December 15, 2006

Ahmadmanjihad's Effective Strategy

In engaging his full scale Holocaust denial campaign (even to the extent of having held his global conference on the subject earlier this week), the Iranian president is embacing a multifaceted and highly effective strategy that demonstrates he is, indeed, no dummy (or perhaps he is, and the leaders of certain western countries are just dumber than he is), according to an on-point analysis by megaperceptive columnist Caroline Glick.

So why is the guy who is gunning for a new Holocaust belittling the last one?

First of all, by doing so he empowers those Germans and friends of Germany who carried it out. By denying the Holocaust Ahmadinejad turns the Nazis into victims and so provides a space for them to express themselves after a sixty year silence. Indeed, in Germany neo-Nazism is a burgeoning political and social force that proudly parades its links to Iran.

The German fascist party NPD's followers demonstrated in support of Iran at the World Cup in Germany last spring. This week, Der Spiegel reported that attacks against Jewish children have increased markedly in recent years. Jewish children and their non-Jewish friends have been humiliated in anti-Semitic rituals unheard of since the Nazi era. "Jew" has become one of the most prevalent derogatory terms in use in Germany today.

Iran's adoption of Holocaust denial as an official, defiant policy gives legitimacy to this striking phenomenon. This is especially the case since Iran is blaming the Jews for silencing these poor fascists. In his same letter to Merkel Ahmadinejad wrote, "The perpetual claimants against the great people of Germany are the bullying Zionists that funded the Al Quds Occupying Regime with the force of bayonets in the Middle East."

of course does not limit his efforts to the Nazis. He is also setting the cognitive conditions for the annihilation of Israel for the international Left by presenting Israel's existence as a direct result of the Holocaust. As Iran's Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki said this week, "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt."

In short, Iran views Holocaust denial as a strategic propaganda tool. By downgrading the Holocaust, Iran mobilizes supporters and paralyzes potential opponents. Its coupling of the last Holocaust with the one it signals daily it intends to carry out, wins it support among the Nazis and the Sunnis alike. Its presentation of the Holocaust as a myth used to exploit Muslims wins its support in the international Left which increasingly views Israel as an illegitimate state. So by denying the Holocaust Iran raises its leadership profile both regionally and globally.
Indeed, even if the Left doesn't buy into Holocaust denial, it can still agree with Iran's conclusion that Israel has no right to exist. As Mottaki explained, "If during this [Holocaust denial conference] it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"


Merkel and her fellow Germans have spent an inordinate amount of time over the past three years condemning the Nazi Holocaust. This week they even organized a special Holocaust condemning conference in response to the Iranian Holocaust denying conference.

over the same time period, they have conducted negotiations with Teheran as part of the EU-3 that have enabled Iran to continue its nuclear progress; obstructed US efforts to levy sanctions on Iran; and maintained active trade relations with Iran. Merkel's government has continued the practice of providing loan guarantees to German firms doing business with Iran. In 2005, German-Iranian trade stood at about $5 billion.
Now, after three years of disastrous negotiations with the mullahs, Germany has finally come around to supporting the European draft sanctions resolution against Iran being debated in the UN Security Council. The problem is that the proposed sanctions are so weak that they will have no impact on Iran's ability to move on with its nuclear bomb program.

The obvious fact that the sanctions will have no impact on Iran has not made a dent in Merkel's refusal to support military action against Iran under any circumstances - a refusal she reiterated while standing next to Israel's Prime Minister on Tuesday.

Yeah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, that completely clueless waste of skin who is as much a threat to the future of Israel as is the Iranian President.

Olmert was apparently too busy admitting that Israel has nuclear weapons only to take back his admission hours later, absurdly praising Russian President Vladimir for his opposition to the "nuclearlization of Iran" which Putin is actively promoting, and promising to give Judea and Samaria to Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas to take issue with Merkel's statement. And that is a pity, because by taking issue with it, he would have gone far towards destroying the effectiveness of Iran's Holocaust denial strategy.

Read the entire OpEd here.

Posted by Seth at 05:38 AM | Comments (6) |

December 06, 2006

Julia Gorin On George Clooney

While I am beginning my book review on We Were One and had intended to make it my next post, I simply must share this great Julia Gorin OpEd I found in yesterday's JWR Political Mavens, in which she gives, generousy, her take, as a woman, on actor/traitor George Clooney.

Posted by Seth at 05:20 AM | Comments (22) |

November 24, 2006

"Discrimination"? Or Common Sense?

As usual, Mona Charen, another of the great women of conservatism, good insight and common sense, weighs in on point.

It is better to err....

These liberals who go about their la-de-dah way believing that everyone has our best interests at heart and believe what CAIR tells them will one day get us, and themselves, blown to smithereens.

More spot-on commentary on this incident can be found over at the Big Dog's place.

Posted by Seth at 07:55 AM | Comments (2) |

Thanksgiving For The Mainstream Media

Leave it to Michelle Malkin to compile a good list {are you listening, New York Times?} of things our very own MSM has to be thankful for.

In between breathless condemnations of the Bush administration for stifling its free speech, endless court filings demanding classified and sensitive information from the military and intelligence agencies, and self-pitying media industry confabs bemoaning their hemorrhaging circulations (with the exception of the New York Post), my colleagues in the American media don't have much to time to give thanks. Allow me:

Read her list here.

Posted by Seth at 04:02 AM |

November 06, 2006

One Of His Best Columns Yet

Today's Mark Steyn, linked here in JWR, is definitely a masterpiece!

Right now the Democratic Party needs the senator to move. Preferably to the South Sandwich Islands, until Tuesday evening, or better still, early 2009.

He won't, of course. A vain thin-skinned condescending blueblood with no sense of his own ridiculousness, Senator Nuancy Boy is secure in little else except his belief in his indispensability. We've all heard the famous "joke" now: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." (Rimshot!) Yet, tempting as it is to enjoy his we-support-our-dumb-troops moment as merely the umpteenth confirmation of the senator's unerring ability to SwiftBoat himself, it belongs in a slightly different category of Kerry gaffe than, say, the time they went into Wendy's and Teresa didn't know what chili was.

Heh, heh. You must read the entire column...

Posted by Seth at 05:33 AM | Comments (12) |

November 04, 2006

Remember Clinton's War?

You know, the one Germany and some other Euro countries got us into because they wanted more EU say-so in the Balkans? You know, the one in which the late Mr. Milosevic, the one they tried for five years in the aftermath and could convict of nothing was "ethnically cleansing" the Muslim population while the Muslim population did the same to non-Muslims? Yeah, that one, the one way street where Clinton felt it was just fine for Muslims to ethnically cleanse to their hearts' content, as long as Milosevic could not?

We and several other countries really did the Muslims a favor there, helping them to practice their Islam on Christian Serbs with a minimum of interference.

Julia Gorin's got a present day perspective up at JWR's Political Mavens, done in her own uniquely humorous-yet-to-the-point style that bears a read, here.

Posted by Seth at 08:20 PM | Comments (2) |

October 24, 2006

4 A.M. Relaxation And Thoughts On Israel

So I'm just sort of kicking back at 0400 hours, playing with my new Firefox download -- I haven't yet(after what, 10 months?) figured out how to adjust my blog clock to the east coast, so the time of this post will appear as a zillion hours or so earlier.

