Sunday, October 30, 2005

UAE Now Claims Saddam Agreed To Exile Before War

From The Associated Press
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Saddam Hussein accepted an 11th-hour offer to flee into exile weeks ahead of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion, but Arab League officials scuttled the proposal, officials in this Gulf state claimed.

So. What I want to to know, is why the hell this wasn't brought to anyone's attention, before now? Did I seriously miss something here?

Let's read on:
We were coming (to the summit in Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh resort) to place the facts on the table," said Sheik Mohammed, who is deputy chief of the Emirates armed forces and crown prince of Abu Dhabi.

"The results would have emerged if the initiative was presented and discussed. This is now history."

The anonymous Emirates official said Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa did not bring the proposal to the summit's discussion because Arab foreign ministers had not presented and accepted it as league protocol dictated.

At the time, Arab League leaders said the summit decided not to take up the idea, citing league rules barring interference in members' domestic affairs.

They all say they didn't want this war. But if that were the case, wouldn't you shelf the petty BS and try to solve the situation? If you were Saddam wouldn't you set it up and go? If you are the Arab League wouldn't you want to score points and solve the crisis before it becomes a war?

They did want this war.

If they didn't, they would have presented this as a viable alternative in the days leading up to the day of the invasion. They would used every diplomatic channel available to head off this action. Instead, we got a lot of "take it or leave it" stuff that was not acceptable.

The one thing that prevents diplomatic solutions when most Muslim nations are involved, is their stubborn refusal to compromise. They cannot go against what Islam teaches and are afraid of the reprisals that will surely occur, if they are ever judged by the Islamofascist groups to be infidels.

Don't kid yourself, the Arab League wanted this war for many reasons, even the "so-called" friendly ones. And that puts them in the same useless category as the U.N. and the E.U., corrupt and irrelevent.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

New Blogroll Welcome

Jason at Liberty and Culture is a smart guy. (Which is why I read his blog.) He recently linked to this piece entitled "No Vaccine For Islam" by Gandalf at Up Pompeii. It is about the Ottoman Empire's oppression of Christians, it is lengthy, and it is damned good.

And what happens when I find someone this damned good?

Answer: He/she gets blogrolled.

Welcome to Gandalf.

The UN Muscle (That'll Show Them)

The same U.N. that fails the world it is supposed to serve has now (two days after the fact) decided to get around to condemning the recent remarks, made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, concerning the annihilation of Israel.

(CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council has condemned recent comments by Iran's president that Israel should be "wiped off the map" but did not say if the world body planned any action against Iran.

In a written statement, the council pointed out that all members of the United Nations "have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against ... any state."

Now there's something you can sink your teeth into, another strongly worded condemnation ought to do the trick. Right?

This would be analogous to a young pre-school age child telling his teacher, "I want to kill you and string your guts all over the place" and then the teacher replying, "Now, we don't say that here!".

How effective was this recent condemnation of the Iranian president's remarks? Let's read on:

Meanwhile, thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.

Demonstrators held banners with anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian slogans. One banner read "Death to Israel, death to America," The Associated Press reported.

Quite effective, wouldn't you say?

Here is Russia's response:

The embassy said Ahmadinejad "did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict."

"It's absolutely clear that, in his remarks, Mr. Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories," Reuters quoted the embassy statement as saying.

This is equal to the parent of that child I mentioned earlier saying, "He didn't mean it. He's a good boy.".

Anyone, with half of a brain, can tell you that a child that would make such a statement needs to be looked at a little closer, because the statements he makes today, could very well be indicative of future malicious behaviors.

The same holds true of Iran, but with greater consequences.

Cross Posted at The Wide Awakes

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Miers Withdraws Nomination

I was fast at work today (a long day) and did not hear the news of Miers' withdrawal, until I was on my way home. I am not sure exactly how I feel, but I am sure that many on both sides of the aisle are happy. I have been ambivalent for the most part, but I was willing to give her a chance in the hearings before I decided just exactly, what I thought. But, it was not to be.

She wasn't very qualified. She hadn't been a judge and she was an inner circle staffer of the Administration. That was two strikes against her before she ever got to bat. The big reason I believe Bush picked her in the first place, was because there was no one else that wanted the job. And that it not likely to change and it will certainly be a factor in finding a replacement.

Anyway, I don't have time to go much more into it tonight. So I will link to a few of my favorite sites to share with my readers, this subject. (Long day again, tomorrow.)

From the AP

World Net Daily

International Herald Tribune

In The Middle Of America


Poliblog has a list of major blog reactions.


Q and O Online Magazine

Cao's Blog

That's enough for now. If you didn't see your blog represented don't get your feelings hurt. Some of you didn't write anything about it, and some I just haven't had time to glance at yet. That's all.

Woman Fired After Seeing Husband Off To War

This story comes from the AP.
CALEDONIA, Mich. (AP) -- A woman who took an unpaid leave of absence from work to see her husband off to war has been fired after failing to show up for her part-time receptionist job the day following his departure.

"It was a shock," said Suzette Boler, a 40-year-old mother of three and grandmother of three. "I was hurt. I felt abandoned by people I thought cared for me. I sat down on the floor and cried for probably two hours."

Officials at her former workplace, Benefit Management Administrators Inc., confirmed that Boler was dismissed when she didn't report to work the day after she said goodbye to her husband of 22 years.

(Read More)

If this is the sole reason she was fired, this outfit is despicable and deserves to lose business over this. The article goes on to say there were other factors involved in their decision. But companies always say that and the timing of this action was incredibly poor.

Benefit Management Administrators Inc. is the name of the company, got a contract with them? Don't renew it.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

USA Today Busted For Doctoring Photo Of Condi

It goes on more than many people think, most of it is very subtle. But in this case, Michelle Malkin pops the liberal national daily for it.

Check it out.

Sheehan Threatens Hillary

From the AP and Newsday.
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Cindy Sheehan, who became the face of anti-war sentiment after her son died in Iraq, urged war opponents to thwart Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's political aspirations unless she comes out against the conflict.

