Help wanted: Al Qaida cells in Iraq struggling to replace fallen leaders

Obama Shoots Self in Foot, While Media Praises His Flexibility

Obama Shoots Self in Foot, While Media Praises His Flexibility

Media Gabriel Garnica, Senior Writer
July 26, 2007


Everyone is well aware of the fact that the liberal media will twist itself into a pretzel to keep its beloved candidates looking fine, but we are witnessing the pretzel of all pretzels with regard to the media’s contortions to keep its beloved Barack Obama as beloved as possible.

Obama’s Expanding Abortion
I find it absurd that a candidate who paints himself out to be a paragon of how the Democratic Party is such a party of faith would dare to say half the things this man spews regarding abortion to his adoring legions of fawning fans. First he tells us that conservatives have hijacked faith, and then he provides conclusive evidence that liberals have given it a reprehensible makeover.

Speaking at a recent Stems-Cells-R-Us Annual Convention, the Illinois Senator stated, “What difference does two or three minutes inside or outside the womb really make? One’s ‘late-term’ and the other’s ‘postpartum’. Who’s to say if the postpartum fetus is truly viable? Postpartum fetuses die all the time for all manner of reasons…”

First we intentionally keep a practically born infant’s head inside the womb to avoid murder so we can plunge scissors into his head and suck out his brains and call that acceptable. Now, according to Senator Obama, worrying about a few minutes inside or a few minutes outside the womb is a petty annoyance easily brushed aside with drivel about survival chances. What next dear Senator, declaring that killing the baby before she leaves the hospital is “reasonably near” its birth since, after all, many babies die within their first year of life?

Jack and Jill Doing The Nasty on The Hill
By now you may have heard that our talented Senator also sees nothing wrong with teaching kindergarten kids sex education (same site above). Speaking to a Planned Parenthood crowd on July 17, 2007 Senator Obama enlightened us with the spew that such teaching, as long as “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”

I never realized until our Senator of faith informed me that a five-year-old can benefit from sex education in any form. After all, don’t most if not all of the kids that age you know just run around teeming with questions about sexuality? Let me see if I have this right, dear Senator: Nothing wrong with killing a baby just after birth if so desired and, if not, no problem with teaching him about sex before he can spell the word?

Can’t We All Just Get Along?
If you have not fainted yet, here comes another nugget of wisdom from Senator Charisma. It seems that he believes that we should meet with representatives of renegade nations such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions.

According to Senator Friendly, it is childish and counterproductive to actually refuse to meet with people who clearly want the destruction of your country and way of life. I guess that the our enlightened Senator from Illinois would either like to work with those people to set a bilateral timetable for our destruction or, in the alternative, work to set a date by which we can fully embrace those nations’ ideologies.

The New Teflon Candidate
Perhaps just as revolting as Senator Obama’s absurd statements regarding abortion, sex education and foreign affairs is the liberal media’s continued pattern of favoring their beloved candidate regardless of what spews from his mouth.

When Mitt Romney dared to rightly criticize Obama’s Planned Parenthood rally drivel, the media went after Romney and virtually ignored the absurdity of Obama’s statements. One gets the very real sense that if Obama declared that this country should become communist and some conservative criticized him for such statements, the media headlines would read “CONSERVATIVES CRITICIZE OBAMA’S CHOICE OF RED AS FAVORITE COLOR”.

The Strange Hillary Paradox
Many have written about the media’s pattern of ignoring negative information regarding Hillary and bending over sideways to enhance any positive information aimed in her direction. Certainly the examples of pathetic media glorification of the Clintons are enough to turn one’s stomach. However, we find a strange paradox regarding Clinton and Obama regarding the media and Obama’s penchant for absurd statements.

On one hand, the media almost seems more determined to defend and enhance Obama than it does Clinton, which is something I never thought possible regarding anyone. On the other hand, Obama has become so absurd that even Hillary is able to sound like the relative voice of reason next to his, even if clearly only through political opportunism and being slightly better at keeping her foot out of her mouth or, for that matter, shooting herself in said foot.

