| October 2006 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
British scientists grow human liver in a laboratory:
British scientists have grown the world's first artificial liver from stem cells in a breakthrough that will one day provide entire organs for transplant.
The technique that created the 'mini-liver', currently the size of a one pence piece, will be developed to create a full-size functioning liver.
Described as a 'Eureka moment' by the Newcastle University researchers, the tissue was created from blood taken from babies' umbilical cords just a few minutes after birth.
I've heard acquaintances say that yes, our university professors are wildly liberal, but they aren't likely to actually persuade students to change parties or to vote differently. Some documentary evidence has appeared to show otherwise. From Michael Barone:
In 2004, the electorate that went to the polls or voted absentee was, according to the adjusted NEP exit poll, 37 percent Democratic and 37 percent Republican.
...At this stage of the campaign, pollsters try to screen their respondents and report only those who answer a series of questions in ways that suggest they are actually going to vote. Many polls find that a higher proportion of Democrats than Republicans pass the screen. Others find similar proportions do. But pollsters of both parties will admit that polls do a poor job at projecting turnout.
That was particularly true in 2004, when both parties conducted massive turnout drives. Democrats concentrated on black neighborhoods in central cities and on university towns, where they could be sure of getting 80 percent to 90 percent of the vote. They achieved their goals in just about every target state, with big turnouts in Cleveland and Madison, Wisc., in St. Louis and Gainesville, Fla. Nationally, John Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore had in 2000.
That seems pretty compelling - Dems were 37% nationally, but in university towns, votes were 80% - 90% for Dems.
From Ronald Kessler:
WASHINGTON -- FBI agents and CIA officers will tell you that their single most important tool for hunting down terrorists and avoiding another 9/11 attack is the Patriot Act. Yet the Patriot Act will likely be the first law the Democrats will try to eviscerate if they gain control of Congress.
This year alone, the Democrats overwhelmingly voted five times to kill the Patriot Act. When that didn't work, they filibustered. Last December, after the vast majority of Senate Democrats voted against renewing the Patriot Act, their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., boasted to a cheering crowd of political supporters, "We killed the Patriot Act."
On the House side, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., along with a majority of House Democrats, voted on March 7 against re-authorizing the Patriot Act.
If Democrats take control of the House, Pelosi is said to be determined, as House speaker, to move up Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, R-Fla., to chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. According to Hastings, "The Patriot Act has given the government new powers to bug telephones, monitor e-mails and internet use, and search public databases. This is completely unacceptable."
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry, running for the presidency, called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights."
Just what rights are they talking about?
Before President Bush proposed the Patriot Act, because of what was known as "the wall," FBI agents working the same case could not talk to each other about it because some were working it as a criminal case and others were working it as an intelligence case.
"We had to report violations when criminal and intelligence agents talked to each other," Barry Mawn, who was assistant FBI director in charge of the New York field office, told me. "The assistant special agent in charge over both sides had to try to keep it all separate in his head. My guys were always coming to me and complaining that they weren't allowed to share information between intelligence and the criminal side."
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald recalled that when he worked on a criminal investigation of Osama bin Laden in New York in early 1996, "We could talk to citizens, local police officers, other U.S. government agencies, foreign police officers . . . We could even talk to al-Qaida members, and we did." But, he said, "The FBI agents across the street from us were assigned to a parallel investigation of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. We could not learn information they had gathered. That was the wall.'"
The wall also prohibited sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA. The 9/11 commission report tragically recounted how the distinction between criminal and intelligence matters precluded the FBI from taking the one step that might have led to unraveling the 9/11 plot before it took place.
On August 29, 2001, Ali Soufan, an FBI agent in the New York field office, pleaded with headquarters to approve a criminal investigation so that the full resources of his squad could be used to find Khalid al-Mihdhar, who turned out to be one of the 9/11 hijackers.
When told that the wall prohibited taking that step, Soufan responded by email: "Someday someone will die - and wall or not, the public will not understand why we were not more effective . . ."
On September 11, al-Mihdhar boarded American Flight 77, which took off from Washington's Dulles Airport en route to Los Angeles and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m., killing 189 people. After the attacks, Soufan learned that al-Mihdhar was one of the hijackers. The agent informed his supervisor, who reassured him, "We did everything by the book."
The Patriot Act tore down the wall which tied the counterterrorism effort in knots. It also gave the FBI the tools it needed to hunt down terrorists quickly before an attack occurs.