(Read More)

I like this.

This definitely pins Hillary up against her own end zone. By painting Hillary into a corner on this war, it forces Hillary to choose which just which camp she wants to be in, before her Senate race.

If she chooses the anti-war camp, she will be viewed as being cast in the Deaniac/MoveOn.Org mold. If she chooses the pro-war stance, she risks alienating that wing of the Democratic party. So far, the Clinton and her "image-making" team have been content to criticize the basis for going to war, but stop short in calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Should she be forced to choose the anti-war camp, she will sail to victory in the 2006 NY Senate race; but will have a hard time reversing herself in the 2008 Presidential campaign, without absorbing an enormous amount of criticism . The GOP would most definitely throw that back at her, if she were to re-triangulate.

Should she opt to maintain her current stance (not calling for immediate withdrawal), she risks losing support of the entire left-wing faction for both races. This is not so much of a concern, in the Senate race, but will definitely affect her Presidential run.

Maybe Cindy isn't so bad after all. Go, Cindy Go!


You don't think Karl Rove is behind all of this, do you?

Iranian President Threatens Israel

From Fox News and the AP comes this story.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.

(Read More)

This threat paid for and sponsored by "the religion of peace".

AP: Bush Tries To Revive Support For Iraq War

From the AP:
WASHINGTON - President Bush tried Tuesday to begin reviving U.S. support for the war in Iraq and reinvigorating his troubled presidency as the U.S. military death toll topped 2,000.

(Read More)

Here we are today, 2 1/2 years after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom; and George Bush still has to drum up support for it. The MSM (and the leftists they speak for), have been salivating, while waiting for the U.S. death toll to reach 2000. But lest we forget, I want to remind everyone who voted for the authorization to use force, in the Senate. (Note-Both House and Senate voted yes overwhelmingly. 2-1 in the Senate and almost 2-1 in the House.)

US Senate Roll Call Vote On Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )

Some of the names you will see, with a YEA next to their name:

Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Kerry (D-MA), Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-FL), Reid (D-NV), Schumer (D-NY), Torricelli (D-NJ).

That was October 2002. Today, these people are among the most vocal critics of Iraqi Freedom. So, why is George Bush the only person worthy of blame?

The Senate wants us all to know that their role is to have input into the President's decisions. But when the chips are down, do they really want to share in the responsibility, for the decisions they (and the House) made with him?

But the real questions of the day?

How many of those 2000 U.S. deaths could have been prevented if these people would have stood firm and resolute, in spite of the fact that no large stockpiles of WMDs, have been found? How many would be alive today, if the MSM, groups like MoveOn.Org, and people like Cindy Sheehan would have not spent the last 2 1/2 years trying to politicize a war?

The blood is on their hands.

Monday, October 24, 2005

IHT: Turks Embrace Novelist's War On EU

The article is written by Dan Bilefsky and is a commentary on the novel "The Third World War", written by a Turkish writer by the name of, Burak Turna.

ISTANBUL - The year is 2010 and the European Union has rejected Turkey. Fascist governments have come to power in Germany, Austria and France and are inciting violence against resident Turks and Muslims. A vengeful Turkey joins forces with Russia and declares war against the EU. Turkish commandos besiege Berlin, obliterate Europe and take control of the Continent.

Some critics will be quick to dismiss "The Third World War," a new futuristic novel by a 30-year-old Turkish writer, Burak Turna, as the wild imaginings of a conspiracy theorist and literary shock jock - and in many ways it is.

(Read More)

Let me be counted as one who says, I don't discount it. Let me also go on record as saying, allowing Turkey into the EU will be a major, major mistake.

Letting a predominantly Muslim country into the European community as an equal partner is one sure recipe for future disaster. Have Europeans forgotten the Ottoman Empire and the long history of Ottoman imperialism? What foolishness it is, to consider a country that has no ties to European culture, for a spot in the EU. How utterly ridiculous it is to even think that they can mesh with old Europe?

They are Muslim. The jihadists are Muslim. Who do you think the Turks will side with, if Europe ever decides to fight back against the forces that seek to destroy all western civilaization and bring it under, sharia law?

Think I am nuts? Then, why do you think that a 30-year old Turkish writer can dream up such a fictional scenario? And then ask yourself, why the Turks are embracing it? Can you honestly convince yourself that these people haven't already thought of taking over Europe? They tried it for years, by way of the sword. Now they are trying to do it, by way of inclusion to the EU. Slowly and subtlely, they sneak in.

Mark my words, if they allow the Turks in, there will come a time when Europe will be faced with taking very stern and decisive measures against radical Islamic terrorism (and the nations that support it); and when it comes up for a vote in the EU, the Turks will fight it, stall it, and veto it. Why? Because they are Muslims and when the chips are down, Muslims will not turn their backs on other Muslims.

Meanwhile the EU has the subtle threats of Turkey through a fiction writer, to mull over and consider. They have the opportunity to nip this in the bud, right now. They had better think long and hard.

Europe Lags In R & D

EU Serf at The Road to Euro Serfdom has posted a small piece on R&D in the EU that is worth a look. The key point that he makes is well worth repeating here:
....when Socialism fails, socialists claim that the dose wasn’t high enough.

Never have truer words been spoken. It's like an addiction. The more money spent on social programs that don't work, the higher the tolerence. The higher the tolerence, the more it takes to satisfy. Just like any other drug.


Well, the world now knows who will replace Alan Greenspan, as Federal Reserve Board Chairman. ABC and the AP have filed, this report.

WASHINGTON Oct 24, 2005 — President Bush named top White House economic adviser Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board on Monday in place of near legendary Alan Greenspan as the official in closest control of interest rates.

Bernanke instantly announced his first priority would be "to maintain continuity with the policy and policy strategies under the Greenspan era."

(Read more

1. I don't know him.

2. I would expect that he would say that he plans to continue the policies of Greenspan. Greenspan is going to be one tough act to follow.

3. If he said changes were coming, the markets would go nuts. Any changes that this guy will make, will no doubt be subtle.