In brief, we face a situation where the media bends over backward to favor two candidates while one of those candidates is seemingly doing everything in his power to alienate swing voters in the name of some claim of “freshness” that the other candidate calls “inexperience”.

Never before have we seen a candidate for the highest office in the land so frequently utter such controversial things which are mostly ignored by a media hell-bent on painting that candidate as favorably as possible. Hillary must be increasingly giddy yet frustrated watching her only legitimate Democratic foe so frequently step in it only to have a fawning media praise his fondness for fertilizer. It must be quite ironic for Clinton to watch the same media that so often shields her from criticism do likewise for an opponent so determined to need shielding.

To borrow from Senator Obama’s own profound wisdom regarding abortion

What difference does two or three ridiculous statements inside or outside the campaign really make? One’s shooting oneself in the foot and the other is sticking one’s foot in one’s mouth. Who’s to say if the campaign is truly viable? Once promising campaigns die all the time for all manner of reasons…including patterns of absurd drivel dressed as anything profound spewed to adoring drones.

At the end of the day, if a smiling liberal candidate utters anything asinine in a forest of liberal media coverage, is there a backlash?

Gabriel Garnica, Esq., is a college professor and licensed attorney whose regular commentary also appears on The Daley Times-Post, and Michnews. After a friend joked that 99% of Latino New York City college professors were liberals, Gabriel briefly considered taking the hip-hop nickname One Percent. He is proud to be a Senior Writer for New Media Journal.

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Top Officials Warn Against Cutting Troop Buildup

Top Officials Warn Against Cutting Troop Buildup

July 26th, 2007 Posted By Pat Dollard.


BAGHDAD – The top U.S. general and diplomat in Iraq warned on Thursday against cutting short the American troop buildup and suggested they would urge Congress in September to give President Bush’s strategy more time.

Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, in separate Associated Press interviews at their offices in the U.S. Embassy on the banks of the Tigris, were careful not to define a timeframe for continuing the counterinsurgency strategy — and the higher U.S. troop levels — that began six months ago.

Still, Petraeus’ comments signaled that he would like to see a substantial U.S. combat force remain on its current course well into 2008 and perhaps beyond. He said that a drawdown from today’s level of 160,000 U.S. troops is coming but he would not say when.

Petraeus said he and his top deputy, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, are working on how to carry out a reduction in the extra troops Bush ordered to Baghdad and to Anbar province. He said the drawdown would be done “over time, without undermining what we’ve fought to achieve.”

“There is a lot more that we certainly will try to do,” Petraeus said.

Its going to take longer’

With the American public’s patience wearing thin, many in Congress are pressing for a troop reduction soon. Bush has resisted, saying he is waiting to receive the advice of Petraeus and Crocker in September.

Pressed repeatedly on when he thought troop levels could be reduced and other U.S. involvement scaled back, Crocker said: “It’s going to take longer than September.”

He said he saw his mission as ensuring “we’re all looking at reality. I don’t think any service is done either in Iraq or the U.S. by saying, again, ‘It’s going to be OK by November.’ This is hard. There is tremendous damage that’s been done physically, politically, socially and it’s going to take time to repair.”

U.S. military officers have said in recent interviews that while troop levels should be determined as conditions evolve, they see little reason to remove the full 30,000 U.S. troop buildup before next summer. Some say they can foresee beginning some reductions by summer or earlier.

Petraeus said he would make his case in September, when he and Crocker are due to report to Congress on military and political progress and on their recommendations for the future.

He said the troop buildup has clearly established “tactical momentum,” meaning its more aggressive efforts to secure volatile neighborhoods in Baghdad and areas around the capital are succeeding. The bigger issue is whether those gains will lead to a stability that can be sustained over time.

“The surge enables us to turn the tide just a bit in key places,” the four-star general said in an hour-long interview.

Patraeus: Iraqi forces need training
Asked what more the U.S. military needs to accomplish to put Iraq on a steadier track, Petraeus ticked of a list that included furthering the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, which are intended to gradually take over for U.S. forces, beginning in areas where security and political conditions allow.