Read the whole thing.
When will U.S. Muslims repudiate those who blow up trains, planes and buildings in the name of Islam?
What does the legal and judicial system of Sharia say about Islam?
These and other significant subjects are addressed in an excellent discussion that is going on in the comment thread here for a post titled, Unassimilated Islam is a Cancer on the West. Commenter Al started things off in this post:
Look, I agree with what you guys are saying here for the most part, but I just want to say that we can't let ourselves view all Muslims negatively. We all know that it is only a few Muslims who are "out to get us and our way of life". And this is a very real thing. But all cultures have their "freaks", and we can't let them alter how we view the rest of the people in an entire culture. Hitler was a Christian, right?
I just wanted to throw that out there.
Al's raising a very important issue, and one which I think most Westerners are thinking about. Yes, there are radical Islamists who are killing in the name of Islam all over the world. But the majority of Islamists aren't directly involved in the actual attacks. So what exactly are we to make of them? Al followed up with this:
...I was mostly directing that towards Vik, because I just get this feeling that he to expands his negative views to reach all Muslims as a group.
Vik, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it's just a little frustrating when you seem to not accept Muslims because you apply our, and your, standards to what they do, and when you apply your idea of some of them to all of them. They are very different people, with a very different culture, but let's see if we can apply that "Judeo-Christian tradition of wanting to love each other" to everyone, and not just those who are familiar to us.
I do agree with many of your points here-- you're a smart guy and the things you say are valid. But I'd like to add one word to the title of this page; Unassimilated Islam is SOMETIMES a cancer on the west.
I responded:
Hi Al,
Thanks for the good words.
Unassimilated Islam is SOMETIMES a cancer on the west.
No, honestly, I think you've got it wrong. Historically people have come to America from all sorts of different cultures and assimilated and become successful. We must insist that Muslims who have come here do the same.
Muslims have used the policy of non-assimilation in other nations to grow a culture within the host nation that is hostile to that nation, ultimately destroying the culture of the host nation. It's a very successful strategy and is directly analogous to cancer. Just look at France, Italy, or England today. You know what language they used to speak in Egypt? (This is a bit of a trick question, but the answer is illuminating.)
Have you looked at the Koran? A tremendous amount of it is unequivocally about killing and subjugating those of other religions. Not a line or two, as in the Bible, but line after line after line, passage after passage. And the life of Mohammed was one of killing and warfare.
Only Islam makes it an article of faith that those of other religions are offensive simply by believing in their religion. Islam says that Christianity is offensive because it says Christ is the son of God, and says that Judaism is offensive because it does not recognize that Christ is a prophet.
If you raise little children to believe in this stuff you often get adults who try to carry it out in their lives. It is extremely dangerous.
...I was mostly directing that towards Vik, because I just get this feeling that he to expands his negative views to reach all Muslims as a group.
Well, that's not exactly right. I welcome the Muslims who are here to repudiate terrorists, to assimilate, and to become successful, like everybody else.
Per Wafa Sultan:
...You would be surprised if you knew how many people in Syria believe what I believe. Using fake names, and behind the scenes, they are supporting me. Because you are risking your life and the life of your family. Everyone is looking to the free world to get them out of their prison.When Muslims say, there are 1.3 billion of them, it makes it sound like they are the whole world. But the rest of the world is 5 billion. Muslims are a minority and they have to act like it. Those Muslims have no choice of religion, they are forced to be Muslim. Give those 1.3 billion Muslims freedom of religion, and then see how many Muslims there are in the world!
It would be easy for Muslims in the U.S. to show that they should not be lumped in with terrorists who kill in the name of Islam. All they have to do is march, make speeches, and have rallies proclaiming loudly that anyone who blows up a restaurant, bus, plane, etc., in the name of Islam, is lost to Islam and is no longer a good Muslim. Easy. But, as we all know, this is something Muslims do not yet do. They explicitly do not yet separate themselves from those who do those things. It's up to them to separate themselves from those who do such things, and so far, they have not yet done so.
The result is that it is almost impossible not to believe that they do not tacitly support such things.
They can step forward any time and separate themselves from those who want to destroy the West. It's long been time for them to do so. What's stopping them?
Please check out my post on Wafa Sultan, and then let me know your thoughts.