I have my MusicMatch library running some Bangles through my great Logitech speakers, stuff like September Gurls and my all time favorite song by that awesome group, Return Post.

I'm thinking about the present situation in Israel -- the Hamas rejects and Fatah squaring off to blow each other away, both sides arming up. Okay, so this isn't as unusual among Arab Muslims as it might be among normal, 21st Century human beings -- we discuss, they destroy. Western diplomacy consists mostly of a bunch of over-educated assholes sitting around a table engaged in two-faced, multisyllabic dialogue, but at least they usually come to some sort of agreement that preserves the peace. Arabic diplomacy is just a bit different: It usually means a lot of explosions and hot lead flying in many directions, and lots of people "expiring". The diplomats that most effectively get their points across are those that kill the most diplomats on the opposite side of whatever disagreement happens to be on the table are considered the best diplomats, even though they, personally, don't have to wax anybody.

The flotsam that lives to butcher innocent women and children are the true warriors of Islam.

The very idea that the Bush Administration wants these people to have a sovereign state is beyond me, but GWB is the President, so I suppose he must know what he's doing. Excuse me, I have to go to the head....

I think I'll let a great blog I recently discovered and blogrolled called Morning Coffee give us an update.

Meanwhile, the combatively challenged Prime Minister Olmert has agreed to bring a "hardliner" onto his team in order to avoid a slide into ruin for his own ill conceived Kadima party, one Avigdor Lieberman, and thank G-d for him, and his Israel Beiteinu Party. Lieberman's own point of view as to how to get things done is fractionally different than the politically correct Ehud Olmert's, maybe a mere 180 degrees, at most. Not too much. Did I say "thank G-d for him"?

My own model scenario would be for Fatah and Hamas to kill each other off in the civil war that seems to be brewing between the two corrupt terrorist factions that are the sum total of the so-called "Palestinian" entity, leaving a few necessarily reasonable Arabs who might be willing to assimillate themselves into the Israeli population and allow the Jewish State to get on with living in peace and prosperity, but that's probably too much to hope for....

Posted by Seth at 11:59 PM | Comments (11) |

October 21, 2006

Another One From My Favorite Democrat...

... Of course, Ed Koch is the kind of Democrat that once comprised that party before the liberals bought it.

This OpEd is titled The Pope, Islamics and Me.

As I have repeatedly written, take Islamic radicals at their word -- they want to convert us or kill us. They are killing one another, Shia against Sunni and Sunni against Shia. Often before decapitating their enemies in the ongoing civil and religious strife in Baghdad, they torture their victims, according to The Times, by drilling holes in their bodies and heads so death is slow and cruel until the merciful bullet is fired into the victim's head.

Can any independent state threatened with acts of terror, unless it changes its policies, domestic or foreign, ever submit to their demands and expect to protect its citizens from new demands? Has appeasement ever worked?

There are those in every Western democracy who are losing their resolve, their willingness to standup to the Islamic terrorists. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) deplores the use of the term "Islamic fascists," sometimes used by the White House. The terrorism we face is worldwide and has an Islamist goal -- the restoration of the caliphate, one Islamic state including Spain, North Africa, the Middle East to the Far East, including Indonesia. Take them at their word. The words of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, now dead and heretofore leader of Iraq's insurrection and terror, are, "Killing the infidel is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute."

Feingold, who definitely is not the same sort of sane, realistic, old style Democrat as is Hizzonor, needs to wake up and then start giving wake-up calls to the rest of those neuveau Democrats, sooner rather than later.

Yeah, I know, "Fat Chance".

Posted by Seth at 03:54 AM | Comments (5) |

October 17, 2006

Ya' Gotta Read....

... this one by Dennis Prager!

Posted by Seth at 04:45 AM | Comments (2) |

October 13, 2006

Well Said!

The following comes from an email I received today that puts the War on Terror in perfect perspective.

While I don't agree with the author on his references to any difference between the ultimate beliefs of so-called peaceful Muslims, for that see "6." in his narrative below, (if there were indeed such a thing, they would take the risk of speaking out for the sake of their families, their children and their fellow "peaceful" Muslims, declaring their solidarity with civilized society and their belief in liberty -- if those who have emigrated to the west don't cherish liberty and peaceful coexistence, and don't respect the rights of others to worship according to their own beliefs, they don't belong in our midst, period) and of those committing acts of violence, the rest of his commentary is right on the money.

Please note, however, that my sole reason for posting this emailed commentary is purely because I agree with the focus of the author's opinion re the theme of his message -- not as a source of statistical reference.

This is written by Major General Vernon Chong, MD, USAF Retired. He's a highly decorated Air Force Pilot, Flight Surgeon, past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio and Command Surgeon at the Headquarters of the U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. So he is real, is well-connected to Veterans' affairs, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! Do a Google search on him and you'll see some of his other though-provoking writings.

This WAR is for REAL!
by MG Vernon Chong, USAFR

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine
(which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats* as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.naz

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and wh at they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims?

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of Americ an prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect; we are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful an d smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-infli cted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Well said, General!

* I don't entirely agree with the author's assertion that no fault could be laid at the feet of any Democrats for "certain attacks".

Hat Tip, Brenda.


Mustang, of Social Sense, added this insightful, spot-on comment that, due to its length, he was reluctant to add in the comment thread, though it would have been more than welcome therein:

As I commented, a few days ago at Social Sense, there are all kinds of ways to unite the American people – which I agree is necessary IF we intend to win the war on terror. But unlike previous world conflicts, our current challenges include the following: (1) An administration that pursues political expediency, which ultimately gives aid and comfort to the enemy of America, and (2) A myriad of mixed messages that cancel each other out, adding to the confusion of our general population

The White House, in an attempt to avoid any accusation that the war on terror is a "holy war," seeks to placate the Muslim world. According to Mr. Bush, we are fighting "terrorists," as if they are somehow separate and distinct from Islam. Nothing could be more confusing, or further from the truth. Mr. Bush has not united Americans – and in the minds of many citizens, there is no clear distinction about "who" our enemy is.

Democrats, using the conflict to further their own political agenda and career path, demand the implementation of a "cut and run" policy that curries favor with the anti-war crowd, those who support isolationist policies, and the enemy themselves. Concurrently, the liberal media, by commission and omission, have set about to whitewash the enemy, the threat they pose to the security of the United States, and the conflict as it reveals itself on foreign shore. Continual harping upon the "failed policies" of the Bush Administration only encourages the Jihadists, not unlike the war in Vietnam.

Conservatives demand a forceful and final resolution to the problem, which is Islam. Since many Americans are not convinced that the enemy of freedom is Islam, conservative chatter confuses them. Note: I believe that a firm solution is within our grasp, but no one is seriously considering it. I believe that there is ample justification for a war on terror, but that there can be no successful half-measures; we are either engaged to win, or we are destined to lose. I believe most Americans are waiting for a leader to stand up, point at someone, and tell us, "THAT is the enemy, and WE are going to kill him."

Personally, I believe that the "worst thing" happens every single day; Catholic priests beheaded, Christian children crucified, and bombs exploding at the rate of several times a day. But if America is subject to nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks – all of which is entirely possible, will WE allow politicians to continue to play the blame game, or will someone get pissed off enough to begin acting like this is a real war and we're damn well going to win it?