“We want to make much more progress against al-Qaida. We would like to build on the early momentum from local groups rejecting al-Qaida and militias,” Petraeus said. We want to certainly not just sit on the violence in Baghdad neighborhoods and stabilize it but to create a way ahead that can be sustained by the Iraqis over time. We want to, where possible, frankly, to continue the process of handing off to Iraqis.”

‘Movie will keep on rolling’
Crocker spoke more directly of his conviction that the current strategy should be maintained — and about his concern that if the United States were to withdraw now Iraq would be plunged into a humanitarian disaster.

“It is not as though we can simply decide that we do not want to be involved anymore and the movie comes to an end,” he said. “The movie will keep on rolling in Iraq and in the region whether we’re here or not.

“I, for one, as someone who has spent decades in the Middle East, am deeply concerned about what could happen if we decide based on reasons other than conditions on the ground in Iraq that we simply don’t want to be involved anymore.”

He said the consequence could be inroads by the al-Qaida terrorist network, a consolidation of Iranian influence in Iraq, intervention by Turkey and other neighboring states, and a “massive human catastrophe.”

‘No … magic answers’
Sprinkled throughout his remarks were references to a need for patience in seeing Iraq through its current crisis.

“There are no easy, quick, magic answers at this stage,” he said.

Petraeus, who was installed as the top U.S. commander here in February as the troop buildup got under way, underscored his belief that the extra troops have produced the intended benefit of reducing sectarian murders, encouraging more Iraqis to help U.S. forces and squeezing extremist groups.

“Once you get the locals recognizing that you are going to be there a while, they then tell you” where insurgent forces are hiding, where they have placed roadside bombs and where they store weapons, he said.

The problem, at this stage, is that these developments have not led the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to push through key legislative measures and to move toward political reconciliation between the majority Shiites, the Kurds and the Sunnis who lost power when Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Petraeus said he believed the Sunnis are beginning to see their future in a different, more positive light.

They have “gotten a little bit past the point where they were the last few years, which was one of feeling disrespected, dispossessed, disappointed, disgusted, distressed, you name it, at their loss of power,” he said

What’s wrong with the youths? — An excellent read

Obama Rules Border Security “Not Germane” To Homeland Security

Obama Rules Border Security “Not Germane” To

Homeland Security

Ed Lasky
Via Hugh Hewitt, we get this little niblet about Senator Barak Obama revealing that he and the Democrats don’t consider border security part of protecting the homeland. GOP Senators were attempting to bring up border enforcement provisions and attach them to the Homeland Security funding legislation. The Democrats were appalled at this maneuver and with Obama sitting in for Robert Byrd as President Pro Tempore, Harry Reid asked for a ruling on the germaneness of the amendment:

HR: We have to have a ruling here first.

BO: The chair is not aware of an arguably legislative provision in the House bill, HR 2638 [the homeland security funding bill], to which Amendment number 2412 offered by the Senator from South Carolina [the border security funding amendment] could conceivably be germane.

Judd Gregg: So the amendment is germane?

BO: No, that the chair does not believe that the defense of germaneness is appropriately placed at this time.

A potential commander-in-chief sees no tie between border security and homeland security? As President, his first responsibility would be to protect Americans-especially in this age-when our nation has repeatedly come under attack (or potential attack) from people from outside our borders. Should we expect David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, to again come to the rescue and “explain” what Barack Obama “really” meant?

Good Old Fashioned Supreme Court Packing

Good Old Fashioned Supreme Court Packing

Ed Lasky
Rick Moran
It’s been done before, says Jean Edward Smith, writing in an Op-Ed in the New York Times:

But the method most frequently employed to bring the court to heel has been increasing or decreasing its membership.

The size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by Congress. The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. When the Federalists were defeated in 1800, the lame-duck Congress reduced the size of the court to five — hoping to deprive President Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democratic Congress repealed the Federalist measure (leaving the number at six), and then in 1807 increased the size of the court to seven, giving Jefferson an additional appointment.

