Anti-Semitism makes a local appearance

This region of the country, like any other, is not immune from the stain of anti-Semitism. Three Temple University students have surrendered to police and a fourth is being sought after two Jewish students were violently assaulted outside the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity house: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080229_Three_Temple_students_surrender_in_hate_attack.html. While I am pleased about the reaction of police to this crime, I do wonder where the national condemnations are. So-called "civil rights leaders" such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been silent. Maybe, just maybe, it's because they aren't really civil righs leaders at all. They're pressure group advocates, and nothing more..............

Disproportionately victimized

In a post earlier today, I discussed the neverending barrage of rockets being directed by Hamas operatives (or with their blessing) at the Israeli village of Sderot, and Israpundit has linked to a Bret Stephens piece in the Wall Street Journal which notes correctly that no other country would ever put up with something like this: http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=342.

Would Americans put up with a barrage of rockets directed at San Diego from over the Mexican border? Would Russia put up with rockets being launched from any of its former republics (look at Grozny in Chechnya and I think that the answer to that question is fairly obvious)? Would China put up with rockets being launched at it from Taiwan? I could go through countless other examples and the answer would always be an unequivocal and emphatic "no". Yet Israel endures the rockets day after day, from a territory that has been completely Judenrein since August of 2005, and still it faces constant criticism--including from the U.S. State Department and its lackey-in-chief, Condoleeza Rice--that it needs to end the "siege" of Gaza. As Stephens succinctly puts it in his Op-Ed, "no rockets, no siege". Frankly, if anything, Israel's response to the rockets has been disproportionately WEAK.

Move along, nothing to see here............

Let's see, a man in a Las Vegas hotel room is now in a coma because the deadly poison Ricin was found in his room, and the article makes NO mention of his name, ethnicity, etc.? Are you kidding me? The article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080229/ap_on_re_us/motel_hazardous_material.

I could very easily be proven wrong (and want very much for that to be the case), but why do I have a feeling that the powerful forces of political correctness are at work here?

Moving north

Having effectively rendered Sderot a ghost town, the Islamofascists of Hamas have turned their attention to the much larger city of Ashkelon, and now it too is being subjected to rocket attacks: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/29/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians.php. This seems to concern absolutely no one at all, or no one outside Israel, as the disgraceful Condoleeza Rice criticizes Israel for its "pressure" on Gaza. Well, what's going to happen when a full-scale invasion of Gaza takes place, as becomes increasingly inevitable with new rocket attack? Given the current state of the American-Israeli relationship (the worst it has been in nearly 20 years), I strongly suspect that the U.S. would fall into line with Europe, Russia and China in condemning any legitimate Israeli response to the neverending series of acts of war by Gaza.

Israeli is truly alone now..............

Disappointed, but not surprised

French President Nicholas Sarkozy has abandoned his plan to teach the Holocaust to grade school children in France: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/142358. There has been a loud and vigorous campaign mounted against the plan on the part of the left in France because, God Forbid, any child should be exposed to the horror of the Holocaust, which might scar them for life (or so they said), though if you ask me, I suspect that the French left was merely kowtowing to the Islamofascists in the country, who were vehemently opposed to the Sarkozy plan.

The bottom line is that once again, France's Jews have been given the short end of the stick. As I asked with the Jews in the U.K., so I ask with those in France--Why do you even live there?

San Francisco Recap

As it turned out, my one post from the City by the Bay was my only post from the place. Work duties prevented me from seeing as much of the city as I wanted, but I was able to see enough to know that I would like to go back someday soon, hopefully with Mrs. BHG. Those who can afford to live there are fortunate indeed................

San Francisco Blogging, Part One

I arrived mid-afternoon, and was fortunate enough to find out upon arrival that my meeting today was canceled. So, I made the most of the limited time I had and took in the Fisherman's Wharf area, which I thought was very cool (aside from the two people walking behind me who were discussing how Fidel Castro was an "underrated leader", and how this country would have been better off if he were the president instead of President Bush). I then took a drive down Lombard Street, and all I can say is this; if you haven't seen this street live, you are definitely missing something. The view from my hotel room, which is in the Financial District, is amazing. I am looking over virtually the entire San Francisco Bay. I can see why those people who live here are so attached to the place, the politics notwithstanding. I have business meetings pretty much all of the next two days, and then fly back home on Thursday. However, somehow, someway, I am hoping to squeeze in a visit to Alcatraz. We'll see if that actually happens.

More later!

Blogging will be light to nonexistent..........

............over the next four or so days, as I travel to San Francisco for work. I'll try to squeeze some in here and there, but it may not be possible.

Here we go again

Apparently, the Europeans feel as though they don't have quite enough anti-Israel bodies on their continent, so they're creating yet another one, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3509936%2C00.html, a court in which Israel will be tried for war crimes.

I sincerely hope that Israel has the good sense to completely ignore this legal sham.

And we get what for this privilege?

Absolutely nothing. Those of us blessed enough to live in the Garden State are among the most heavily taxed people in the entire country, and the only ones who seem to derive any benefit from this are our public sector union members: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120372623083687123.html. In the meantime, our debt is completely out of control, and the likelihood is that given that debt, even higher taxes will be imposed on us.

If it weren't for the fact that Mrs. BHG and the little BHG's are so happy here, I would seriously consider moving...............

Oh, shut up.......