4. I am sure we will all hear the good, the bad, and the ugly in the next week or two. No other Bush nomination has been free from the Democratic "dirt-digging machine".

The Current Revolution In Russia

Check out this L.A. Times article by Kim Murphy, about rebellious Islamists in the Caucasus region of Russia.
GHIMRI, Russia — A dripping and cavernous tunnel, three miles through the belly of the mountain and lighted only by a spindly strand of dim bulbs, marks the entrance to the land of deep gorges and outlaw villages of the Caucasus range.

Emerging in the bright daylight on the other side is like entering another world, a Russia that is not Russia. Road signs every few feet are bright green with Arabic script: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet." Several dozen signs bear the words of a legendary Caucasian warrior: "He who thinks about consequences is not a hero."

Since the 19th century, Russia has tried to tame the 650 miles of snowy peaks and fertile lowland slopes between the Caspian and Black seas. Today, the Caucasus wars seeping out of Chechnya through the surrounding, predominantly Muslim republics are increasingly being waged under a banner of militant Islam.

A tip of the hat goes to the LA Times for finally coming out with some information that many of us have already known for years, now. I really have to hand it to them. I mean, what finally led them to this conclusion? Was it the seizure of the Moscow theater a few years ago? The school siege? What finally got them to admit the reality of this struggle?

Know this, the Domino Theory is still alive and well. Russia, Indonesia, Kashmir, and Thailand are current targets of a big land grabbing operation by jihadists. Who will it be tomorrow?

Sunday, October 23, 2005

The New Slavic Migration In Europe And The Reasons Behind It

I read an interesting article by Thomas Fuller of the IHT, about the migration of Eastern Europeans to the West, particularly Britain.

It turns out the doomsayers were partly right: Nearly a year and a half after the expansion of the European Union, floods of East Europeans have washed into Britain.

Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians and other Easterners are arriving at an average rate of 16,000 a month, a result of Britain's decision to allow unlimited access to the citizens of the eight East European countries that joined the EU last year.

They work as bus drivers, farmhands and dentists, as waitresses, builders, and saleswomen; they are transforming parts of London into Slavic and Baltic enclaves where pickles and Polish beer are stacked in delicatessens and Polish can be heard on the streets almost as often as English.

Why am I not surprised?

When the pie-in-the-sky, ivory tower elitists dreamed up this ill-conceived scheme to unite Europe under one banner, they miscalulated the response to open borders and open markets, in the post-Soviet era.

Anyone (but the socialists) can understand why. Socialism fails. That is well understood, by free thinkers and those that understand the big picture.

But one further thing to note is, after socialism failed, the people brought up and educated in that system, have had an incredibly difficult time converting to a free market system. Most of these nations never really had a system like western Europe, before the Marxists took over. For 70 years, universities taught Marxist theory, as fact, in these eastern countries. Capitalism was demonized as the road to ruin, and socialism was promoted as the panacea that would engulf and save the world, from itself. The former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries are now in a state of flux in their quest to convert from central planning to free markets. For several reasons.

I read an article from an economist from
the Hoover Institution (whose name escapes me and I cannot find the article on the site, because it was 6-7 years ago). This man went to give top Russian finance officials instruction on the fundamentals of a free market economy, when Russia was just in its infancy stage (status post Soviet Union).

During one part of the conference, one of the Russian officials asked, "who sets the prices?". Those that have read a high school history book knows who set the prices in the Soviet world and in the free market world. But this guy was evidently sincere, so the economist went through the supply versus demand concepts using charts, graphs, and other things to illustrate the relationship between the two. He said he had covered it very well, the men listening all looked on attentively, and appeared to be soaking it all in. He thought he was doing good and they were getting it. No problem, right?

After all of the material was covered, he asked if there were any questions. The same man asked something to the effect of, "Yes, we read all that and understand it well, but, who sets the prices?". They just could not grasp the notion that something could free flow and work itself out, without some sort of intervention from the government. Seventy years of indoctrination makes it hard to re-educate people into something that is diametrically oppsed to what you have been taught all of your life.

Another reason the former Soviet bloc nations have had trouble converting is, the black market. During the Soviet central planning days, there was never enough goods available to be sold through party approved suppliers, to meet the most basic needs of the people. Queues were incredibly common for basic necessities, and supplies often ran out.

Enter the black market. The demand was high because the supply was low, so people were getting what the government could not provide, through it. What the government could not provide, the mob could. So when the conversion to free market finally happened, the black market corporations were already in place and poised to become legit, even though their business practices were used to being, anything but.

Which leads us to the third reason of why the East has had their troubles since the collapse of the Wall in 1990, the world of bribes and kickbacks.

For the black market to operate so freely and efficiently meet needs that the government could not, they had to buy off local and regional officials. The government officials recognized that they could not meet the needs of the people and as a result, allowed the underworld to fill the gaps, but, only for a price. As long as mafiosos paid their bribes and cut the officials in on the action, they were not harassed. They were left alone. The moment they didn't play by the rules of the government officials, they were dealt with severely. And then, new suppliers moved in to take their place.

Today, the same business protocols exist and are still being followed in Russia, today.

So what does this all have to do with the migration of Slavic workers to Britain?

The people from these nations that want a piece of the pie, are becoming more and more convinced that their countries cannot provide them with the dream. They cannot meet the needs of their people today and it is looking more and more likely that the time will not come, anytime too soon. Many fear that their time will come and go, before they ever get a handle on it, if they ever do. Their lives and chances are running out, so they turn to Britain, where they are welcomed.

The EU did not envision this. The EU wanted the continent to embrace the concept of the richer nations, helping the poorer ones (which are mostly former socialist nations). Then they could all realize the dream of a strong neo-Roman Empire, where they could all sing Kumbaya, and live happily ever after. But, what help the poorer ones have received has been eaten up by corruption and gross mismanagement. And now, many countries that are well-adept at free markets are not willing to continue sinking more and more money into a corrupt system, not getting a decent return on their investment. So now, the people in these countries that want to work hard and not deal with the games that are going on in their areas, right now, are going where the opportunity exists for them, to better themselves through hard work.