In 1837, the number was increased to nine, affording the Democrat Andrew Jackson two additional appointments. During the Civil War, to insure an anti-slavery, pro-Union majority on the bench, the court was increased to 10. When a Democrat, Andrew Johnson, became president upon Lincoln’s death, a Republican Congress voted to reduce the size to seven (achieved by attrition) to guarantee Johnson would have no appointments.

Then there was FDR’s abortive plan to pack SCOTUS in order to ram some of his more radical New Deal programs through that the Supremes had struck down as being unconstitutional.

The current 9 justice court was voted by Congress during Grant’s term. But why would you fool with the number of justices?

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.

So when the court strays from some undefined path – decided by who? – Democrats have a right to simply increase the size of the court to get their way?

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

“Popular values?” What happened to all that high falutin language about “the law?”

Ed Lasky:

Congress not happy with US Supreme Court alignment? Well…just manipulate the size of the Court once Democratic majorities are established. How is this justice? What would prevent the Democratic majority from enlarging the SCOTUS to …let’ say…25 members then nominate and select 16 or so very young justices thereby ensuring a dominant Democratic-leaning Supreme Court for many years to come. Is that what this op-ed advocates? Blatant manipulation to satisfy partisan passions? The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on such passions of the people.

Not if the court is going against “popular values” evidently.

Democide: Democrats and the Awful Truth of Genocide

Democide: Democrats and the Awful Truth of


By J.R. Dunn

Since the first of the year, I’ve been working on a project dealing with the connections between liberal policies and mass mortality – the easily demonstrated (though somehow  never mentioned) fact that, since at least the 1950s, liberal policies taken to their logical conclusion tend to create large piles of bodies in a process that might be called mass negligent homicide. (The technical term for this, one that I don’t care for, is “morticide”.)

This project involves a considerable amount of research into several distinct events in recent American history – domestic crime and justice, the Vietnam War and its aftermath, Rachel Carson and DDT. One of the pleasures of any form of deep research is the surprises hiding in the material. For instance, in this case, the discovery that Rachel Carson is not, as a number of observers claim, directly responsible for the DDT ban – the credit for that and all the deaths that followed, goes to a grim cabal of assorted bureaucrats. Or the fact that William Shawcross, a British left-wing journalist whom I had dismissed as a diehard America-hater, has in recent years rethought his position in much the same sense as and far more consistently than Christopher Hitchens.
Occasionally, you come across something more disturbing, some collection of facts that takes shape out of the material and presents itself as something bizarre, inexplicable, and utterly out of context, but at the same time impossible to refute.
I call them “wild cards”. You don’t go looking for wild cards – by definition, there’s no way you can know that they’re there. They have to come to you. You examine a particular data set, a collection of documents, a study, and suddenly something jumps out at you. Something skewed and strange, something nobody had seen before and that you never expected to see. Something that gives rise to the eureka response – but with a twist: I have found it, but what the hell is it I’ve found?
With the exception of physics, wild cards are far from welcome in most fields. Establishments like stability and consistency, and wild cards are the enemy of both. Physics, the single great exception, began the 20th century with two of the most consequential wild cards of all time, Planck’s identification of the quanta in 1900 and Einstein’s Special Relativity in 1905. Physicists soon got used to wild cards leaping out at them almost constantly, proving that you can get used to them if you have no choice.
In any case, the card I was dealt this time went like this:
Almost all the large-scale genocides of the past century have occurred during Democratic administrations.
Below appears a list of major genocides and democides (a word coined by the master scholar of mass killing, Prof. R.J. Rummel, and meaning any mass murder by government)  occurring during the 20th century from the 1930s on. Each of them accounted for something on the order of a million lives, several of them many more. The approximate number is followed by the date and the name and party of the U.S. president at the time.