Willie Nelson who previously revealed himself as a 9/11 Truther (which he denies), is now on the record as calling for President Bush's impeachment, because the EEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIILLLLLLLLLLL Bush 43 Administration might cancel the election in order to stay in power: http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/022108kvuewilliegeorge-cb.1627e0ec.html.

The Angry Left is getting, well............angrier. I'm at a loss to say anything else.

It's okay; after all, they're only Jews

Melanie Phillips delivers a stinging indictment of the rabidly anti-Israel nature of the British press, which has gone so far as to ignore terrorist plots because it is too busy publishing articles blaming Israel for all of the ills in the world: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/516766/a-curious-sense-of-priority.thtml.

Why any Jews still live in the U.K. is beyond me.

Creepy Obama story of the day

This one is just a tad bizarre. Apparently, the aspiring President has a head cold, and he had to stop a speech briefly to blow his nose. Those in attendance..............applauded him: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/even_blowing_his_nose_obama_ge.html.

His supporters are starting to remind of the Ron Paul supporters.

Nope, no bias here, just keep moving, nothing to see.......

Let's see. The New York Times has apparently been working on a story on John McCain's 2000 Presidential campaign, with the focus of the story being the allegedly improper relationship the Arizona Senator had with a lobbyist: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin. There are two implied accusations in the story: 1) That McCain was involved in influence peddling, and 2) That his relationship with the (female) lobbyist went beyond professional. Notably, in making these claims, the largely unsourced story relies on second- and third-hand knowledge. Essentially, it's hearsay, and not very reliable hearsay at that.

As well, the timing of this is jus so suspect. By all accounts, the Times has been sitting on this story for months. Yet, it waits until now, once McCain has effectively secured the Republican Presidential nomination, to publish this. Why? I can't think of any other reason than that the Times is beginning its process of attempting to torpedo a man they think stands a decent chance of keeping the White House out of the Democrats' hands. Maybe I'm out on an island in so believing, but I can't see it any other way.

The rhetoric heats up........

............between Iran and Israel. The lovely and talented (ha ha) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refers to Israel as a "black and dirty microbe", and a "savage animal". Because chutzpah is apparently a foreign concept to Iran, the country then asked the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel when the latter refused to take all options off the table in dealing with Iran's nuclear programme. For more on these stories, go here:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_nrxYSrTbp_LIZcVU4VGCBpQ0hQ, and here:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gODcXZcNwLtYm1ZGdmE2AY6qbMAwD8UUGV2O0.

The world at large seems to have forgotten this, so let me try to remind it: The last person who said that he wanted to kill all the Jews actually went out and tried to do it.

Message sent

The U.S. Military has successfully shot down a spy satellite which was (so the story goes) in a decaying orbit: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite. I don't know whether this is true or not, but I DO strongly suspect that the shoot down was intended to send a not-so-subtle message to China--and possibly Russia, too--that we can shoot down satellites as well. How the Chinese react to this will be anybody's guess..............

Chris Matthews gets out of Barack Obama's lap........

.............and actually asks one of his supporters some tough questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o. This is kind of shocking, given that Matthews long ago succumbed to Obamamania, but it is absolutely fascinating to watch him grill a Texas State Senator who supports Obama on what the man's legislative accomplishments are (which is to say, none).

If there are any Obama supporters who read my blog, can you name anything the man has accomplished?

In praise of President Bush

It's not coming from me. No, it's from a most unexpected source, a popular music star long known for his philanthropic work, Bob Geldof: http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html. It seems as though the Bush 43 Administration has done "more than any other" presidency in helping Africa deal with disease and poverty, and Mr. Geldof is ticked off that no one seems to be reporting on this.

While I am pleased that at least one entertainment figure out there is not suffering from BDS, I have to ask why he is surprised? Did he expect the MSM to suddenly deviate from its mantra that everyone in the world hates President Bush? Why in the world would (for example) the New York Times or Washington Post ever want to report on that? No, it's left to "conservative" publications such as the Washington Times and Investor's Business Daily (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=288317081951060) to publicize this story.

Winds of change in Pakistan

Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani President, received a stunning and unequivocal rebuke from Pakistani voters the other day, when his governing party was virtually obliterated in the election which was held: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120347037589978727.html. More significantly, the Islamists, who Mr. Musharraf had used as a political tool to maintain Western support in general and American support in particular, were equally thrashed.

Who will take power now in the world's only Muslim nuclear power (until Iran achieves its goal, that is)? Probably a coalition of parties that are thankfully also pro-Western. It could be that Pakistan is pulling itself back from the brink of civil war, as was the situation in late December, after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. We can only hope that that is indeed the case...........

Yet another example of why the U.N. cannot be taken seriously

The head of the U.N.'s counter-terrorism department is on the record now as denying any link between Islam and terrorism: http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1885487&Language=en. Really? I must have missed it when Buddhists started flying planes into buildings, or when Christians blew themselves up at Passover Seders, or when Jews blew up those trains in Spain, or when Hindus bombed the London Underground in July of 2005.

A tiny break in the cultural boycott of Israel

Shahar Peer, an Israeli tennis player, is the first Israeli athlete to play a tennis match in an Arab country; http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2008-02-18-peer-qatar_N.htm. You know what I find most heartening? That this is receiving so little attention because, well, it's so normal. I hope that this becomes the norm, and not the exception.

Grounding the air force

Our military is the last bastion of defense for this country. However, it seems as though the military in general and the Air Force in particular are being left to whither away on the vine, a fact noted in this Associated Press article: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/military-warns-of-geriatric-air-force/20080219094809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001. Forty year old planes? How can we expect the supposedly most advanced military in the world to defend this country with equipment that is literally as old as I am? That's not adequate to defend against existing threats, let alone the ones that will emerge in the future.