Finally, we are in a national crisis and it's time we started acting like it. We have not adequately addressed the threat of a North Korea who is now, or will soon be in a position to sell atomic weapons to Jihadist Iranians. Political posturing is not the pathway to success in any conflict – and unless this changes, and soon, then I think we are likely to continue winning the battles, but lose the war. As for me personally, I think Mr. Bush is part of the problem, and even more worrisome, I do not see anyone waiting in the wings to inspire confidence as his successor.

This comment is also posted at Social Sense.

Posted by Seth at 10:54 AM | Comments (19) |

Defining The Beliefs Of Liberals

You want to read the most complete and spot-on commentary you're likely to run across regarding the hypocrisy beliefs of "our friends" the liberals? Go over and pay a call on Atheling2 at The Pugil Stick.

Posted by Seth at 12:05 AM | Comments (10) |

October 12, 2006

MM on the MSM

Talk about timing, it had suddenly occurred to me that I'd been neglecting to comment on one of the prime reasons I originally started blogging, that being the disappointment known as the MSM (mainstream media), and just when I was contemplating a post on those blackguards, along came the venerable Michelle Malkin with an OpEd that is far better than any effort I might have produced.

Posted by Seth at 11:32 PM | Comments (2) |

October 05, 2006

R Is For Repatriation

In the comment thread of my previous post, we were introduced to blogger Mark Alexander. I went over to his site and did some reading, and he is most definitely spot-on. His site, A New Dark Age Is Dawning, will be the newest addition to my blogroll.

In his latest post, he both defines the threat posed by Islam and suggests what is probably the only solution, though the lemming-like forces of political correctness would no doubt fight its implementation tooth and nail.

The post is here.

Posted by Seth at 11:32 AM | Comments (4) |

October 01, 2006

Hizzoner Speaks

Yeah, he's a Democrat, but he's right up there in my esteem with former Republican mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani as one of the two best mayors of Gotham in my lifetime -- Ed Koch, who stands behind President Bush's leadership in the Global War On Terror and even voted for Dubya in the 2004 election -- I guess he never saw any merit in joining the angry left in their attacks on the President or in their dedication to bringing down the greatest country in the world, ostensibly because unlike most of that crowd over there on the left, he is a patriot.

He has penned a new OpEd about a guest sermon he gave at a Rosh Hashanah(Jewish New Year) service eight days ago, worth the read for sure.

In a fatuous editorial, The Times lectured the Pope. It stated: "A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue. The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal."

What wrong did the Pope commit? Quoting a 14th-century emperor? Condemning violence as a religious tactic and urging a dialogue? We should be applauding the Pope for his bravery and supporting his call for dialogue. Has The Times ever acknowledged that we are now engaged in a war with Islamic terrorists worldwide who have clearly stated that their desire is to convert or kill the infidels who they believe we are?

To Truncate,

Now let's turn to the United Nations and what took place when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez addressed the General Assembly. He vilified President Bush, referring to him as "the devil," and stated that he could still smell the scent of sulfur on the speaker's podium from President Bush's earlier address to the Assembly. He mockingly crossed himself for protection and went on at length with his vilification of President Bush and the United States.

What offended me even more than Chavez's ludicrous remarks were the responses of the U.N. delegates. No one stood up and told Chavez that he was out of order and demanded that he stop or sit down. They should have told him he was a disgrace to the U.N. Instead they are reported to have applauded this monster and laughed with him, instead of at him. The Times reported: "So while there was official outrage over Mr. Chavez calling Mr. Bush 'the devil,' there was also a lot of applause and giggling, from dignitaries including the president of the General Assembly herself, Haya Rashed al-Khalifa of Bahrain, who was caught chuckling from her seat on the dais behind Mr. Chavez."

Where was the official outrage, and why was Chavez not rebuked while he held the platform? Many of the countries whose delegates were amused by his vitriol receive their sustenance from the U.S. We feed their people and provide much of their medical care. Many expect the U.S. to protect them from attacks from other countries, and some of them are even formal allies. Yet none of them walked out to show solidarity with us. The two nations not in the chamber when Chavez took the dais were the U.S. and Israel. We should forever remember the craven behavior of those who stayed and cheered.

Hizzoner speaks his mind....

Read the entire column here.

Posted by Seth at 03:19 PM | Comments (16) |

September 28, 2006

Treason With Impunity

If you only read one post at one blog today, it's got to be this one.

Posted by Seth at 04:26 AM |

September 17, 2006

The Loss Of National Unity

I'm not even going to put in my own 2 cents on this one, it's just so perfectly said by brother blogger Old Soldier

Posted by Seth at 12:36 AM | Comments (2) |

September 16, 2006

Obsessing On Bush

Peggy Noonan's got a good take on why the Democrats aren't likely to do very well in upcoming elections.

The most telling part of the OpEd is here:

The Democrats' mistake--ironically, in a year all about Mr. Bush--is obsessing on Mr. Bush. They've been sucker-punched by their own animosity.

"The Democrats now are incapable of answering a question on policy without mentioning Bush six times," says pollster Kellyanne Conway. " 'What is your vision on Iraq?' 'Bush lied us into war.' 'Health care? 'Bush hasn't a clue.' They're so obsessed with Bush it impedes them from crafting and communicating a vision all their own." They heighten Bush by hating him.

One of the oldest clichés in politics is, "You can't beat something with nothing." It's a cliché because it's true. You have to have belief, and a program. You have to look away from the big foe and focus instead on the world and philosophy and programs you imagine.

Mr. Bush's White House loves what the Democrats are doing. They want the focus on him. That's why he's out there talking, saying Look at me.

Because familiarity doesn't only breed contempt, it can breed content. Because if you're going to turn away from him, you'd better be turning toward a plan, and the Democrats don't appear to have one.

Which leaves them unlikely to win leadership. And unworthy of it, too.

This is true. When you ask a Democrat for a better plan than one we're implementing now that he or she disapproves of, you rarely get an answer -- you get Bush innuendo. Very confidence inspiring, that. It's funny that while the left call themselves progressives, they invariably fail to progress away from strategies that have already shown themselves to be failures.

The entire Peggy Noonan OpEd can be read here.

Posted by Seth at 06:54 PM | Comments (5) |

September 15, 2006

Yeah, More Wal-Mart

This OpEd by George Will is too on-point not to share, as there has recently been much ado here and elsewhere about the Democrats' War On Wal-Mart.

An excerpt:

...More than 25,000 people applied for the 325 openings.

Which vexes liberals such as John Kerry. (He and his helpmeet last shopped at Wal-Mart when?) In 2004 he tested what has become one of the Democrats' 2006 themes: Wal-Mart is, he said, "disgraceful" and symbolic of "what's wrong with America." By now Democrats have succeeded, to their embarrassment (if they are susceptible to that), in making the basic numbers familiar:

The median household income of Wal-Mart shoppers is under $40,000. Wal-Mart, the most prodigious job-creator in the history of the private sector in this galaxy, has almost as many employees (1.3 million) as the U.S. military has uniformed personnel. A McKinsey company study concluded that Wal-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the nation's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s, which probably made Wal-Mart about as important as the Federal Reserve in holding down inflation.