Ukrainian Famine 1.5 – 7 million 1932 -1933 FDR — Democrat
Rape of Nanking 1 million 1937 FDR — Democrat
Great Purge Up to 10 million 1937 – 1939 FDR — Democrat
The Holocaust 6 million Jews (+ 5 million others) 1942 – 1945 FDR — Democrat
Operation Keelhaul 600,000 to 2 million 1945 – 1946 Truman — Democrat
Postwar Purge 1 million + 1946 – 1948 Truman — Democrat
Great Leap


Up to 45 million 1959 – 1962 Eisenhower — Republican
Great Cultural Revolution 1 – 10 million 1967 – 1969 LBJ — Democrat
Biafran Crisis 1 million + 1966 – 1969 LBJ — Democrat
Cambodian Year Zero 2 million + 1975 – 1978 Carter – Democrat
Boat People 200,000 – 1 million 1977 – Carter – Democrat
Ethiopian Famine 1 million + 1984 – 1985 Reagan – Republican
Rwandan Massacre 800,000 1994 Clinton – Democrat

Out of thirteen of these atrocities, no fewer than eleven occurred during the administrations of Democratic presidents. In fact, partially excepting John F. Kennedy, there’s no Democratic president following Franklin D. Roosevelt whose term was not marred by at least one massive foreign bloodletting. In contrast, Republican administrations feature only two: Mao’s Great Leap Forward, in which a nationwide artificial famine wracked China from one end to the other, and the Ethiopian famine, an almost identical episode that struck the ancient African kingdom in the mid-80s.
Darfur — which straddles both the Clinton and Bush administrations — may well make this list in due time, but has yet to reach the level of enormity of the atrocities listed. This is not to slight the magnitude of the human suffering involved. Darfur is an indictment of the international system as it currently exists. It could, and should, be rectified beginning tomorrow.)
Qualifications must be made in only two cases: while the Ukrainian famine began in 1932, grain seizures started in late Fall, almost simultaneous with Roosevelt’s election. And while the Cambodian Year Zero massacres began during Gerald Ford’s term in 1975, Ford was a caretaker president effectively overseeing a government controlled by a Democratic Congress. Jimmy Carter’s first full year as president coincides with the peak frenzy of the massacres. (While it’s true that the boat people continued arriving into the 1980s, the Reagan Administration defused the crisis by allowing several hundred thousand into the U.S. as refugees.)
Another set of qualifications, having no effect on the premise itself, has to do with numbers. Most of the mortality figures are ranges, many of them no more than estimates, and that they will remain. Few of the killers were as meticulous in their record-keeping as the Nazis were with the Endlosung. That said, some of the estimates, such as that of the Ukrainian Famine from Robert Conquest’s The Harvest of Sorrow, and the Great Leap Forward from Jasper Becker’s Hungry Ghosts. Mao’s Secret Famine, are very solid. The figure for the rape of Nanking also includes the other massacres in the Yangtze valley during 1937, as derived from Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking.
Another troubling point is that in most cases, very little was done in response to the crises. Many of the episodes, as we’ve grown used to seeing, are accompanied by open denial or an almost willful refusal to admit that any such thing is happening. Denial is usually the product of individuals or groups sympathizing with or aiding the killers – the Communist Party during the 1930s, the New Left following the Vietnam War. Unwillingness to believe, though much more common, is not often a product of evil intent, but simply an inability to acknowledge that horror on such a scale is possible. (This is best illustrated by Justice Felix Frankfurter’s response to an eyewitness of the Holocaust in 1943: “I cannot believe you. I’m not saying that you’re lying. But that I cannot believe you.”) While understandable, this remains a human failing and needs to be faced as such.
Because the result is paralysis or hesitation in confronting such events. While only one was carried out with the full cooperation of Western governments (Operation Keelhaul, the forced repatriation of Russian collaborators, prisoners, and expatriates at the close of WW II. Cooperation was compelled by the text of the Yalta Treaty.), a much larger number occurred with no intervention or often even comment by the civilized world. These include the Ukrainian Famine, the Rape of Nanking, the Great Purge, the Holocaust, the Soviet Postwar Purge, the Cultural Revolution, the Year Zero, the first three years of the boat people’s exodus, the Rwandan Massacre, and is now being repeated in Darfur. Only two exceptions exist in which the killings were matched by an extensive rescue effort – the Biafran civil war and the Ethiopian Famine.
The correlation between large-scale atrocities and Democratic administrations appears clear. There is no denying it. It is one of the most disturbing things I have come across in twenty years of writing history.
But what can it possibly mean? 
Some of these events don’t require special explanation. The Holocaust occurred because Hitler had a major war to cover the working out of his ruling obsession, the destruction of the European Jews. Operation Keelhaul and the events following the Vietnam War occurred because the perpetrators had been effectively assured that there would be no reaction – they could do whatever they pleased, and not a hand would be raised to stop them.