But rest assured, this will make it even more difficult to jump start these countries' economies. The people that want to work are leaving for greener pastures elsewhere and all that is left is the old corrupt, lazy, ex-socialists that want something for nothing. You cannot build a strong nation with lazy-asses and corrupt politicians.

This nation was not built by socialists, it was built by hard working men and women that poured their hearts, their souls, and their spirits into this endeavor. Blood, sweat, and tears were shed for this country, and sugar coated feel good theories (that have never worked and never will) played no part of it.

Those opposed to the EU, saw this coming. But somehow they could not convince the pie-in-the-sky, ivory tower elitists that dreamed up this ill-conceived scheme to unite Europe, under one banner.


What else is new?

Cross-posted at The Wide Awakes

Friday, October 21, 2005

A PYY Restaurant Review

This is not an advertisement. It is a review of my experience at one of the oldest and still premier restaurants in Atlanta, which I had the opportunity to eat at during my trip, last weekend.

Mary Mac's Tea Room has been in business since 1945 and one trip, will prove to you just why they are still doing a whopping business. Home cooking featuring southern fare is the specialty and it does not get any better than this. Located on the northeast side near downtown, it sits on Ponce de Leon Avenue, and would not draw much attention unless you knew where to look.

Once inside, you look at the decor and see the history of the place. Add to that the walls full of celebrity photos, and you have the story of a restaurant that has endured the age of fast-food joints, trendy pubs, and national chain eateries. If only the walls could speak.

One oddity worthy of mention was the method of ordering. They give you a guest check organized by course, and you write out your own order for the waitress to pick up. I have been to restaurants that had phones at each table and you call in your order in. But, I have never written my own order out before.

But none of that means a damned thing, unless the food is good. And, it is. I had fried oysters and shrimp (which tasted like the seafood I remember, from when I was stationed at Ft. Rucker), with turnip greens and black-eyed peas. All tasted fresh and well-seasoned. Portions were good-sized and it was not too pricey, at all.

After the meal, I was sitting at the table with the only people I knew in Atlanta, right in front of me. All of a sudden, someone starts rubbing my shoulders like they know me. I turned around and saw an older lady (who was apparently someone in the chain of command at the restaurant). She was making her way around looking for regulars, and as it turns out new people that had never been there before, and giving them a dose of southern hospitality.

If you are ever in Atlanta, you do not want to miss a chance to eat there. It's an excellent place to eat, the atmosphere is warm, and the service is very good.

With my stepson at Georgia Tech, I know I will be back, next time I am in town.

2005 Corruption Perception Index

This comes courtesy of Transparency International

I didn't know there was such a thing, but Ironman at Political Calculations did. So, the hat tip goes to him.

You need to see this. This is information that leftist organizations like MoveOn.Org do not want you to see. A quick look at the map, speaks volumes.

Check it out for yourself.

Woman Throws Children Off San Francisco Pier

Yesterday, there was the horrifying news of Lashuan T. Harris, the woman who threw the three children she gave birth to, off of a San Francisco Bay bridge. The woman (who I refuse to call a mother) was initially defended by one of her cousins, Asia Powell.

Asia Powell, who identified herself as Harris' cousin, said Harris was taking medication for a mental illness.

"I know that she would never hurt her kids," she told KPIX-TV. "I know that."

Well, Asia was wrong. She did hurt her kids and it seems that she had made these specific threats, before.
"She told my mama she was going to feed them to the sharks," said Britney Fitzpatrick, Harris' 16-year-old half-sister. "No one thought it was that serious."

But as is often the case with family members (of a mentally ill person), they were in such a state of denial that they were not able to discern that these threats were serious. Because these people were too blind or too wrapped up in themselves to recognize a valid threat from a known schizophrenic (that had been off of her medications before), we now have three innocent children dead. And today, everyone just shakes their heads in disbelief.

Even the social services manager at the homeless shelter (who is supposed to be an educated professional in this area) she was staying at, was blind.
"I just talked to her yesterday," Mary Ann Ramirez, the shelter's social services manager, told the newspaper Wednesday. "We had our usual, 'How are you doing, how's the kids.' I would never have guessed in a million years that today she would do that."

Thanks again LBJ, for creating this "Great Society".

News/Comments In Brief (Well, Fairly Brief)

Teen Arrested In Murder Of Pamela Vitale, Wife Of Horowitz

I said when this story broke that there was something strange about this case. I still think so. I wonder if it will be Geraldo or Greta running this story into the ground, on slow news days. Whatever or whoever, makes no difference. I have a feeling this is just part of the story.

Delay's Mugshot Smile Foils Democrat Plans To Exploit It.

Like I have said before, politics is a game. You act and you react. You plan and you implement. The goal is to beat the opponent in a public relations war, and you always want to do it first. You must be willing and able to fire the shots, at any available opportunity.

Tom Delay beat his opponents in one area, when he smiled big during his arrest processing. He minimized whatever losses he has had in this affair and turned the tables 180 degrees.

Like him or not, he is one hell of a politician.

Bush Meets With Abbas

"President Abbas is a man devoted to peace and to his peoples' aspirations for a state of their own. And today the Palestinian people are closer to realizing those aspirations," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference after a one-hour meeting between the leaders in the Oval Office.

Translation: Not much was accomplished.

Why? Because Abbas has no real authority. Hamas and Hezbollah do. But the PA is a sham.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Back Home Again

Well, I survived Atlanta. I am now back in my own home and can sleep in my own bed.

One of the highlights of my trip was the tour I took at CNN. I will share it and maybe some other experiences, at a later time when I get my bearings back. Travel is fun, but at my age it can be tiring too.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Light Blog Alert

To all of my readers, I will be in Atlanta for a few days. I will be back Tuesday, so blogging may be a bit light over the next few days. If I get the opportunity I will photo-blog, throw up a quick post, and/or check comments. So do check periodically, and thank you for reading PYY.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Global Islamic Terror Continues

Right now, the latest report comes from Russia.