Read the entire article, it does tend to make one scratch ones' head while speculating on the thought processes, or lack thereof, of those who hammer out policy for today's Democratic Party..

Posted by Seth at 06:00 AM | Comments (23) |

September 08, 2006

Global Warming vs. War On Terror

I had thought that I was done with the Global Warming kerfuffle for the time being, then along came this funny yet on point commentary by Julia Gorin in yesterday's Jewish World Review I just had to share.

"Truth" star Al Gore calls global warming a "planetary emergency" and speaks of a clash between "civilization and the planet."

Likewise, Bill Clinton's "first worry" is climate change. "It's the only thing that I believe has the power to fundamentally end the march of civilization as we know it," the reputedly intelligent ex-president told a World Economic Forum audience earlier this year. Leonardo DiCaprio, meanwhile, says we're in the "11th Hour."

No wonder that while Islamic terrorism claims lives by the thousands every year, Hollywood churns out movies about the menace of Joe McCarthy, the Crusaders, Israeli Mossad and Richard Nixon. Freud called it displacement.

Let's be honest: people fixate on the environment when they can't deal with real threats. Combating the climate gives the non-hawks a chance to look tough. They figure, "Let's flex our muscle with this Mother Nature thing. Let's take a preemptive strike at an SUV. Let's show 'em we can be tough too." So they play up climate change like it's as urgent as terrorism, which they claim is overstated.

This brings to mind the left's War On Wal-Mart -- between that and the War On Global Warming, those stalwarts of the Democratic Army are fighting a bold and relentless war on two major fronts.

In fact, the more menacing terrorism becomes, the more they worry about the weather. Scared out of their wits and at a loss for how to fight terrorists — which requires testicles — they confront "climate change," which doesn't actually require doing anything aside from spending other people's money like a bitch. Yes, let's spend trillions of dollars on something that may not be real, may not need fixing, or may not be possible to fix. No wonder some of these people chain themselves to trees — they think money grows on them. (One plausible theory posits that this whole global warming scare is just another scheme to bankrupt the American economy, so that the socialists can turn around and say, "See? We told you capitalism doesn't work!")

Meanwhile, a real solution to a real problem — say, missile defense — is regarded as a joke by these types. So while the hawks among us worry about preventing the Armageddon that's coming, our modern-day hippies just want to make sure the planet is in pristine condition when it does.

Why are these people so worried about the environment, anyway? It's not like they're living on this planet. Speaking of which, scientists have recently discovered global warming on Mars. See that? Martians need to stop driving those damned SUVs!

{Above emphasis mine}

You must read the entire OpEd.

Posted by Seth at 04:41 AM | Comments (21) |

August 30, 2006

82nd Carnival Of Education

Blogger friend Thespis, of Thespis Journal fame, is hosting the 82nd Carnival of Education, a plethora of great articles and posts on various aspects of education and related issues, both an enjoyable and informative collection of reads.

You must go over and do some reading.

In the same genre, I also refer you to another spot-on post by blogger/ teacher friend Always On Watch who has written of SATs Genius And Smart Pills.


Posted by Seth at 04:20 AM | Comments (11) |

August 18, 2006


Got about eight minutes to spare to watch a great video made by an awesome young woman whose acquaintance I only today made on-line? Nelly, a wonderful German blogger whom I'd move heaven and earth to see given dual U.S. citizenship and a commission in the U.S. Army produced this video. Friends and relatives of Airborne Rangers and those of "America's best" with "silver wings upon your chests", take notice!

When she sent me the link, she modestly mentioned that she was a beginner, but this video looks like the work of a pro to me -- Nelly, you are gifted, your natural talent shines through. Thank you for sharing this!

Posted by Seth at 03:03 PM | Comments (3) |

Makes Sense To me

Bob Tyrrell makes a good point or two as to why we'll be retaining our Republican majority on the Hill come election-time and why Americans in general prefer Republican doctrine in the war on terror to that of Democrats.

The first reason for this is that the president's insight that it is best to fight terrorists in foreign lands rather than to wait for them to arrive here is more appealing to Americans than the Democrats' "Come Home, America" strategy. Most Americans also understand that to thwart another 9/11, the government is going to have to surveil bank transactions, communications and travel. Frankly, I think most Americans would also approve of profiling, and in fact I suspect our government will be profiling rather soon. The only outrage I have heard of in response to news reports of government surveillance has come from journalists, the ACLU and the Democratic leadership, which is to say the Democratic leadership and its agents.

This brings us to the second reason that the Republicans will maintain both houses this fall. The Democrats have no appealing alternative to the Republicans. This is true on a whole range of matters from national security to the war on terror to the economy. The Democrats have been shrieking about the economy for six years, six years that have mainly been years of economic growth. Their alternative is to raise taxes, which surely is an alternative to growth. Yet my guess is that most Americans prefer growth.

Read on....

Posted by Seth at 12:17 PM |


By now, at least a few readers know that I'm a major fan of a blogger known as The Dissident Frogman, and that he's one of the few Frenchmen for whom I possess respect.

Like all of his posts, this one is infinitely more than worth the read.

Posted by Seth at 07:39 AM |

August 14, 2006

Anti-Semitism For Dummies

Another spot on column by Suzanne Fields.

Posted by Seth at 10:07 AM | Comments (3) |


One day I look forward to in my daily perusals over at Jewish World Review is Monday, when Mark Steyn's column appears. As usual, today's is a winner.

That's the issue: Pan-Islamism is the profound challenge to conventional ideas of citizenship and nationhood. Of course, if you say that at the average Ivy League college, you'll get a big shrug: Modern multicultural man disdains to be bound by the nation state, too; he prides himself on being un citoyen du monde. The difference is that, for Western do-gooders, it's mostly a pose: They may occasionally swing by some Third World basket-case and condescend to the natives, but for the most part the multiculti set have no wish to live anywhere but an advanced Western democracy. It's a quintessential piece of leftie humbug. They may think globally, but they don't act on it.

Read the entire outstanding column.

Posted by Seth at 08:22 AM | Comments (5) |

How To Negotiate With Terrorists

Hurricane Harry at H H Blowhard has a great post on how to negotiate with terrorists, LOL, that you've just got to check out, it's pretty funny but at the same time couldn't be any truer.

Posted by Seth at 07:14 AM |

August 07, 2006

Disproportion, Indeed...

Mark Steyn's got another great commentary out, in this column.

"Disproportion" is the concept of the moment. Do you know how to play? Let's say 150 missiles are lobbed at northern Israel from the Lebanese village of Qana and the Israelis respond with missiles of their own that kill 28 people. Whoa, man, that's way "disproportionate."

Read the column, it's definitely right on point.

Posted by Seth at 10:49 PM |

July 20, 2006

Another Must-Read

James Lileks' OpEd must be read.

Posted by Seth at 06:44 AM | Comments (2) |

July 18, 2006

Definitely Follow This Link

Always On Watch, an already great blog, links to this great commentary, which must be read.

Posted by Seth at 01:29 AM | Comments (7) |


Read this!

Posted by Seth at 12:55 AM |

July 17, 2006

Steyn On Mideast Peace Efforts

Mark Steyn's current column has got to be the truest and funniest I've ever seen on Mideast peace efforts.