Ugly athletes

We all adore atttractive athletes (well, I do, anyway). Get me a sporting event where Maria Sharapova is featured, or Natalie Gulbis, or Mia Hamm (why did she have to retire?), and I'll watch. However, there is a corollary here; for every attractive athlete, there is one who is, shall we say, not so attractive. One blog has done a survey of the Top 10 Ugly Athletes, which you can find here: http://www.armchairgm.com/Top_10_Ugliest_Athletes.

Another word on Iran

Christopher Hitchens has put the pen to the paper and written a thought-provoking Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal on the different options available to the United States regarding Iran: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120338314589475783.html. As my post yesterday indicated, there are a number of intellectuals who believe that we need not use force to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The question I have for all of them is, what if you are wrong? Can anyone seriously question that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to not only American interests, but an existential threat to Israel? That possibility alone should give pause to all who think that nothing can or should be done with respect to the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Love from the Saudis

Isn't this story just delightful? The Saudis promised the United Kingdon a repeat of the July 7 (2005) terrorist attacks if it didn't quash an inquiry into the Saudi purchase of British munitions: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade. And, the threat worked.

But, hey, they're our good friends, right?

Dealing with Iran

I am one of those who thinks that eventually, we may be left with no choice but to go after Iran militarily. However, I can and will certainly admit that this is NOT the only option available to us, at least right now, and there is an interesting column on RealClearPolitics from political science professor Dr. Patrick James in which he argues that going after Iran militarily is unnecessary at this point: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/for_us_foreign_policy_selfinte.html. Given that he is a former professor of mine, I take his words and advice very seriously. If he says that we should wait, it's something that we certainly ought to consider.

A fabulous obituary

It speaks volumes about the late Tom Lantos that (for the most part) conservatives and liberals alike speak well of him, particularly when discussing his support of Israel and how he believed that that support was beneficial to the United States. Thomas Dine, a former executive with AIPAC, has penned a wonderful obituary for Mr. Lantos, which can be found here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203019393913&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. Of particular note was a story about how Lantos ripped President Peanut Farmer a new one during a meeting which took place after the latter published his "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid" polemic agains Israel. It's a story which I had never heard.

Up is down

Black is white, night is day, right is wrong, right is left, etc., etc. What else can you say when the President of France, no matter who he or she may be, is Israel's bes friend: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/2523. That is exactly the geopolitical situation right now, where France's Nicholas Sarkozy is saying and doing all the right things vis-a-vis Israel. In fact, he is doing everything that President George W. Bush used to do before 2006. Jacques Chirac must be cringing right now.

More linguistic idiocy from the planet of Quebec

Quebec's language police are pushing for criminal penalties against a bar which committed the unforgivable sin of displaying some vintage posters which had (horror of horrors!) English on them: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/02/14/qc-olf-0214.html.

This is the type of thing which drives me to distraction. In any other area of the West, it would be considered to be unacceptable and illegal to discriminate against a person or business based solely on their language, but in Canada in general and Quebec in particular, it's A-Ok.

Even though I have family (as well as some friends) who still live there, I have to wonder why in the world ANYONE whose first language is English w0uld stay in the province. How can you accept legally recognized second-class status?

Not-so-free speech

Flemming Rose, the editor of Jyllands-Posten, which published the (in)famous Mohammed cartoons a few years back, has penned an articulate Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal noting how Islamofascists are successfully imposing a form of censorship on the West when it comes to the subject of Islam: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303586375870157.html.

The point he raises is an excellent one. Free speech has become a complete afterthought when it comes to the subject of Islam, and the Mohammed cartoons are the perfect example of that. How many western newspapers refused to publish them, simply out of fear or out of false sense that doing so would be "offensive"? It's funny, but so many of those same newspapers had (and have) absolutely no problem whatsoever portraying Israel as if it were a modern version of the Nazi state. They don't seem to be even remotely concerned about offending "Jewish sensibilities". Artists regularly do things which offend Christians (the inane yet still offensive "Piss Christ" comes immediately to mind), and yet I don't see Christian mobs burning down buildings or killing anyone because of them.

At what point do we say to the Islamic world, "Respect is earned. It is NOT an entitlement."? At what point will we begin to realize that in a democratic society, there is no right to be free from being offended? Lord knows, as a supporter of Israel, it's rare that a day goes by without me being offended. Should I start rioting? Calling for death sentences? Demand that others censor their speech so that I am not upset? Would that be respect?

UPDATE (2/20/08, 6:12 p.m.): Thanks to blog reader Serket, who pointed out that the original article can no longer be accessed on the Wall Street Journal's website, though it can still be found on the Pajamas Media website, http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/flemmingrose/2008/02/18/free_speech_and_radical_islam.php.

Racism goes both ways

There is no doubt that racism against Black Americans goes back a long way. I'd like to think that it has gone away completely, but that's not the reality of the world. But, at at time where the the most talked-about politician in the country is Black, and where the current and past Secretaries of State were both Black, it's pretty apparent to me that we have turned a corner.

That said, there is still racism, but that racism can and does go both ways. Steven Cohen is a Congressman in Tennessee from a district that is majority Black. Apparently, that doesn't sit too well with some people: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/02/jewish_rep_cohen_battles_antis.html. They would disqualify him solely because he is not Black, and worse yet, a flier was circulated which called him "an enemy of Christ".