AP: Chechen Rebels Claim Credit for Attacks

NALCHIK, Russia (AP) -- Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings in this city in Russia's turbulent Caucasus region Thursday, sparking battles that killed at least 49 people.

So what's Putin going to do?

President Vladimir Putin ordered a total blockade of Nalchik, a city of 235,000, to prevent militants from slipping out, and he said armed resisters would be shot, according to Russian Deputy Interior Minister Alexander Chekalin.

Now, this leads me to a question. Why is it that when Israel handles this kind of thing in the same manner, they get criticized and villified by the world media? Don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing Putin for the way he is handling this. He needs to do this and more. But I just find it ironic that the Israelis have had to deal with this kind of attack far more often, yet when they respond with force, they are demonized for it.

The islamofascist-jihadist elements are waging a war in several areas of the world, but the only areas that seem to get the bulk of the attention (negative, at that), are the Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. It truly does paint a slanted and biased picture of what is really going on.

There are those that believe that the U.S. and Israel are to blame for Islamofascism as an ideology and the accompanying jihadist movement. Getting rid of, or severely weakening the U.S. and Israel, is their short-term objective. If they are successful, it will contribute much toward the long-term goal of world domination under the Islamic religion, with the Wahhabis sitting on the throne, implementing sharia law.

But that is not their only short-term objective. They are currently waging jihad in several other places, other than those previously mentioned.

Darfur, Sudan

This place is a royal mess, despite what is supposed to be a cease-fire. But what's the essence of this conflict? Islamofascism and the quest to rid the Sudan of non-Muslims. Amazingly the ones targeted for genocide are black, not Arab. Yet, Louis Farrakhan is incredibly silent on this. He criticizes American whites for what he perceives is racism, but he openly embraces the Muslim Arab government that is responsible for black genocide. Also not surprising, is the deafening silence from the UN.


Indonesian Jihadists are waging war against its government and those that are friendly with it. They are deliberately attacking spots that are filled with westerners and Aussies. There is a good chance that Islamic terror groups will continue and even increase attacks, in this area of the world.


This has been brewing for some time and may be an offshoot of the Indonesian movements. But both are funded directly by Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia. A little more tracking may even show an Iranian connection, as well.


Unless we have been in a coma, this should be common household knowledge by now. But there are positive signs, in that, 15 Radical Islamic groups are going to be banned in Britain. Which begs the question, when will we start doing that here?


Muslims killing Muslims. There is nothing sacred to these creeps. Not that it's okay to attack non-Muslims, but when you have them attacking their own, it just goes to show how ruthless and amoral, they really are.

The only thing that will stop this before it escalates further is a global response. China, Russia, Europe, and not just the U.S. and Israel must come together for the purpose of stopping the spread of Islamofascism, before it's too late. Today, they are actively waging campaigns in these areas. Who knows where they will be tomorrow?

One only needs to look at a map to see where the Islamic world sits, at the present. To see where they will be tomorrow, just look at the areas on the edges of the current Muslim world.

The only way to stop the spread of radical jihadism is to stop playing around with this political correctness stuff, and start calling this what it really is. And then, do something besides talk about it.

Israel does it. The world needs to do it.

Schroeder Bows Out But Not So Gracefully

A fitting tribute to Gerhard Schroeder is at David's Medienkritik. Click on the link, then click on Schroeder's picture. You must have Windows Media Player.

Schroeder just could not resist one last parting shot as he was about to leave his post, still technically the chancellor:

"I do not want to name any catastrophes where you can see what happens if organised state action is absent. I could name countries, but the position I still hold forbids it, but everyone knows I mean America,".

My message to Gerhard?

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Gore Says He Will Not Run In 2008

The AP is reporting that Al Gore has stated his intention NOT to run for President.

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.

I see ashes and smoltering cinders. That's what the country would look like.

When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."

Gore did not elaborate. But last year, he blamed Bush administration policies for the inmate abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Psst. Al.

The question was , how would the country be different if you were President? It wasn't, what do you think of George Bush's administration? You've already answered that 50 million times in the last five years.

For all of you that are wondering why the left hates the President so much, here you have the primary reason. Al Gore and those that supported him in 2000 have spent the last five years conducting the biggest sour grapes campaign designed to do nothing but demonize the President. Like the bitter sounding Al, they offer no ideas, they offer no solutions, and above all they cannot communicate any resemblance of a vision.

They can't answer the simplest of questions without criticizing. Nothing positive about what they can do, they only have negative assessments. Everything is wrong and George Bush cannot do anything right. Not one damned thing. Zero.

It's why they lose so much.

But, to be honest with you, I am saddened. I was looking forward to an Al vs. Hillary showdown in the primaries. But with Ted Kennedy's resounding endorsement of John Kerry today, it may be fun, yet.

Angry elitist, snob vs. angry woman that tries to hide it under a centrist cloak. That's a fight, we all shall watch with interest.

New Orleans Worries About Its Future

Today I am reading the news when I run across this story released today from the AP.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Clarence Rodriguez has ripped up the water-buckled floor tiles and is hard at work scraping mold off the walls of his home in the mostly black and impoverished Ninth Ward. But as for his neighbors, many have gathered up their belongings and left, with no intention of returning ... and that worries Rodriguez and others.

They worry that many poor, black residents of this hurricane-ravaged city simply cannot afford to come back. They worry, too, that the politicians, urban planners and developers responsible for the rebuilding of New Orleans will neglect to leave room for the poor in their master plan.
Worse, they fear civic leaders will see the disaster as a glorious opportunity to try to engineer poverty out of the city altogether.

Since Katrina, we have all heard the speeches of three prominent Louisiana politicians, the blaming and the maladaptive coping mechanisms of those doing the blaming, not withstanding. Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco, and Sen. Landrieu have all had their moment in the limelight. All have had their chance to perform and play to the cameras.