An excerpt --

It's easy to fly in a guy in a suit to hold a meeting. Half the fellows inside the Beltway have Middle East "peace plans" named after them. Bush flew in himself a year or two back to announce his "road map." Before that it was Cheney, who flew in with the Cheney plan, which was a plan to open up a road map back to the last plan, which would get us back to "Tenet," which would get us back to "Mitchell," which would get us back to "Wye River," which would get us back to "Oslo," which would get us back to Kansas.


Posted by Seth at 12:43 PM | Comments (5) |

July 15, 2006

Mona Charen's View

Mona Charen is one of my favorite political columnists. I recently read her book, Do Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim To Help(And The Rest Of Us) and was really disappointed.... when I realized I'd hit the last page. It was so on-point and such a great read that I hated it to end. She really knows whereof she speaks, and hasn't got any problem with saying it point blank, PC be damned.

At any rate, her latest column weighs in on Israel's justification for the long overdue defensive action they are engaged in, even as I type this post.

Excerpt --

(The Washington)

Post starts with the swearing in of the Hamas government on March 29. Fair enough. But the next item is "June 9: Explosion kills seven members of a Gaza family. Witnesses blame Israeli artillery, but Israel denies it." Missing is any reference to the non-stop shelling of Israel from the Gaza strip that began in 2005 and has not let up since. Nearly 3,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel...

Read On.

Posted by Seth at 12:08 AM |

July 06, 2006

A World Without America

Greetings from the U.S.A., dart board of a largely ungrateful world!

When I look at all the sacrifices this country has made and continues to make on behalf of so many others, then listen to all the negative feedback we get for it, it almost makes me want to continue building that wall along the Mexican border.... until it completely surrounds this nation, and just tell all those other countries, "Good luck on the outside".

Peter Brookes sums things up as completely as I've ever seen them done in this regard, in an absolute must-read OpEd.

For all the worldwide whining and bellyaching about the United States, July 4th -- America's 230th birthday -- provides an opportune time for them to consider for just a moment what the world might be like without good ol' Uncle Sam.

The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century -- just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001.

On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it's not our preference, we are the world's "cop on the beat," providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods.


Also missing would be other gifts from "Uncle Sugar" -- starting with 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That includes half the operations of the World Food Program, which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries.

Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157 countries -- and 31 percent of the budget of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which assists more than 19 million refugees across the globe.

In 2005, Washington dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid, more than double the amount of the next highest donor (Japan), contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from the large industrialized countries.

Moreover, President Bush's five-year $15 billion commitment under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is the largest commitment by a single nation toward an international health initiative -- ever -- working in over 100 (mostly African) countries.

The United States is the world's economic engine. We not only have the largest economy, we spend 40 percent of the world's budget on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology, defense and medicine.

We're the world's ATM, too, providing 17 percent of the International Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis, and funding 13 percent of World Bank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries.

And what does Uncle Sam get in return? Mostly grief, especially from all the ungrateful freeloaders who benefit tremendously from the global "public goods" we so selflessly provide with our time, effort, blood and treasure. How easily -- and conveniently -- they forget . . . unless they need help, of course.

Brooks' OpEd is fantastic and seems to cover all the bases. Read the entire piece here.

Posted by Seth at 06:03 AM | Comments (2) |

July 02, 2006

Now, this....

.... is funny!

The author links to PETA's anti-KFC website, at which I found the following {exerpted from an article called The Hidden Lives Of Chickens}:

Chickens understand sophisticated intellectual concepts, learn from watching each other, demonstrate self-control, worry about the future, and even have cultural knowledge that is passed from generation to generation

Excuse me while I move away from my keyboard to take a sip of coffee, so as not to spew the java all over it during my next convulsion of laughter....

Posted by Seth at 10:24 AM | Comments (4) |

Lib Law

I had never read anything by Dave Weinbaum before, then I bumped into an OpEd of his at Jewish World Review a few minutes ago. Based on the column of his I just read, I'd love to buy him a beer.

Posted by Seth at 01:53 AM |

June 26, 2006


Mark Steyn's kicking some serious butt this week, and making me laugh my touchas off at the same time, with this column.

You gotta hand it to these guys: "Redeployment" is ingenious. I'll bet the focus-group consultants were delirious: "surrender," "lose,","scram," "scuttle ignominiously," "head for the hills" all polled poorly, but "redeploy" surveyed well with all parts of the base, except the base in Okinawa, where they preferred "sayonara" — that's "redeploy" in any language. The Defeaticrats have a clear message for the American people. Read da ploy: No new quagmires.

Read the column and see if you don't -- heh heh -- laugh your ass off at the way Steyn presents a too-true state of affairs.

Don't drink your coffee while you read the column, or you might spew it all over your keyboard.

Posted by Seth at 02:22 AM |

June 25, 2006

Yearning For Saner Years Gone By

Way back when I was a kid {and I mean way} we weren't "overprotected". We did all the stuff you do at playgrounds over a concrete or pebble filled asphalt ground, monkey bars, swings, see-saws and all. No built-in rubber mats underlining whatever venue we were playing on. No bicycle helmets, knee pads and so forth. In the winter, we went flying down long hills of snow and ice laying prone on low slung, narrow wooden sleds on steel runners. We climbed trees, we built tree houses, we played with solid hardballs in Little League baseball, bashed the hell out of each other in Pop Warner football and bombarded each other with projectiles that were big rubber balls in games of dodge ball. We went to the local pizza shop and gorged large slices of thick, doughy Sicilian pizza and loved the heck out of enormous ice cream sundaes that housed every kind of fattening agent known to man. We dove off of high diving boards. We weren't mollycoddled by society, we were permitted to be kids.

Now, all is liability.

Liberal trial lawyers have managed to instill terror in the hearts of cities, states and business concerns -- the mishap that results from someone's clumsiness has become the fault of whoever owns the property on which an accident occurs. In many ways, similarly to the denutritionalisation of bread, they are bleaching a lot of the fun out of growing up....

Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal sums it all up rather well, using as his vehicle the veritable extinction of... the diving board.

I'll leave you to it....

Posted by Seth at 11:55 PM |

June 22, 2006

Posting Some Michelle

Read This!

Posted by Seth at 01:39 AM |

June 14, 2006

Western, Particularly Liberal, Idiocy

Despite numerous residential meanderings about the country in my lifetime to date(I am now settled down, house and all, in Charlotte, NC), my "point of origin", as it were, was New York, where I've spent several years of my adult life as well.

In my opinion, the two best mayors New York has had since I was old enough to notice were Rudi Giuliani and, though he is a Democrat, Edward Koch -- one positive attribute of most N.Y. mayors is that they tend to lead from the front, and put the five boroughs ahead of most political considerations. I say most, not all because, after all, they are politicians.

Koch was a great mayor, very decisive, very colorful and entirely a New Yorker who placed his city first.

Since the Global War On Terror was launched by President Bush, Ed Koch has supported it as he supports, unlike so many of my fellow Jews (the liberal ones) Israel's right to exist -- while Jewish liberals both here in the U.S. and over in Israel are supporting capitulation to Palestinian terrorism, Mr. Koch advocates fighting back. He even wrote a column why, his being a Democrat notwithstanding, he was voting for George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

Basically, the former N.Y. mayor is what most Democrats used to be when I was growing up in the 1960s and early 1970s, before that political party was taken over by liberals: Patriotic, supportive of our national defense and a believer that the United States, because we are a rich and powerful world leader that can, has a mission to help spread freedom where we are able throughout the world.