What a sad comment on the mindset of the person who circulated the flier, as well as the person who opined that only a Black person can properly represent "Black interests". Funny, I thought that we were all "in this" together. I guess not.

What the hell is wrong with her?

Mother Sheehan is over in Egypt--can we arrange for them keep her, by the way?--protesting about the arrests of several Muslim Brotherhood leaders: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UPMN401&show_article=1http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UPMN401&show_article=1.

Not a word from her about the Saudi woman who might be executed for witchcraft. Nothing from her about the "honour killings", both here and elsewhere. Not a peep about the use by terrorists of mentally handicapped women as mules to carry bombs. Nope. THIS is what upsets her.

Cindy, go away. NOW. You long ago squandered the public sympathy that existed for you. Now, you are nothing but a shameless, self-promoting fraud.

Warped logic

You have to love the mindset of a terrorist (well, not really, but anyway......). Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, is threatening Israel with "open war" after the killing on Tuesday of Imad Mughniyeh (see my previous post for more on that): http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/14/lebanon-funeral.html. Think about that for a second. An Arab terrorist goes out and kills Jews (and plenty of Americans) around the world, and ultimately, he dies in much the same way that he lived his life. Now, leaving aside for the moment the fact that Israel denies killing him (this assassination has all the hallmarks of a Mossad Op), it is now being threatened with war because it killed someone who has made it his lifetime's work of killing Jews?

Brain cramps

The New York Times must have them after it practically bemoaned the death on Tuesday of Imad Muhgniyeh, a Hezbollah arch-terrorist who was killed in a car bombing on Tuesday: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/world/middleeast/14syria.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin. Here is he NYT headline: "Bomb in Syria Kills Militant Sought as Terrorist". Hmm.........a militant sought as a terrorist, eh? Well, let's see what this "militant" did during his all-too-long life:

1) Masterminded the bombing of the Marine Barracks, U.S. Embassy and French military barracks in 1983, killing a total of 362 people.

2) He was behind the highjacking of TWA Flight 847, during which navy diver Robert Stethem was beaten, killed, and then dumped on an airport tarmac.

3) Orchestrated the kidnapping, torturing and killing of William Buckley, the CIA station cheif in Beirut.

4) Planned the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in which 29 people died.

5) Directed the bombing in 1994 of the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center, killing 85 people.

The grand total for this sorry excues for a human being? 478 innocent lives lost. I'd say that he was more than a "militant sought as a terrorist", New York Times.

Redefining evil

The head of a psychiatric hospital in Baghdad has been arrested for allegedly supplying the two mentally ill women who were used by al Qaeda in last week's homicide bombings, which killed over 100 people: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3353482.ece. Words fail me in describing how truly evil this is. One question does come to mind, however: Will this guy ever be nominated for Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World", or is he automatically excluded because he is not a Republican/Conservative?

Seeing Syria

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former Secretary of State under President Peanut Farmer and now a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, has trundled off to Syria to meet with Basher Assad, the delightful, terrorist-enabling leader of that pariah of a country (well, a pariah to everyone except for the naive/idiotic members of the American left, who seem to be clamoring at the gates for the opportunity to be photographed with the chinless wonder): http://www.nysun.com/article/71123. Martin Peretz of the New Republic speculates that Brzezinski is actually there to meet with the even more odious Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas and a certifiable anti-Semite of the first order: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/02/12/zbignew-brzezinski-is-in-damascus-to-see-bashar-assad-i-believe-he-s-there-to-meet-with-khaled-mashal.aspx.

Either way, does this look good for Obama? If you are a supporter of Israel, can you really, in your heart of hearts, also support Mr. Obama's presidential campaign?

UPDATE (10:58 a.m.): Blogger extraordinaire George Roper notes that there is a website out there called "Muslims for Barack Obama", and they have several "demands" for the aspiring President:

http://www.muslimsforobama08.com/issues.html.

1. A Law against harrassment of a Muslim women wearing Hijab at the Airport, DMV and other public arenas.
2. Institute a Law to allow Muslim Employees to take a hours off from work for Friday Jummah Prayer.
3. Make the 2 Eid's, recognized National Holidays on Calendars with days off from work.
4. Optional Halal meals in federal buildiings, public schools and colleges.
5. Provide prayer areas suitable for Salah and Jummah, in public and private facilities. (i.e. Malls, Airports, Universities and government buildings.)
6. Organize a Muslim American group to assist in recommendations for US foreign policy affecting majority Muslim countries.

George's response can be found on his blog, www.gmroper.mu.nu. They are excellent.

Everybody must get stoned

And if you are an Islomfascism supporter and commend the practice of stoning, you will ultimately receive a handsome payout for doing so: http://www.meforum.org/article/1852.

To me, the whole concept of stoning is like the concept of "honour killings". Both are impossible to defend. I know that the moral relativists out there will refuse to do so, but barbarism IS barbarism. It really is that simple.

Is Hillary toast?

I'm starting to think so. The "inevitable" Democratic Presidential nominee in so many eyes (admittedly, including mine) is now trailing Barack Obama in candidates for this summer's convention, after getting clocked in the Beltway primaries of Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html. Hillary's only hope at this point is for a massive Hispanic turnout in Texas and Ohio, enabling her to carry the states by a huge a margin, and then for the superdelegates to go massively in her favour. I don't see either of those two things occurring at this point.