The fact is, all three of these people will probably lose their jobs next election, unless miracles take place and real soon. But the AP report I linked to does not sound very optimistic about that happening. Is it because the city will lose its poor blacks?

The power base that these three politicians are supported by, are gone. They are living elsewhere and many may never be back. They will not have a poor black constituency to keep separate and to keep down, so they can win elections, by telling them how they will fight for their rights and well-being (at whatever level that fight is "supposed" to be taking place). Those that were kept dependent, were in fact dependent. And today, they are still dependent, but they dependent somewhere else. Many of these people that are gone, will like the communities they are currently living in, and will attach themselves to them.

And can you blame them? The people that claimed that they would take care of them (while they sit on their asses drawing a government check, in exchange for their vote), didn't. They let them all down, again.

And what about the working people? The people that didn't sit and wait for the check to arrive?

When all seems to be steadily crawling towards some kind of recovery,
then comes the news of the three policemen beating the 64 year-old retired teacher, they claim was drunk and resisting arrest. And if that wasn't enough, we see one policeman threatening an AP TV producer, for recording the incident, on the very same tape.

I realize that not all police officers are thugs. Many are fine dedicated Americans that I can depend on to put their lives on the line, each and everyday. Not only that, I realize that these officers have been working under horrific conditions, under some unique and harsh circumstances. But from what I have been able to gather, and what I have read, seen, and heard, I believe that these officer were in the wrong and deserve to be prosecuted. And if they are found guilty, they should be punished.

So, if I am one of those hard-working individuals that actually did contribute something to the New Orleans community before the disaster, why would I want to come back to an area that was riddled with corruption before and clearly still has it, after? Why would I want to help rebuild another cesspool? Why would I want to come back and risk being roughed up by New Orleans cops "under stress"?

To rid your garden of weeds, you need to pull them up by the roots.

It will take new leadership and a new vision for the rebuilding of New Orleans. The old politicians need to go, reform in every agency is going to be necessary to attract people back. If it doesn't change, I don't see New Orleans ever being anything of any value, ever again.

Was Miers Bush's First Choice?

In a Washington Times piece by Charles Hurt, the question is raised whether Harriet Miers was in fact, President Bush's first choice for Supreme Court Justice.

.....a leading Christian conservative said the White House told him that some prospective Supreme Court nominees conservatives would have preferred withdrew their names from President Bush's "short list" before the nomination -- raising the possibility that Miss Miers wasn't Mr. Bush's first pick.

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said he spoke with Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove on Oct. 1 --two days before the Miers nomination -- and was told that "Harriet Miers was at the top of the short list."

Also on that list were several candidates that many conservatives say they would have preferred, Mr. Dobson said on his radio program that was recorded yesterday and will be broadcast today.

"Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list," he said, according to a transcript obtained last night. "They would not allow their names to be considered because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it."

Why am I not surprised?

The best candidates for any elected position are rarely the ones running for the office, because they do not need the job, want the job, and will not subject themselves, their families, or the friends to the rigors of a process that had become a circus and witchhunt. The best candidates simply do not want the job and if they do, they don't want the hassle that comes with it.

Take Colin Powell, for instance. He would make a good President, but he would have a difficult time getting his party's nomination because the far-right elements of the GOP would hammer him on social issues. But even if he did win the nomination, groups like MoveOn.Org would no doubt begin the campaign of dirt digging. And if that turned up little or nothing, they would make up lies and present them as facts in an effort to discredit him and his candidacy. That's not something that his wife Alma would be able to withstand,
with her long fight with clinical depression.

What a shame. The nation loses an opportunity because a highly qualified and able man will not subject his wife and family to the political attacks that come with it. If this is the case with elected officials, it only stands to reason that many good qualified judges would not want to give up their benches, to become a target of political hack organizations and rogue senators that think they are God. Why would they, when you have Arlen Specter threatening to call third parties before the committee?

Mr. Specter had suggested he might call Mr. Dobson and Mr. Rove to testify before his committee about any inside knowledge they might have about Miss Miers -- a threat that has only heightened the angst many conservatives feel about the nomination.

A Republican looking to dig up dirt on another Repbulican, Sen. Specter is certainly part of the problem that will no doubt cause many qualified candidates in the future to say, "Thanks, but no thanks.". The nation loses in this kind of nasty process, the world loses also.

So, what you get when you engage in this kind of process, is Harriet Miers. Do not be surprised if this is just the beginning of such a practice.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Miers Nomination Revisited

In case you missed it, I recently posted a piece on the Harriet Miers nomination, the day it was announced.

One commenter named Gene, had some interesting points
When you write, "...does she know the law? I would say that the President wouldn't have her as White House Counsel, if she didn't", I think you given the precise reason why Miers won't be confirmed. There are quite a few Republican senators who want to run for President, and they don't want to be reminded come election time that, pace Michael Brown, they approved the President putting one of his sycophants on the Supreme Court.

Because the only reason Harriet Miers was chosen is that the President knows her. Not that she's one of the brilliant legal minds in the country, nor that she's had a stellar career. Bush said she's the best candidate for the job, which is patently ludicrous. Bush says, "Trust me". After Katrina, not even the rabble at the National Review Online can justify that as reasonable.

It isn't the left scurring to get info on Miers--it's the right, especially the far right. They need info to show their supporters that this woman--who gave money to Al Gore, and who answered a questionaire saying that she supported gay marriage--is one of them. But they can't flat out ask her "will you overturn Roe v. Wade?" because, remember, no litmus tests allowed.

Bush was no help--he got up in front of the press and channelled Bill Clinton so spookily I half-expected him to bite his lower lip as he said, "I have no recollection" when asked if he and Miers had ever discussed abortion. That's either a bald-faced lie or an act of incredible stupidity, and, unfortunately, you can never tell which with this Administration.