But unless we’re willing to accept the most moronic level of conspiracy theorizing, there is no straightforward explanation for the overall pattern. It simply can’t be explained by conventional means. There is no demonstrable connection between the Democratic Party and the squalid crews responsible for these crimes. No easy correlation involving behavior or ideology exists – these atrocities were carried out by groups ranging from the right to the left to primitive tribalists. Certainly not even the sleaziest American politician – much less an entire political party – would make an attempt to benefit from such events.
Which leaves us to fall back on sheer speculation, always keeping in mind that these are stabs in the dark
* To take the most esoteric first: could it be something structural, some process operating well below the current level of our awareness? A Democrat gets elected and for totally unrelated reasons, as a product of social or political forces of which we know little or nothing, dictators are encouraged to deal mortally with their perceived enemies. Global human society is a complex system, in the mathematical sense, ruled by laws and relations as yet unknown to us. Could this be a product of complexity?
* Could it be some sort of unconscious signaling? Some misinterpretation of something completely unrelated by the dictators planning these massacres? Or perhaps, not so unconscious?  Did somebody, God forbid, say something? Some remark that could have been taken as approval by one set or another of these goons? (This can happen. In1969, Henry Kissinger, generally despised as a war hound of the first order, may well have halted WW III by refusing to say anything at all to a Soviet diplomat who sidled up to him to suggest that the U.S. and the USSR cooperate in a nuclear first strike against China. Kissinger hurried away with a word – any answer under the circumstances could have been taken as agreement. And let’s not forget April Glaspie, whose diplomatic choice of words convinced Saddam Hussein that the U.S. would overlook his invasion of Kuwait.)
* Or is it simply a matter of the record? Dictators know their history – nobody better. They’re well aware that responses to such crimes are rare, and rarest of all with a Democratic administration. The record is perfectly clear on this, the point reiterated with each failure to act.  Dems are reluctant to get involved even when they’re fully aware of what’s happening – look at Carter’s behavior in reference to both the boat people and the Cambodian democide. In neither case did Carter make a single move – even as much as an official protest – before the rest of the world, in the form of the UN and various NGOs, was already involved. And tyrants do in fact think in such terms. Consider Hitler’s answer when asked about the worldwide response to targeting the German Jews: “Who now remembers the Armenians?”         
Or could it be coincidence? Correlation, after all, does not demonstrate causality. Overwhelming as the evidence seems, it could be a product of pure chance. Though I have my doubts – it all fits in too well with what we know to be true about the Democrats, their weaknesses and failings, the kind of disasters and blunders that accompany their rule.
The fact is, we don’t know. And we need to know. If a mass murder were to occur every time the optometrists held a convention, somebody would investigate. Here we have entire populations disappearing whenever the donkeys blow through town. It deserves a closer look.
But it won’t get one. It won’t get one because the people most qualified for the task – the academics – are almost uniformly left-wing. Such a study truly requires the skills of specialized historians and social and political scientists. But the chances of such a group carrying out an in-depth historical investigation involving their representative party is precisely nil.
But it won’t get one. It won’t get one because the people most qualified for the task – the academics – are almost uniformly left-wing. Such a study truly requires the skills of specialized historians and social and political scientists. But the chances of such a group carrying out an in-depth historical investigation involving their representative party is precisely nil.
Contrast this with the attempts to associate the GOP with various atrocities from the Holocaust to Darfur, always on dubious grounds. (Recent examples include efforts to implicate the Reagan administration in Saddam Hussein’s 1980s war crimes – a war in which a leading Republican said, “We’d like to see both sides lose”, and The Lancet’s Iraqi “civilian casualty” survey, which produced results ten times as high as estimates by the UN.) These claims have always been justified as expressions of concern for the victims. We look forward to seeing how strongly that sense of concern is maintained in this case.
So for the time being, the ghostly connection between the Democrats and the wagers of genocide must remain a shadow on our knowledge of history. A reminder of how complex things actually are, and how little we truly know.
Though it does throw a new light on 2008, doesn’t it?
J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper likens “John Doe” passengers to KKK