Unlike so many of today's Democrats, he understands the danger our nation and other western nations face from the third major Jihad by a religion whose entire history, dating back 1300 years, encompasses bloody attempts to achieve Islamic world domination. While liberals do everything in their power to cause us to lose the War On Terror, Mr. Koch is quick to defend our efforts.

In a new Op-Ed column, Mr. Koch points out the western liberal habit of blaming the west (or Israel) the minute there are any charges of collateral damage being "inflicted" by our side, yet glossing over incidents in which terrorists kill innocent civilians by design.

In his Op-Ed, Foolish Western self-flagellation, the former mayor refers to a New York Times Op-Ed (this is not the kind of thing we normally get from the NYT, the columnist in question is the man who took the opening left by the venerable William Safire when the longtime columnist decided to retire his own column) by David Brooks.

New York Times columnist David Brooks writes with the clarity of Bill Safire, whom he has succeeded as The Times in-house moderate. In a June 8 column, Brooks vividly described the cruelty of the Iraqi insurgents:

"The insurgents' first advantage is that not only are they cruel, they are absolutely cruel. The defining feature of their violence is not merely that they murder, but that they torture those they are about to kill. Shiite militias use drills to bore holds into their victims' heads. Sunni insurgents saw off fingers and toes. Jihadists partially behead their victims then stomp on their torsos to create gushes of blood before finishing the job. Videos of such acts are posted on the Internet or sold in the markets of towns like Haditha."

In sharp contrast, Western countries constantly flagellate themselves when civilians are injured or killed in the course of defensive military action against al-Qaeda or its agents.

The above is completely true, though I must add here that it has been pretty well demonstrated by liberals, that aside from their animosity toward Israel and their apparent support of terrorism, much of their "shock and chagrin" stems more from their hatred of Bush and by extension his efforts to protect these same stupid "intellectuals" from either being exterminated by terrorism or losing all the rights they now cherish, especially freedom of speech, to the global caliphate our Islamofascist enemies want to impose upon us.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, senior member of Al-Queda, was killed by U.S. forces directing bombs at a safe-house in which he was believed to be living. A number of men in the house at the time, thought to be his accomplices, were also killed. In addition, a woman and a child inside the house died. Normally when women or children are killed in a combat incident, denunciations of the American military are made. Few denunciations were made in this case, because of the prominence of the terrorist Zarqawi who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and American and coalition civilian and military personnel.

But, what if Zarqawi had survived and escaped and the others in the house had not? The U.S. would have been denounced around the world by those opposed to our presence in Iraq today, even though the legitimately-elected Iraqi government recently advised the United Nations that it wanted us to remain.

As regards Israel and the Palestinians,

Another example of foolish western self-flagellation is seen in the different responses to actions by Hamas and Israel. Palestinian terrorists, with knowledge and approval of Hamas, launch Qassam rockets at Israel from open fields, and the Israelis respond with artillery shells. The Palestinians' missiles are usually inaccurate, although they occasionally hit their targets -- the towns and cities of Israel and their civilian populations. The Israeli artillery directed at the open fields generally hit the fields and occasionally kill those who launched the missiles.

This weekend, The Times reports: "Hamas's military wing, which declared a tattered 16-month truce with Israel to be over after the deaths of eight civilians on a Gazan beach - apparently killed by an errant Israeli artillery shell - continued Sunday to fire volleys of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. One rocket landed near a school in Sederot, Israel, and badly wounded a 60-year-old resident, Yonatan Engel, a friend of Defense Minister Amir Peretz. Another rocket made a direct hit on a house in Sederot, but there were no injuries."

Israel is denounced by nations around the world when Palestinian civilians are injured or killed, but rarely are the casualties suffered by Israeli civilians noticed, let alone denounced. There is a major difference between the nature of the two sides' actions. Israel is responding to missiles directed at its civilian population. It is a basic duty of any government to protect its population from foreign attack. No responsible person suggests that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) deliberately targeted innocent Palestinians on a Gaza beach who were injured by what The New York Times called "apparently…an errant Israeli artillery shell." It is the nature of artillery shells sometimes to go astray.

To truncate here,

We learned Monday that the IDF has ascertained and confirmed, "that the explosion that killed eight Palestinians on Friday, was caused by a stockpile of Hamas explosives." Will that make any difference to the weepers of the western world?

I doubt it.

So do I.

Look at the Haditha affair -- the incident is still under investigation, no actual facts of the matter yet released to the media, yet the liberals, including politicians like that treasonous, politically opportunistic slimeball John Murtha, have already loudly convicted the Marines involved because they believe it will have adverse effects on Bush's popularity. Yeah, I know, they all "support the troops".

The liberal way is to keep on shouting their unsupported diatribes so that by the time the truth comes out, even if it's just the opposite, the lie has become "general knowledge" and they'll stick by it unto death.

The international terrorist organizations count on the infidels of the west to lose their collective nerve and be unwilling to sustain casualties in this ongoing war of survival between civilizations which might continue for decades. They hope the west will submit to defeat in Iraq and consent to the elimination of Israel, even if that would mean a world dominated by the Islamic fanatics.

Their weapon is fear and their willingness to die as martyrs for their cause while we in the west value every human life. Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden's deputy in Iraq, left us these words as his epitaph: "Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute."

{emphasis mine}

The Op-Ed is entirely on-point, definitely give it a read in its entirety.

Posted by Seth at 02:31 AM | Comments (2) |

May 28, 2006

Another Winner By Crosby(not the singer)

I took a little time out today to catch up on some reading, and ran across one of Greg Crosby's always welcome columns, this one really hitting home as both my maternal grandparents were immigrants, he from the Ukraine, she from Poland.

When they arrived here in the late 1920s and early 1930s, respectively, the first thing they did was become Americans in every sense of the word. My grandmother already spoke English along with several other languages, my grandfather made going to school and learning English a top priority, and, this accomplished, they both made the language of America their language. They assimilated themselves into American culture and traditions with great enthusiasm.

Today, largely thanks to the multiculturalism and PC promoted by the liberal sector of our society, this assimilation has become more the exception than the rule among immigrants, and as Mr. Crosby points out in this great column, it is dividing the country into pronounced ethnic subdivisions rather than providing any kind of continuum for unity among Americans. In fact, this phenomenon may well be the death knell for American traditions, culture and even national identity.

Our culture is in jeopardy because immigrants to America are not assimilating into society like they once did. My grandparents came here to be Americans, to bring up their children with American ideals and American values. It wasn't easy, but they went to night school to learn English. They dressed American. They listened to American radio stations in English, watched American television, and attended American movies. They embraced American music, ate American food, and learned American history.

Lack of assimilation is not purely the fault of the immigrant; much of the blame is with our politically correct multiculturalism, which has been taught throughout our public schools and universities for about three decades. The teaching of traditional American history is, at worst totally revisionist, at best given short shrift. In its place, the focus is now on minorities and looking at history through the prism of our contemporary views on race, women's rights and other hot button topics. The celebration of multiculturalism is laced through almost all subjects in our public schools … well, maybe not algebra, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Our society today makes accommodations which, if anything, discourage assimilation. Voting ballots printed in a dozen different languages, ATMs and payphones with instructions in Spanish, bilingual packaging on consumer goods, and billboards all over town in one language — Spanish — all say to the immigrant, "Hey, it's okay, you don't have to speak English here."