I know, I know, never write off a Clinton, but her campaign is starting to take on the apperance of Rudy Giuliani's (another presumptive "front-runner") right before he got crushed in Florida. Watch out, Republicans. Barack Obama is going to be awfully tough to beat in November.

Nothing "Honourable" about it

Reports in the U.K. are that there are 17,000 so-called "honour killings" in the country every year, and that this figure is very likely a gross underestimate: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-question-of-honour-police-say-17000-women-are-victims-every-year-780522.html.

Let's not get smug about it here, either. We have the case of those two teenage girls from Texas who were (allegedly) killed by their father for becoming too westernized. A rhetorical question: If you don't want your family to become westernized, why move here?

And, I'll keep asking this question until I get an answer, preferably from someone who either supports or is a member of the group: Where is NOW on issues like this?

Disgraceful choice of words by Reuters

Big surprise, I know. Reuters slanting an article against a Republican? Imagine that. The article discusses a spat between Fidel Castro and John McCain (memo to self: Write to Ann Coulter and ask her who she thinks is worse, Castro or McCain.). In any event, it contains the sentence "...........McCain, who was raised an Episcopalian but calls himself a Christian".

"Calls himself a Christian"? Okay, Reuters, if he isn't a Christian, what is he? I thought that your bias was primarily reserved for making anti-Israeli comments.

From the "I couldn't make this up if I tried" Department

Dutch Catholics have renamed the Festival of Lent "Christian Ramadan" in an attempt to make their religion "more open" to Muslims in their country: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/12/wlent112.xml.

I'm flabbergasted.................

Updated Post

I've updated my post from Sunday on the U.S. State Department acting against the interests of Americans. Scroll down for more on that. It's so disheartening................

They still don't get it

I had hopes for the Philadelphia Inquirer when it was taken over by new owners a couple of years ago. Maybe, just maybe, it would stop with the incredibly transparent left wing bias that was so over the top that during the runup to the 2004 Presidential election, it put out 21 consecutive editorials (three straight weeks of editorials) as to why voters should vote for John Kerry.

The new ownership has helped somewhat; there are no some bona fide conservatives writing for the paper on its Op-Ed page. Unfortunaely, the Editorial page remains the same bastion of left-wing thought that it has always been. The latest polemic is about the decision on the part of the U.S. military to try six individuals with crimes related to the 9/11 attacks: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080212_Editorial__9_11_Sentences.html.

Personally, I would have been perfectly happy if these individuals had been lined up agains a wall and shot. That said, the decision afforded the Inquirer the opportunity to wrap all of its liberal biases up in one neat, little bundle. There are criticisms of the death penalty, waterboarding (memo to the Inquirer: A grand total of THREE people have been waterboarded. Hardly what I would call an epidemic), Guantanamo Bay, and several other banes of liberal existence.

I almost canceled my Inquirer subscription during the barrage of Kerry endorsements. It's now a consideration once again...............

Back to the Future in Russia

The Gulag is dead, long live the Gulag! After it seemingly headed the way of the dodo bird, the Gulag system has revived and is now alive and well in Vladimir Putin's Russia: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277726156660765.html. Let me ask the question which seems to be so obvious: WHY would this be a surprise to anyone? Has Vladimir Putin's Russia been such a paragon of democracy and honesty that something like this was unthinkable? Frankly, I wonder what took it so long. The country may now be called Russia, and it may not include many of its former "republics", but make no mistake, this is basically the same old USSR. New name, same place.

A sad passing

Tom Lantos, the only Congressman to ever have been a concentration camp inmate, died today of cancer: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_go_co/obit_lantos. Lantos is one of those politcians who was respected by politicians on either side of the aisle, and that esteem went beyond the borders of this country. Rest in peace (even though I know that that is not a Jewish express, I feel compelled to add it), Tom.............

London to Sydney in less than five hours

It could happen one day, if the designers of a hypersonic plane have their way: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7228341.stm. I admit, I am an incurable technology geek, and stuff like this really intrigues me. If the sound issues (sonic booms) could be resolved, could this plane be used over land? Could we be looking at a flight from New York City to Los Angeles which lasted only a half hour or so? Montreal to Moscow in two hours? The possibilites (and the daydreaming) are endless..............

Beer is good for you!

Well, except maybe when you steal a beer truck and then crash it: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=98354&in_page_id=2.

I don't know why, considering that it involved an armed robbery, but I find this story incredibly amusing...........

Dreaming the impossible dream

Western political "leaders" continue to do just that. They support one terrorism-enabling Palestinian leader after another, the latest being Mahmoud Abbas: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269089266857707.html.

This Op-Ed was written by an Israeli and a Palestinian, the latter of whom has pretty good credentials as to not being an "Israeli pawn". Both writers correctly point out that as long as the West in general and the United States and Europe in particular continue to fund, arm, and provide diplomatic support for corrupt and dishonest individuals who profess to be Palestinian leaders but really aren't, the status quo is the absolute best we can achieve.

It's a grim situation, but we have only ourselves to blame for it. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.................

The State Department acts against Americans......AGAIN

I sometimes wonder who the State Department supposedly represents, because it sure isn't the American people. The American Embassy hostages have been seeking justice from Tehran for almost 29 years, in the form of monetary compensation for the Iranian act of war in imprisoning them, and who (or what) is it that has been blocking their way? Why, the State Department, of course: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/mark_bowden/20080210_The_Point__Iran_fund_should_benefit_ex-hostages.html.

Read the whole article. It's so offensive as to be nauseating.