Tucker Carlson (thanks to Michael) does a good job trying to hold Honest Ibe’s feet to the fire on the fact that the suing of passengers who report suspicious behavior will only discourage passengers from reporting such behavior — which will be a victory for jihad terrorists. But Hooper greases his feet before all such appearances, and concedes nothing.

The unindicted co-conspirators over at CAIR, apparently oblivious to how bad this makes them look, posted this clip at YouTube (with comments disabled).

Harry Potter, Zionist agent

Harry Potter, Zionist agent


Will those crafty Zionists stop at nothing?

“Iranian Daily: Harry Potter, Billion-Dollar Zionist Project,” from the MEMRI blog (thanks to WriterMom):

In an article, the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is identified with Iranian Supreme Leader ‘Ali Khamenei, criticized Iran’s Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry for approving the distribution of the new book in the “Harry Potter” series.The paper said that “Harry Potter” was a Zionist project in which billions of dollars had been invested in order to disrupt the minds of young people.

Source: Kayhan, Iran, July 26, 2007

Meanwhile, speaking of crafty Zionists, I was struck by this passage from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows that Jihad Watch reader Wallhacker sent me. He says it’s on page 437 of the American edition and page 355 in the British/Canadian edition. Of course, J. K. Rowling has never heard of us or our little effort here, but as one of the only ones who tell the truth about what’s going on while nearly all the programmes are following You-Know-Who’s line, I couldn’t help but chuckle:

“Potterwatch, didn’t I tell that’s what it was called? The programme I keep trying to get on the radio, the only one tells the truth about what’s going on! Nearly all the programmes are following You-Know-Who’s line, all except Potterwatch. I really want to hear it, but it’s tricky tuning in…”

Praying Against Zion

Praying Against Zion
By Mark D. Tooley | July 26, 2007

The National Council of Churches (NCC) is distressed that not all Christians share its animosity towards Israel.