Truer words were never written.

Read the entire column here.

Posted by Seth at 10:56 AM | Comments (2) |

May 20, 2006


Greg Crosby's got a true masterpiece of a column posted at JWR, read it here.

Posted by Seth at 05:32 AM |

May 17, 2006

Direct Hit!

And here is another direct hit from the ever right-thinking Ann Coulter.

Posted by Seth at 09:50 AM |

April 22, 2006

Public Nuisances

This one's a must-read.

American Spectator Editor-In-Chief Bob Tyrrell has definitely definitively defined our resident leftist irritant organizations as exactly what they are: Public Nuisances.

Starting at some point in the last century the public nuisance acquired a halo by claiming that his obnoxious behavior was induced by high purpose and noble values. In the 1930s pacifists tested the outer limits of public-nuisance law to oppose American entry into World War II. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini favored their labors — to a point. In the 1930s there were also food fanatics and nudists numbered among the public nuisances. Through the years Americans have become inured to these misfits and malcontents, sympathetic as we are to the protesters' claims to higher virtue and noble purpose.

By the later decades of the 20th century many public nuisances' misbehavior moved from mere mischief to mayhem, but ordinary Americans have remained good natured, generally, so long as the nuisances are not trampling the ordinary Americans' petunias or hauling them into court. Nudists are too polite to commit such excesses, and even militant bicycle riders shun such tactics. Yet there are public nuisances who frequently engage in rough stuff. Probably the roughest of the public nuisances are the animal-rights fanatics. Some actually undertake acts of terror, blowing up laboratories and — for some reason — ski resorts. Just a few months back 11 were indicted on federal warrants for such crimes.

Read the entire column here.

Posted by Seth at 05:02 PM |

April 12, 2006

Steyn On The Stupidity Of Gubmint Vs Illegal Alienism

Still trying to catch up on my reading, as I'm still swamped with a lot of work from a new client, but I just had to share this outstanding commentary from Monday's JWR, by master columnist and editor Mark Steyn.

Posted by Seth at 02:29 PM |

April 08, 2006

Hey! Check This One Out!

I've been a little behind on my reading due to occupational overflow, so I just now got around to reading this great column by James Lileks that was in Thursday's JWR online.

Fast, on-point, fun read...

Posted by Seth at 10:19 AM |

March 03, 2006

Where Is The Outrage?

I have been kindasorta out of things the last several days as I finally did something about the disappointment of DirecWay satellite broadband:

Despite their self description as "high speed Internet", they are barely any faster than dial-up and infinitely slower than DSL, yet more than twice as expensive as the latter. They are not as Windows friendly as one might hope, and I observed that the first time I ever ran into any identity theft programs, in this case some asshat in Miami using my card info to make and attempt to make online purchases, was after I began using DirecWay -- so much for any kind of ISP security, and the security system I employ on my computer is among the best.

So I've just divested myself of DirecWay(unfortunately, I had to purchase the satellite dish and modem when I signed up), but when I cut off the service I informed them that I will not pay them the early cancellation fee, even if I have to spend 10 times the amount fighting them in court. Since I had to close out the card I was using in order to curtail future fraud on my account and it was the same one I was using for Direcway, they'll have to go after the fee the hard way if they want to try and collect it.

I now have Road Runner, and it's awesome, even faster than DSL.

That said, I've been catching up on my reading in the Blogosphere, and simply must point you to a purrrrfect commentary on the impact of illegal criminal immigration on America, posted on 28 February by my blog sister RomeoCat over at Cathouse Chat.

Posted by Seth at 09:08 PM |

February 18, 2006

Superb Commentary On The Mainstream Media

Marianne Jennings has an accurately definitive column up on today's MSM.

To exerpt,

The problem with the mainstream media is that they lack the collective wisdom of the red states. Those in the red states know the difference between stupidity and rights. They know that fault cannot always be assigned. They look at the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of media teeth on how Mr. Bush's ties to Halliburton caused Hurricane Katrina and realize that the press may not be parring the hole on insight, intelligence, or analysis.

The indignation over the release of information on the Veep's quail hunting accident is something beyond the usual and well documented media bias. The mainstream media have become unhinged. So great is their dislike of Mr. Bush and so strong their desire to have a Watergate office-removal scandal that they cannot distinguish between relevant and irrelevant, material and immaterial. Blinding rage is destructive.

Talk about a well hammered nail!

Posted by Seth at 09:49 AM | Comments (6) |

February 02, 2006

State Of The Democratic Party

The Washington Times' Tony Blankley's latest column presents a good analysis of the Democratic Party as it now stands, citing the relationships between some of George Bush's statements in Tuesday evening's SOTU address and the folks on the left side of the aisle.

During an election campaign, political operatives are fond of seeking to induce in their opponent a negative "defining moment." That is to say a highly publicized moment when their opponent portrays everything that is wrong with him. In 2004 John Kerry provided that moment when he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Surely, at the State of the Union address the Democratic Party provided such a moment when, as has already been well commented on by others, they wildly applauded President Bush's statement that Congress failed to pass Social Security reform last year. As the party of reactionary inertia — as the party that not only doesn't have any solutions to today's dangers and problems, but denies that such problems exist — the Democrats on the floor of the House Tuesday night demonstrated a flawless, intuitive sense of its new, disfunctional self. The Democrats' wild applause on behalf of doing nothing was more than a merely tactical political blunder. It displayed a deeper truth about them.

It sure did. It seems like ever since Bush beat Gore in 2000, the Democrats have put all other issues, in fact their very minds on the back burner in order to prosecute their War On Bush.

If one recalls, last year the official position of the Democratic Party was not only that they opposed President Bush's Social Security reform. They also argued there was no crisis — no major problem that required rectification. (In fact Social Security has four trillion dollars of unfunded liability, and if major changes are not made quickly, will only be able to pay the retired baby boomers about 70 cents for each dollar of promised benefits.) Social Security is the single most iconic Democratic Party issue of the past hundred years — the Democrats created Social Security in 1935 and have won countless elections since then by beating up Republicans for allegedly not supporting it. It was the Democratic Party's sacred virgin. They would lie for it, die for it, steal for it, demagogue for it — but never cheer its demise or harm, even sarcastically. Their collective decision to cheer the failure of the body politic to provide for sufficient revenues to pay the benefits was an act of historic shame for the Democratic Party. Worse than that for the Democrats, it shows how severely degraded their political instincts have become. Tip O'Neill's Democratic Party of 20 years ago would never have cheered the failure of Social Security — even to try to make a small political point. To be sure, they would demagogue the issue ruthlessly, but never be seen to be walking away from the sacred program. Until George Bush became president the Democrats, for better and for worse, were a liberal party. Deformed by hatred of the current president, the Democrats have become a nihilist party.

Yeah, well, thanks to alternative media and the Democrats' own obvious lack of either unity or direction, their uselessness as a political entity is costing them more and more public support, despite the misleading reports to the contrary by the liberal mainstream media.

The Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress and we have a strong conservative in the Oval Office, and the numbers can only increase on the right as the nation realizes long before this November that the left hasn't a clue about anything, they're standing at a $25.00 minimum table with four $5.00 chips.

Posted by Seth at 02:20 PM | Comments (6) |

January 29, 2006

Shut Up, They Explained

I had meant to link to this great Op-Ed column by author and City Journal Senior Editor Brian C. Anderson a few days ago when it was first published in WSJ's Opinion Journal, but for the last several days I've been swamped with issues involving my new house and a few other things I seem to be getting out of the way --finally!

Mr. Anderson discusses campaign finance reform and how it targets free speech, particularly that of conservatives.

The rise of alternative media--political talk radio in the 1980s, cable news in the '90s, and the blogosphere in the new millennium--has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party's current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media's vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today's liberals quietly, relentlessly and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what's going on--and resist it.

It came as no surprise when Senator John McCain was behind one of the most offensive "campaign finance" acts in modern history. That aisle straddling, self seeking, in-name-only Republican distinguished gentleman is... No, this time I will avoid my usual flair for digression...

The most imminent danger comes from campaign-finance rules, especially those spawned by the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act. Republican maverick John McCain's co-sponsorship aside, the bill passed only because of overwhelming Democratic support. It's easy to see why liberals have spearheaded the nation's three-decade experiment with campaign-finance regulation. Seeking to rid politics of "big-money corruption," election-law reforms obstruct the kinds of political speech--political ads and perhaps now the feisty editorializing of the new media--that escape the filter of the mainstream press and the academy, left-wing fiefdoms still regulation-free. Campaign-finance reform, notes columnist George Will, by steadily expanding "government's control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government," advances "liberalism's program of extending government supervision of life."

Ah, yes, there is that, indeed. George Will hit the nail right on the head with the last, "liberalism's program of extending government supervision of life." It beats me how a bunch of folks whose political handle stems from the word "liberty" can be so set on taking away our liberty, that concept-cum-reality earned for us by patriots who fought, died, sacrificed nearly two hundred thirty years ago so that theirs and future generations might live free.

Liberty to go about our lives without the very government control the liberals are attempting to force feed us through Congress and the courts, and are largely succeeding.

McCain-Feingold, the latest and scariest step down that slope, makes it a felony for corporations, nonprofit advocacy groups and labor unions to run ads that criticize--or even name or show--members of Congress within 60 days of a federal election, when such quintessentially political speech might actually persuade voters. It forbids political parties from soliciting or spending "soft money" contributions to publicize the principles and ideas they stand for. Amending the already baffling campaign-finance rules from the 1970s, McCain-Feingold's dizzying do's and don'ts, its detailed and onerous reporting requirements of funding sources--which require a dense 300-page book to lay out--have made running for office, contributing to a candidate or cause, or advocating without an attorney at hand unwise and potentially ruinous.

Not for nothing has Justice Clarence Thomas denounced McCain-Feingold's "unprecedented restrictions" as an "assault on the free exchange of ideas."

Because political blogs are mostly conservative, reporting and commenting on important news issues that the liberal mainstream media either downplays, spins or ignores and have become a formidable "new media" power all their own, these "reformers" have now cast their jaundiced eye on the blogosphere.

Campaign-finance reform now has the blogosphere in its crosshairs. When the Federal Election Commission wrote specific rules in 2002 to implement McCain-Feingold, it voted 4-2 to exempt the Web. After all, observed the majority of three Republicans and one Democrat (the agency divides its seats evenly between the two parties), Congress didn't list the Internet among the "public communications"--everything from television to roadside billboards--that the FEC should regulate. Further, "the Internet is virtually a limitless resource, where the speech of one person does not interfere with the speech of anyone else," reasoned Republican commissioner Michael Toner. "Whereas campaign finance regulation is meant to ensure that money in politics does not corrupt candidates or officeholders, or create the appearance thereof, such rationales cannot plausibly be applied to the Internet, where on-line activists can communicate about politics with millions of people at little or no cost."

You can't blame the left for seeing the right thinking bloggers on the Internet as a threat to their previously enjoyed media monopoly...

The FEC thus has plunged into what Smith calls a "bizarre" rule-making process that could shackle the political blogosphere. This would be a particular disaster for the right, which has maintained its early advantage over the left in the blogosphere, despite the emergence of big liberal sites like Daily Kos. Some 157 of the top 250 political blogs express right-leaning views, a recent liberal survey found. Reaching a growing and influential audience--hundreds of thousands of readers weekly (including most journalists) for the top conservative sites--the blogosphere has enabled the right to counter the biases of the liberal media mainstream. Without the blogosphere, Howell Raines would still be the New York Times' editor, Dan Rather would only now be retiring, garlanded with praise--and John Kerry might be president of the U.S., assuming that CBS News had gotten away with its falsehood about President Bush's military service that the diligent bloggers at PowerLine, LittleGreenFootballs and other sites swiftly debunked.

...but they can be blamed for trying to replace our American right to freedom of speech with intrusive government regulation.

Read Brian Anderson'e entire commentary here.

Posted by Seth at 02:35 AM |

January 24, 2006

Bad Medicine

Rabbi Avi Shafran has a column in today's Jewish World Review that, while directed primarily toward a Jewish readership, discusses a topic that should be of concern to all.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law was really about whether a federal drug-control law provided a U.S. Attorney General the authority to punish a state's doctors for acting in accordance with a state statute. But by contending that physician-assisted suicide is a "legitimate medical purpose" for the prescription of a drug, there can be little doubt that the ruling helped bring the idea of abetting suicide a bit closer to mainstream thinking. That's a deeply unfortunate thing.

As it happened, the decision came exactly seven days after a New Jersey nurse who has confessed to killing 29 people decided to stop cooperating with investigators. Charles Cullen maintains that he has killed up to 40 people, many of them old and ailing hospital patients whom he injected with lethal doses of drugs — like those that Oregon doctors have used to end the lives of more than 200 people.

Read the rest here.

Posted by Seth at 06:05 AM |

January 22, 2006

One For The Gipper

In yesterday's Opinion Journal's Review & Outlook is a look at the mega-positive effect of Reaganomics on the economy over the last quarter century.

Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th President of the United States promising less intrusive government, lower tax rates and victory over communism. On that same day, the American hostages in Iran were freed after 444 days of captivity. If the story of history is one long and arduous march toward freedom, this was a momentous day well worth commemorating.

All the more so because over this 25-year period prosperity has been the rule, not the exception, for America--in stark contrast to the stagflationary 1970s. Perhaps the greatest tribute to the success of Reaganomics is that, over the course of the past 276 months, the U.S. economy has been in recession for only 15. That is to say, 94% of the time the U.S. economy has been creating jobs (43 million in all) and wealth ($30 trillion). More wealth has been created in the U.S. in the last quarter-century than in the previous 200 years. The policy lessons of this supply-side prosperity need to be constantly relearned, lest we return to the errors that produced the 1970s.

Good read, the column is here.

Posted by Seth at 06:04 AM |

January 04, 2006

Mark Steyn Masterpiece

Mark Steyn, one of my favorite all time columnists, has got an awesome Op-Ed at the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal titled It's the Demography, Stupid.

I won't even comment on it, because it speaks completely for itself.

Posted by Seth at 01:33 PM |