Miers may well be a capable attorney. But no one thinks she got the nomination because she's brilliant. She got the nod because she's a slavish Bush loyalist, to the point where she was once quoted as saying the President is the most brilliant man she's ever met. That alone should disqualify her from the bench. But she simply doesn't have the qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Her lack of judicial experience could be offset if she had proven herself a brilliant litigator or scholar. She hasn't. She's had a nice career, but much of it has been spent at the beck and call of the President. It seems incredibly naive to think that she would be an independent voice if elevated to the Supreme Court, which is another big reason to give her the thumbs down.

There's no need for anyone to dig up dirt on Miers. Her extremely close ties to the Bush Administration muddies her so much that she is nearly unconfirmable. I think the Democrats would be wise to sit back and let the Republicans kill her nomination themselves.

I don't think it's a secret that Gene isn't very fond of Bush. But he makes some interesting points, nonetheless.

I do not believe she is necessarily a sychophant and I do not believe she is necessarily unqualified just because she has no judicial experience. That said, I think it would be best to wait and see how she does before the committee. Because what I do believe is, the most important question that should be on the committee members' minds is, "Will she interpret the law according to the Constitution?".

But what I am sure of, is simple. I am not sure what kind of justice she will make, unless I can hear what she has to say when she answers some pointed questions from the Senators.

Some other points I would make were included in my reply to Gene's comments. Here is an excerpt from that reply:

I am wondering if this is the sacrificial lamb nomination. Put up someone that you know will not be confirmed, in the hopes that you can play on public opinion and do some arm twisting, later. The pressure will then be on the Senate to confirm the next nominee with less scrutiny.

Politics is full of strategy, much like when you play poker. You can't always control the hand you are dealt, but you can play the hand, given to you with a certain strategy. And although I am no poker expert, I know one strategy is "the bluff".

And that is essentially where I am at now, with this whole affair.

Who knows precisely what the President's camp is thinking? But I am thinking, let's wait and see how this plays out. The most inportant thing to me, is that she is a strict constructionist and will decide cases based on the rule of law. And will do it, in an effective and competent manner, not legislating from the bench.

But Gene may very well be right in his assessment, the right may deliver the fatal blow, that sinks this nomination.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Mt. Everest Shrinking?

From the department of useless facts and information comes this story from the AP, about Mt. Everest losing 12 feet in 30 years.

BEIJING - The world's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is 12 feet shorter than previously thought, Chinese scientists who measured the peak earlier this year said Sunday.

Their survey determined that the mountain was 29,017 feet, or 12 feet smaller than it was measured to be 30 years ago, said Chen Bangzhu, a spokesman with the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping.

A Democratic spokesman immediately blamed George Bush's failed policies in Iraq. Karl Rove responded to the accusation with, "What's 12 feet among friends?".

Schroeder Remains Defiant In German Election Aftermath

In what is turning into a post election mess comparable to the 2000 election in the U.S., the current German Chancellor appears to be digging in for a long hard fight.

The following is an excerpt from an IHT article (which credits both Reuters and AFP, so take your pick). It is linked at the title and the link above:
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder remained defiant Sunday heading into meetings with Angela Merkel to resolve a dispute over which of them should lead Germany and to lay the foundations of a coalition government.

Three weeks after he refused to step aside in the wake of an inconclusive general election, Schröder had been under intense pressure from conservatives to concede defeat and to allow Merkel to be the first woman and the first easterner to become Germany's chancellor.

As I said in an earlier post, this coalition will not last. If they are having this much trouble settling this issue now, imagine what will transpire during the legislative process. Stalemate is what they will get, which is an outcome consistent with the deep divisions that remain in modern day Germany. And because of Schroeder's decision not to accept defeat graciously (See: Al Gore), Germany (as a nation) will suffer similar ramifications that the U.S. has been forced to endure, post 2000.

More Evidence That Marxism Fails

Political Calculations: Economic Freedom's Big Movers

Click on the title or the link for some data that further demonstrates that what I rant about so very often, is true. I know some on the left think that I just rant for the hell of it, and that much of my ranting about socialism is nothing more than pure emotion. But pay close attention to the numbers of both Nicarugua and Venezuela.

The variables are as follows:

Nicaruagua has rejected Castro-style Marxism, an ideology that they once embraced after the Sandinistas overthrew Somoza.

Venezuela has recently embraced Castro and his style of socialism.

The results are there. Read them for yourself.

UPDATE (5:05PM 10-9-05)

Les at Living In The Surreal World has some thoughts about Marxism and how it relates to the War On Terror.

And here, he reposts a piece on Che Guevara, the Marxist killer that still enjoys a cult following among the cult of leftist thinking..

Both are worth reading.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Frost Hired By Al-Jazeera.

Click on the title for the complete BBC story.

Sir David is to appear on al-Jazeera International, the pan Arab news network's new English-language channel, due to be launched next spring.

The Qatar-based channel said Sir David, who broadcast his final Breakfast with Frost programme for the BBC in May, would be among the "key on-air talent".

Sir David was quoted as saying he felt "excitement" about his new role.

For those of you that are old enough to remember David Frost when he had his talk show (in this country) during the 60s, no doubt remember him well. He was a pompous jerk that loved to brow beat guests (or at least he tried). He was (and still is) a leftist, and many of those that have worked with or around him over the years, could not stand him. He was even accused of plagiary on many occasions. (I am sure Ward "Forked Tongue Man That Steal Material" Churchill was no doubt, a fan.)

Now a whole new generation of leftists will be able to come to know him for the belligerent worm that he is, as he broadcasts for the premier propaganda factory, known as al-Jazeera. It doesn't get any further to the left and it doesn't get any more anti-American, than that. So, I guess we can all safely assume that this will be a match made in heaven and a fitting swan song to the one of the biggest asses of all time. The tiny milligram amount of respect that any could have had for him, has just went "poof".

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Language Teachers Arrested At Ft. Bragg

Click on the title or for the complete AP article.

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (AP) -- Three people who taught foreign languages at the Joint Special Operations Command Center at Fort Bragg were arrested on immigration charges, federal officials said.

While workers at U.S. military installations may have access to sensitive work sites, authorities said the three men did not.