Preferring not to address its own demographic implosion, the NCC periodically lashes out at more demographically robust Christian movements, especially conservative evangelicals.  In its latest fusillade, the NCC denounced the “Christian Zionism” of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which recently convened its second convention in Washington for pro-Israel evangelicals.  Newt Gringrich was among the speakers. “CUFI’s position of uncritical support for Israel separates it from the Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and traditional Protestant Churches, all of whom support Israel while at the same time advocate for a Palestinian state,” insisted the NCC’s news release, which mostly quoted Associated General Secretary for International Affairs and Peace Antonios Kireopoulos.The NCC official asserted that “most Christians” do not share CFI’s stated goals.  CFI’s objective, as its website describes, is to increase support for Israel among evangelicals by emphasizing the “the Jewish contribution to Christianity and Israel’s biblical mandate to the land through Bible teachings.”  CFI warns that “with every passing day, the threats to Israel and the Jewish people are growing,” specifically referencing Iran’s nuclear plans and Hamas’ popularity among Palestinians.  “Millions of Christians across America have a deep love for Israel and the Jewish people and want to stand with them during these difficult days,” notes the CUFI website, which cites the “threats to Judeo-Christian civilization from radical Islam.”Speaking unpleasantly about radical jihadists, of course, is unacceptable to the NCC and the Religious Left.  “CUFI’s ongoing vilification of Islam is also unacceptable,” fretted Shanta Premawardhana, an NCC interfaith relations official.  “The NCC continues to urge Christians to build relationships with Muslim people, the vast majority of whom are peace-loving, law-abiding people.”   What the NCC never considers is that refusal to address radical Islamists is no favor to moderate Muslims who are “peace-loving.” According to the NCC, the CFI has “advocated going to war with Iran,” which is “totally unacceptable,” Premawardhana claimed. “The NCC believes that high-level dialogues with Iran and other Middle Eastern partners is the proper method of dealing with Iran.”  The NCC believes in high toned denunciations for Christians who disagree with its political agenda.  But radical Islamists and other often very savage adversaries of Western Civilization always merit endless respectful dialogue, according to the NCC mindset.The NCC, like the rest of the Religious Left, prefers to dismiss all pro-Israel evangelicals as “Left-Behind” fanatics whose support for the Jews is merely a crass and self-serving preparation for the end-times.  CFI’s “efforts are the latest in a century old apocalyptic movement that began in earnest in the 19th century,” the NCC asserted.  “Sometimes called Christian Zionism because of its uncritical support for the State of Israel, it is based on a literal reading of Biblical apocalyptic texts.”Actually, Zionism and philo-semitism have a long history in Christianity, arguably dating back to the New Testament, whose writers were themselves Jews who followed a Jewish messiah, obviously.   But more specifically among Western Protestants, a mystical attachment to the Jewish people and a belief in their connectedness to the land of Israel originated at least with the English Puritans.  Zionism of some sort has nearly always resonated among some religionists in America over the last 400 years.        The NCC’s founders and early leaders were themselves ardent supporters of Israel.  It was not until after the radicalization of the 1960’s, and the advent of Liberation Theology, that leftist Protestant prelates suddenly realized that Palestinian insurrectionists were actually God’s revolutionary vanguard against Zionist imperialism.  Today, the NCC and its allies insist that they support Israel, within its pre-1967 borders.  Naturally, these clerics prefer not to acknowledge that those borders are largely defensible, and that an unrestricted “right of return” for Palestinian descendants would likely erase the Jewish state demographically.According to Kireopoulos, the CUFI “message differs greatly with what theologians have taught for centuries” about Israel.  Apparently, the NCC believes itself a mouthpiece for orthodox theology, instead of the shrinking pulpit for heterodox liberal Protestantism that it actually is.  That the restoration of the Jews to Israel may serve some Providential purpose is hardly a belief confined to freakish evangelicals, as the Religous Left, sitting inside its insulated and largely empty churches, prefers to imagine.“The NCC advocates for a two-state solution, with a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state,” declared the NCC news release, sounding so very reasonable.  “The NCC has stated the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories is unsupportable. This position is shared by Churches worldwide, and is counter to the position espoused by CUFI.”According to Kireopoulos, “CUFI stands apart from the historic Churches still present in the Holy Land.”  These churches for Palestinian Christians are “adversely affected by the policies supported by…CUFI.”  The NCC prelate blamed pro-Israel evangelicals in the U.S. for the plight of Palestinian churches, which are “diminishing and are threatened with extinction.”Of course, the NCC will never mention that Christian populations from throughout the Middle-East are declining, thanks largely to pressures from radical Islam.  For the Religious Left, the Islamists themselves are never at fault but are merely the understandable consequence of endless Western oppressions dating to the Crusades.  Almost hilariously, Kireopoulos frets about the de-emphasis on Jesus Christ by CUFI’s pro-Israel evangelicals.“The Christian Gospel is clear that salvation came through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Kireopoulos intoned.  “To supplement this message is to prevert the Gospel” that CUFI claims to preach.  Naturally, the NCC and the Religious Left prefer not to mention inconvenient topics such as the resurrection of Christ in their various outreaches to Muslims.  In fact, the Resurrection, which for leftist Protestants is typically just a poetic metaphor for social justice, is not a topic on which the NCC typically focuses.Just as the NCC is almost never interested in persecuted Christians anywhere, except when the supposed perpetrators are Israel and its American evangelical supporters, so too the NCC will not usually cite the Resurrection, except as a polemic against both Israel’s Jews and their Christians friends.