Syria, and the tacit assistance of Egypt, has built up a well-trained and armed militia in the Gaza Strip which will give the IDF fits if and when Israel has to go into the Gaza Strip with a large military force. Eventually, the terrorist statelet (you know it, the one with which the EU keeps telling Israel it will have to negotiate, even though its leaders deny Israel's existence or entitlement to exist) will succeed in launching a sophisticated enough attack that even the dhimmi Olmert government will have to respond, and what will happen then? Massive "civilian" casualties, because the Strip is so densely populated. And, Israel will be taken to task for each and every one of those casualties. The converse will not be true. Bank on it..........
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Going after the U.S. again
Boy, the news is just full of cheery stories today. I just read a report that wacko leftie lawyer Michael Ratner and his cast of merry men (and women) have filed a lawsuit in (where else?) France seeking to charge former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with authorizing torture at Guantanamo Bay: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/29/4890/.
If these dimwits spent half the time they use to attack the United States on going after true autocracies, the world would be a much better place. However, as is the case with Ray McGovern, Ted Rall, and the like, they view the United States and its "client", Israel, as the greatest threats in the world right now.
If these dimwits spent half the time they use to attack the United States on going after true autocracies, the world would be a much better place. However, as is the case with Ray McGovern, Ted Rall, and the like, they view the United States and its "client", Israel, as the greatest threats in the world right now.
Those nefarious Jews are at it again
First, they get the United States to invade Iraq for them. Now, they're about to dupe us into attacking Iran, too: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4914/print/. This is the mindset of the Angry Left, which is as venomous towards Israel as any Neo-Nazi could ever be. I have no doubt that the writer of this piece truly believes what he is writing. In his world view, Israel really is behind everything bad that is going on the world (to the extent that the United States isn't at fault, of course).
The Guardian LOVES Israel.......................NOT!
In its latest effort to demonize and delegitimize Israel, The Guardian has published an Op-Ed from one Seamus Milne, which can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2202690,00.html. A review of Mr. Milne's piece reveals it to be nothing more than a bitter, deceitful diatribe against Israel, full of lies and half-truths. Even the title ("Gaza under Siege") is a lie. If Gaza is under siege, then I guess that Sderot is what, a vacation hotspot? Milne either ignores every Palestinian act of terror, or alternatively, blames them on Israel.
After reading this, does anyone really wonder why I have pretty much given up hope on the MSM to paint a fair picture of Israel?
After reading this, does anyone really wonder why I have pretty much given up hope on the MSM to paint a fair picture of Israel?
Angry Leftie Ted Rall goes completely insane
If you believe him, we now live in a less free version of Nazi Germany: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20071031/cm_ucru/torturersthenextgeneration;_ylt=AjwvidfiHgP4ev4nj.GulfwE1vAI. The scary thing about his views is that I know people who agree with him. There really are "normal" people out there who truly believe that we now live in a fascist state.
Only in San Francisco......
................could this occur, and only on far left haven that is the West Coast could it be defended. A self-proclaimed "performance artist" was arrested on the steps of a church with an explosive belt, as he attempted to burn down the church. He called it performance art, and some nutcase columnist in Seattle thought that this was okay: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/124693.asp?source=rss. Her only concern was that maybe some of the neighbouring properties might have been damaged.
I wonder if she would have had the same opinion if this had been a mosque. Or, more likely, would she have been screaming about a "hate crime"?
I wonder if she would have had the same opinion if this had been a mosque. Or, more likely, would she have been screaming about a "hate crime"?
Her horror is my joy
Someone by the name of Linda Heard, who writes a column for The Gulf News, penned a piece bemoaning the possibilty that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani might (gasp!) become the next President: http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/10/30/10163652.html. If you read through her piece, it's obvious that she is completely horrified at the prospect of President Giuliani, but to me, her Op-Ed reads like a list of reasons as to why Mayor Giuliani SHOULD be the next President.
It's all a matter of perspective, I guess..............
It's all a matter of perspective, I guess..............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)