UPDATE (2/12/08, 8:50 a.m.): Now, the State Department is apparently considering getting involved in the lawsuits filed by American victims in Israel of Palestinian terrorism.............on behalf of the Palestinians, of course: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021102627.html.

Gimme some of that Sharia

I may as well stop trashing the U.K. for its kowtowing to Islamic law, seeing as we're now doing the same thing over here: http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=14601. And this is in TEXAS, of all places.

Have we really abandoned all connection to sanity?

Some words of advice for the anti-McCain bandwagon

These come from a former official in the sainted Ronald Reagan administration: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120251661161755395.html. They can be summed up as follows: GET OVER IT.

The stakes are huge in the upcoming Presidential election. Do we surrender in Iraq or not? Do we pay a lot more in taxes or not? Do we kowtow even more to Iran and Saudi Arabia or not? Vote the wrong way, or sit the election out, and watch as the answers to those questions turn out to be ones we don't like too much.

Ignorance continues to be bliss

Last week, the world quietly "celebrated" an inauspicious anniversary, the 75th anniversary of the ascension to the German Chancellor's title of one Adolph Hitler: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/705evxkd.asp. In hindsight, we always seem to wonder why the people living in the 1930s didn't see what was coming. Hitler was quite open about what he wanted to do, not only to the Jews but to the world in general. Yet, he was not taken seriously, or his words were brushed aside as being mere rhetoric..................until he started acting on them.

So it was with Germany, so it is with Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more than willing to say what he wants to do to Jews in general and Israel in particular. Yet, his comments are either rationalized away, ignored, or minimized. No one seems to care. Well, I do. You see, the last person who said that he wanted to kill all the Jews and who had any power actually went out and tried to do it. The old cliche is that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Is that going to be the case here?

But Obama wants to talk to them!

The latest from the Religion of Peace (and tolerance): A 22-year old Iranian is going to be put to death for the horrific crime of (I hope that you're sitting down as you read this): drinking alcohol on four occasions: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080206-117193/Iranian-faces-execution-for-drinking-alcohol----report. What a recidivist!

Honestly, how can you talk to people who do things like this? Yet, Barack Obama, who stands an excellent chance of being elected President in just nine months, wants to to sit down and chat with these maniacs.

The forgotten race(s)

With all of the focus on the Democratic and Republican primaries, people seemingly have forgotten that there are going to be a whole bunch of Senate seats (not to mention the entire House of Representatives) up for re-election in November as well, and the Democrats are looking to get a veto-proof majority of 60+ seats in the Senate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120243245312152389.html.

If Harry Reid (who declared the Surge a failure before it started and who opined that the Iraq War was lost--again before the Surge had even had a chance to show some progress) takes charge of a pliant, veto-proof Senate, it won't matter who the President is, because the Democrats will have control of both houses. That's a scary prospect..............

The coming war

A former CIA analyst, writing in Time magazine, sees ominous signs that there will be a war between Israel and Hamas sometime soon: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710078,00.html.

Isreal didn't fare too well the war against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. How would it do in what would amount to an urban war as it battled Hezbollah in a heavily fortified setting such as the Gaza Strip? I don't like the odds of Israel doing well in that setting, and when you factor in the possibility that Hezbollah might use the opportunity to renew hostilities in the north, Israel would be facing the most serious military threat it has faced since the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

Durban II approaches

There are conflicting reports on whether the United States will stay away from the Durban II "anti-racism" conference, as the noxious fumes of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment have already begun to waft over U.N. as the planning for the conference continues: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23039186/. It's not a surprise, given the hatred that was spewed forth at the 2001 conference, and what else should we expect given the presence of Libya and Iran on the planning committee?

Given that the conference won't take place for another 18 months or so, there is plenty of time to decide, or to change decisions that are already made. However, what I think will ultimately happen is that if it is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House, the United States will be there. If it is John McCain, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, probably not. Similarly, in Canada, where the current Conservative government has already stated that it will not attend, I predict a reversal if the Liberals regain power.

More deadlines

Canada's Conservative government may be heading towards a vote of no confidence based on the country's military presence (though NATO) in Afghanistan: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080205.wafghan-canada0205/BNStory/National/home. Given that all three opposition parties (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois) oppose the mission and favour bringing the troops home as quickly as is possible, it is unlikely that the Conservatives would win that vote, and a defeat would mean that an election would have to be called.

There is an incredible irony to me, namely that the Liberals, who have been so vocal about opposing the NATO mission, were the ones who committed Canada to it and then sent troops to Afghanistan. I guess that Liberal leader Stephane Dion went to the John Kerry "I was for the war before I was against the war" school of political thought.............

Super Tuesday recap

John McCain won.............but not quite. Hillary Clinton won.................but not quite: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/delegate_counts.html. Both frontrunners maintained their frontrunner status, but didn't or couldn't close the deal. In fact, Super Tuesday provided some surprises, with the unexpected revival of Mike Huckabee's campaign in the U.S. south, and the surprisingly narrow nature of Hillary Clinton's triumph(s) over Barack Obama virtually everywhere. If John McCain goes on to capture the Republican nomination, it will represent a stunning repudiation of the numerous talking heads who have done nothing but trash him since his campaign revived itself with a win in the New Hampshire primary. Of course, that will leave those same pundits with little choice but to continue their verbal assault on him, if only to validate their preconceptions about how horrible he is.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama stubbornly refuses to go away. Even I'm starting to think that he might be able to derail the Hillary Clinton express, and if so, I think that he might be virtually unbeatable in November no matter who the Republican nominee is. There is no question that he is by far the best orator among the candidates on either side of the political aisle. I still don't think that he's said a single thing of substance yet, and if he captures the Democratic nomination, he will be forced to offer SOME specifics about what he stands for and what he wants to do. Until then, however, he can and will sway everyone with his eloquence.