"What's important to remember is they did not teach any classified materials, and they were not exposed to any classified materials," JSOC spokeswoman Tina Beller said.

Two Indonesian natives, Nurkis Qadariah, 34, and Sayf Rimal, 37, were arrested Tuesday and charged with possessing and using false documents, U.S. Attorney Frank Whitney said.

Ousmane Moreau, 38, of Senegal, was arrested Monday and charged with being in the United States illegally, Whitney said.

This bears watching. Indonesia and Senegal are Muslim countries and prime recruiting grounds for terrorists.

I don't want to be overly critical, because I know there are a lot of hard-working people trying to keep this country safe. But while we are much better off than we were four years ago, we simply much keep striving to do better. We cannot rest on our successes. We have to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists need only one time.

NIN: OU Bomber Had Fundamentalist Islamic Roommates

Northeast Intelligence Network is all over this. But in case you haven't heard the whole story check out coverage at World Net Daily , The Wide Awakes, and Gindy.Blogspot.Com, first. then check out NIN.

An excerpt from NIN:

4 October 2005: The last 12-18 months of the life of the University of Oklahoma Student Joel Henry HINRICHS III remains somewhat of an enigma, although one significant report has been confirmed by two student sources at the University interviewed by this investigator: HINRICHS had ties - close ties - with one or perhaps two men of Arab origin while attending the college in Norman, Oklahoma. This report was also further substantiated today by a law enforcement source no longer on the case (as the case is now being handled by federal authorities).

"Obviously, I cannot go on the record, but you are 'not wrong' in your findings," stated this law enforcement officer. "There is much more to come out of this[investigation], including the likelihood of Middle Easterners from this area being involved in this bombing," he added. "Right now, no one is talking, and we have been verbally ordered not to make any comments to any media - period."

Now, this is starting to sound very suspicious. The initial report given, was that of a suicide. But:

1. Depressed suicidal people usually do not have the energy level needed to make a bomb, much less use it in a suicide attempt. They usually try something a little less dramatic and do it privately.

2. If this pans out as what it is beginning to sound like, it exposes a new strategy of the enemy. It shows that the terrorists, may be preying on Americans that may be misfits and have low self-esteem, to indoctrinate and coerce into committing these acts of terror.

As usual, the MSM is AWOL on this. But then again, are we really surprised?

They can be relentless when trying to dig up dirt like Abu Ghraib. And when an emotionally unstable mother decides to have an arrest party at the White House, they are right there.

What little coverage there has been, has downplayed the incident.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Afghan Women's Magazine Editor Is Arrested

Click on the title for the complete AP story.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The editor of an Afghan women's rights magazine was jailed after a presidential adviser accused him of publishing un-Islamic material - including an article critical of the practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes, officials said Friday.

Minority Shiite Muslim clerics in Kabul objected to that article and another in the monthly Haqooq-i-Zan - or Women's Rights -that argued that giving up Islam was not a crime, Police arrested the magazine's editor, Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, on Saturday.

So, let's see a show of hands of all of those that still believe that mainstream Islam is not by its very nature, oppressive.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Caution Prevails As Bush Picks Miers For SCOTUS

Click on the title for a quote rundown at NPR, about President Bush's pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.


The sound you may be hearing is the sound of scurrying to find information on Harriet Miers. Until today, she was well under the radar and quite far from being a household name. But now that she is the nominee for the high court of the land, her name, her image, and her past words (and deeds) will soon be in the limelight and under the microscope.

If you see all of your throw rugs out of place in your house in the next couple of weeks, you will know that the left has been looking for dirt on Ms. Miers. Without extensive experience in a high profile position, that may be a difficult task to accomplish. Just as the left had to grasp at straws at the Roberts nomination, look for the same frustration after an extensive dirt digging campaign that may very well turn up, very little.

Now, we all have expected this from the left. They have spent the days after the Roberts confirmation threatening more stringent scrutiny on the next nomination, and now, this is their chance to deliver the goods. And they most certainly will not disappoint.

But what about the right?

Many (like Bill Kristol) are disappointed, demoralized, and depressed. They wanted Bush to thumb his nose at the left and appoint a hardcore conservative that was bound to guarantee, renewed threats of filibusters and nuclear options. Both sides are posturing for the flurry of information that is about to dominate the news, about this lady. Both sides are poised and ready to use all methods and tactics, both fair and unfair, to cast a shadow of doubt on her.

It's sad, but true.

So, just who is this woman that has both extremes worried?
Here is a biography.

But beyond that, there will be a whole host of new allegations, accusations, and no doubt misinformations surfacing in the MSM, real soon. Some of it may be accurate, but some may not. But, we the people, will once again be forced to sort through it all and make some sense of it, based on what information is fed to us.

We know that she has never been a judge. That fact alone, has raised a few eyebrows in the first few hours after the announcement. Does it matter? Not necessarily, but it is unusual in that she will be on the highest court in the nation without having benefit of being on a bench, at some point in her career. What ultimately matters is, does she know the law? I would say that the President wouldn't have her as White House Counsel, if she didn't. After all, the job of WHC is to cover the adminstration with competent and sound legal advice.

We know that she was once a Democrat and even contributed to Al Gore's first failed presidential campaign, in 1988. I won't hold that against her. I was once young and idealistic, and I even voted for Carter in my first Presidential election (and boy, was I ever sorry for that after serving in the Army, during his administration). But, to the left, it won't matter that she supported Wooden Al. They will view her as a turncoat for leaving the party, even though it was the party that left her. To the right, she won't be trusted because she was once, "one of them".

But through all of this, one thing is evident in the two choices the President has made. He is picking nominees that have not had lengthy careers, as jurists. This is a good thing, in that, they are not so firmly entrenched in a mindset of judicial arrogance that often leads to an increased or overinflated sense of self-importance; and that in turn leads them to believe that they can legislate from the bench.

Time will tell. I will reserve my judgements until I learn more about her. And believe me there will be more info coming soon, both true and untrue. So, stay tuned. PYY will be following this story as it develops.