A Royal pain

Britain's Prince Andrew has decided to offer his two cents (or is it his two pence?) on the goings-on in Iraq after the American-led attack in March 0f 2003: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/02/06/noindex/nduke106.xml. In short, he's not too thrilled with the way the U.S. governed things, and he isn't shy about saying so. His musings have incurred the wrath of both the Foreign Office in London, as well as (reportedly) 10 Downing Street.

I'll say this: When the Royal family can get ITS house in order, then maybe I'll listen to what its members have to say on the subject of Iraq..................

A war we lost?

It's commonly accepted that the United States "lost" the Vietnam War. In fact, to suggest otherwise is to invite scorn, ridicule and anger. However, a writer in the Wall Street Journal has done just that, pointing out that from a military standpoint, the Amerian forces had decisively defeated the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in ever single military encounter, including the Tet Offensive, which was widely reported by the media as being an ignominious U.S. defeat: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120226056767646059.html.

I have long wondered about the reporting on the Vietnam War, which was perhaps the first "television war" in world history. The public perception of it was shaped by a media which was against the war and the soldiers who were fighting it (hmmm, doesn't this sound familiar?). Unfortunately, it set a pattern which is still followed today.............

Another 9/11 conspiracy nut reveals himself

You can add country music legend Willie Nelson to the (seemingly) ever growing list of 9/11 conspiracy whack jobs, where he can keep Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell company: http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/020408kvuenelson-bkm.8e5c8740.html. It's a good thing ignorant fools such as myself have astute entertainers around to tell them that the Twin Towers weren't really levelled by airplanes, but were instead taken down by controlled demolitions.

I have no--I repeat, NO--patience for these 9/11 idiot conspiracy theorists. Go away. Shut up.

Super Tuesday for who?

Registered voters across the United States are casting their ballots today in the Democratic and Republican Presidential primaries. On the Democratic side, all signs are pointing to a good day for Hillary Clinton. She will likely capture both California and New York, the two biggest prizes on the biggest primary day. On the Republican side, those two states might split, with California going for Mitt Romney (a surprise to me), and New York going for John McCain. Polls have the two nearly neck and neck in the Golden State: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html.

Given the exit of Rudy Giuliani from the race, I am supporting John McCain, though I admit that it is not strong endorsement, and I would not be upset if Mitt Romney emerged triumphant. It's just that I think that McCain is the best positioned candidate to win in November, and I could see either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama clobbering Mitt Romney in a general election.

If we fail

The consequences of defeat for NATO and the West in Afghanistan are almost too frightening to contemplate, but a writer for the Times of London has done just that, and the picture he paints is frightening, to say the least: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article3308248.ece.

The frightening thing is that I have indicated in previous posts on this subject, the prospect is not farfetched in the least. Canada is muttering that it will pull outs troops unless other NATO countries contribute a rather modest 1000 additional troops. Stunningly, they seem unwilling to do so, with the whiny Germans being the most dead set against either a hike in their troop commitment or the redeployment of their existing troops to any area where they might actually have to fight.

If I can see the consequences of defeat in Afghanistan, why can't they?

Adolph Hitler, Dallas Cowboys Fan

This explains A LOT to me!

:-D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K2triiYXSY8

And they say OUR schools are bad?

Apparently, schools in England aren't much better (which I guess should not be a surprise, given the insane political correctness that seems so prevalent over there): http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080204/od_afp/britainpeoplehistoryoffbeat.

How can 1/4 of all Brits not think that Winston Churchill existed, but more than half think that Sherlock Holmes was real? That would be like 1/3 of all Americans thinking that the government was behind 9/11.

Umm...................never mind.

Super Bowl XXII

The supposedly unthinkable happened last night, and the unbeaten, 18-0 New England Patriots fell 17-14 to the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. While I am certainly surprised by the outcome--I thought that New England would win a close, high-scoring game, the result was entirely deserved. New York was the better team virtually all game, and we saw very little of that fearsome New England offense that rang up an NFL record 589 points during the regular season. The Giants won the game by doing something no other team this season had been able to do: They punched the Patriots in the mouth. They hit Tom Brady more than he had been hit all season, and as a result, the deep passing game of the Patriots was virtually eliminated. The much-maligned Giants QB Eli Manning, who has had some truly dismal moments in his carreer (with some of those moments coming this season) was once again masterful, completing big passes all game, and on the decisive touchdown drive, he evaded a sack in a way that would have made Fran Tarkenton proud before a heaving a ball up that receiver David Tyree somehow caught. The play saved the drive and the season for the G-Men, who a few plays later scored the game-winning touchdown.

I had no rooting interest in this game, beyond being a football fan. I knew that the Patriots wee going to make history; it was just a question of how. The fact that they lost this game drops them from the list of "great teams of all time". They still had an amazing season, but unless you win it all, you don't get a spot on the pantheon of greatest ever teams.

One other thing. Did anyone else catch Bill Bellichick's typically classless move at the end of the game when, with one second left and a requirement by the league that the last play take place, he simply left (after shaking Tom Coughln's hand)? His players had to stay out there, so why couldn't he? Bellichick may be the reason that most Patriots-haters don't like the team. He came across yesterday as being a classless, petulant, childish poor sport.

The Divestment monster rears its ugly head again

Now it's the Methodists who are pushing for divestment from Israel: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=28594C83-C39D-4998-A2B9-5E339B7B13E4. Those of us who support Israel need to learn an important lesson here. The Divestment Crowd will not give up, and the fact that it had been somewhat quiet of late didn't mean that it wasn't planning and acting. These people will not give up until Israel is turned into the new South Africa. This is why they use the same language, the same descriptions, etc., etc. If they are ignored, it is at Israel's own peril.

A more militaristic Venezuela

It's certainly a possibility, if one is to believe this article from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120209345977739855.html. Hugo Chavez' behaviour is not unusual, looking back on history. Dictators often resort to antagonizing neighbours to deflect attention away from domestic concerns, and Venezuela clearly has a lot of domestic concerns. The question here is, will Chavez go so far as to provoke an actual military conflict with Colombia, and if so, what effect with that have on the world? No one knows the answers to those questions right now................

Creeping Sharia Watch

Women in England who are involved in the health care field are apparently refusing to wash their hands and arms properly because the Koran does not permit them the expose their bare skin below the elbows: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327938,00.html.

It hasn't happened yet, to the best of my knowledge, but you can be sure that the British Medical Association will soon push for legislation exempting Muslims in the medical field from this obviously racist requirement........................

Berzerkley

If San Francisco is the epicenter of leftist insanity in the United States, then Berkeley is the actual fault line. No place more exemplifies the deranged anti-American self-hating mentality of the angry left then the city that is home to Cal-Berkeley. The entire city has one (count 'em, ONE) Marines recruiting station, and that apparently is one too many for the Angry Left, which has issued a special parking permit to the fruitcakes who make up Code Pink. That parking permit is located directly in front of the Marines' facility: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/us/01berkeley.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. Though the New York Times article glosses over this, the article in the Daily Californian (the Cal-Berkeley newspaper) notes that the proponents of giving Code Pink the parking spot compare the Marines to purveyors of pornography: http://www.dailycal.org/article/100049/initiative_targets_military_recruitment.

If that isn't an indication of just how unhinged the Angry Left is, I don't know what is.

No, no, NATO

Canada is calling out the Euroweenies in NATO. With the United States and Canada (and the U.K.) disproportionately taking on the burden of trying to keep the peace in Afghanistan, Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has called on other NATO countries (primarily Germany, Spain and France) to do more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182510813133677.html.

The position of Canada is correct. Western Europeans, much as they did during the Cold War, have been content to let the Americans do the heavy labouring, with the key assistance in Afghanistan of the Canadian troops, who are stationed in the ever-restive southern part of the country. This is unfair but typical of the Western Europeans, who seem unwilling to fight for anything.

Terrorists aren't terrorists

When they attack Israel or Israeli interests, that is. No, they're "militants", or as in this case, "gunmen": http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL01489085. Well, call me a weirdo, but when someone fires a weapon at an embassy, you know what I call them? A TERRORIST. Sorry, Reuters..................

Shut the F--- Up

I have just about had it with these holier-than-thou, self-righteous, self-proclaimed arbiters of who is and who is not a Republican/Conservative. Yeah, I'm talking about you Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Savage, etc., etc. I don't profess to be any kind of political genius, but even with my limited sense, I can't help but think that for all of your supposed knowledge, you people are a bunch of completely obnoxious, clueless idiots. You really hate John McCain, don't you? Fine. SUCK IT UP AND GET OVER IT. Coulter has said that she would actually prefer to have Hillary Clinton in the White House. Well, keep it up and you'll get your wish. Don't think that there is a difference between Hellary/Shrillary and McCain? How about on the Fairness Doctrine? How about on Iraq? How about on Health care? How about on tax cuts? The list goes on and on.

Honestly, I can't believe that these people are that stupid. EVERYTHING for which they supposedly stand is opposed by Clinton, and yet they would apparently rather see her in the White House than John McCain (who is still a long way away from sewing up the Republican nomination, but that's another story), and all because they didn't get THEIR chosen candidate as the nominee. Now, who that chosen nominee is varies from pundit to pundit, and from day to day. For one, it's Romney. For another, it is Huckabee. For still another, it was Fred Thompson. So now, they're throwing a collective temper tantrum, engaging in the political equivalent of threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue.

What's most offensive about this fit of pique is that for many, it is so hypocritical. Some supported Rudy Giuliani, until he dropped out on Wednesday and endorsed McCain. Now, all of a sudden, Rudy is a "RINO", a despicable acronym for "Republican In Name Only". That term is offensive and demeaning, as its users intend it to be. Well, to come full circle, who appointed YOU the arbiter of who is or is not a "true Republican"? Not me, nor anyone I know. The funny thing is, for all of your pontificating and bloviating, and for all of your "dittoheads" and the like who pander to you and tell you what you want to hear, the only people who seem to disagree with you are the actual primary voters. Imagine that, they have minds of their own! That must be very deflating to your incredibly large egos.

Here's my final word (for now) on this subject: For all of my disagreements with John McCain (immigration and Guantanamo Bay, just for starters), I acknowledge that he is the Republican best positioned to defeat Hillary Clinton. As well, John McCain is a GREAT American, one who has contributed more and given up more for this country than all of the people I listed above. For them to denigrate him is despicable and base, and I am ashamed to be on the same side of the political fence as them.