Al posted an excellent and thoughtful reply, which I will quote here in full:
I totally agree with what Sultan is saying, and it's pretty awesome that shes speaking like that for Arab news channels.
I do think that I personally would speak against Muslim acts of terrorism and violence if I was a Muslim who did not stand for it, just as you said they should do. But you and I aren't Muslims.
I truly believe that, as Americans, it is easy for us to judge the rest of the world and its people. And this is likely true for many people in other countries. But if we pride ourselves so strongly on being educated, thoughtful, advanced, and whatever else we would say, I don't understand why we can't also be understanding of the fact that most people in the world are radically different from us, and have been brought up and lived with raically different values, rules, culture, etc.
I think it is very possible that Muslims take their culture and religion much more seriously than most Christians and Jews do. And even if they aren't more dedicated to it, I still think that there is something that keeps them from speaking out against other Muslims.
It could be that they are taught that all Muslims are good and that they should never criticize each other, and it could be that they are afraid to go against any Muslim acts or thoughts. Or they could be unsure of whether or not violent and hateful acts carried out by other Muslims are truly what their religion asks for. It could also be some cultural issue that I could never learn of or understand. Whatever it is, they aren't speaking out against Muslim violence and acts of terror that are "in the name of Islam".
My point is that it is too easy to judge Muslims on this issue, and it is too easy to state what they SHOULD be doing about it without stepping into their shoes. This might sound stupid and naive to you. But all I can say is that they are very different people from us, and have all grown up with Islam as a large part of who they are.
It could be that they dont criticize their own religion and they especially don't express thoughts against it. They may feel that speaking out against people carrying out violence in the name of their religion is like denouncing Islam. And it is not acceptable in their culture to do so.
These are just some ideas. We just cant comprehend some of their thoughts about certain issues or why they differ from ours simply because we are not them.
I agree with you in saying that you feel Muslims should speak out against other Muslims' violent acts, but your ideas shouldnt be used to fuel an even larger nonacceptance of Muslims than what is already present in America.
I think it would be more useful for us to understand why it is happening (or not happening, that is) than it is to keep talking about our assumptions about Muslims based on our American standards.
Commenter A.M. Whittaker then provided important insights based on her first-hand experience with a Muslim community in the U.S.:
"I grew up with Muslims and there didn’t seem to be a problem. I had no prejudice towards Muslims or Arabs. They were my friends and classmates in the same public schools in New York and their parents were shopkeepers, business owners, doctors, cpa’s, educators and diplomats. ...But the recent wave of immigrants seems to be quite different - far more fundamental, radical, and unaccepting of the core values of the United States."Dear Al,
The spirit of charity is evident in your posts; that is a hallmark of the Judeo/Christian/Eastern ethic.
No other group, save the Communists with their Manifesto, wished to change nations and societies to reflect their values. All Christians, Jews, and adherents to Eastern philosophies actually thrive in our country.
With the many roommates I have hosted, only the Muslim was boasting to me about what the Qu'ran teaches, the wisdom of Sharia Law, and how Muslims are working to subjugate all the world to Islam. (Note to Christians: When Jesus comes back, he will be a Muslim!) She said the beauty of Islam is that it goes beyond national boundaries; Islam is a nation and political sovereignty is non-sensical to them. Islam is a nation that needs to spread around the world, breaking down political, judicial, and social boundaries in favor of their own.
I grew up with Muslims and there didn't seem to be a problem. I had no prejudice towards Muslims or Arabs. They were my friends and classmates in the same public schools in New York and their parents were shopkeepers, business owners, doctors, cpa's, educators and diplomats. They were from Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Indonesia, and Afghanistan.
My friends attended Islamic instruction after school in the same way the Jews received training in Hebrew and the Catholics learnt their catechism. I imagine my Chinese, Vietnamese, and Japanese friends also had their lessons in religion and culture. (There weren't many Protestants in our neighborhood!)
But the recent wave of immigrants seems to be quite different - far more fundamental, radical, and unaccepting of the core values of the United States. They don't seem to want to get involved with any community except the Muslim one and they are critical of the United States' culture and values.
We have gone to extremes to accomodate people of all faiths and backgrounds. We have laws in place to guarantee equal opportunity and redress of grievances so there is no excuse not to take one's place in the American community.
Why did they come here if they are opposed to what our country stands for? You need to ask that; I do whenever I enter my building.
People and governments at first did not take Communism seriously, and look how it devastated the world in the past century!
The Qu'ran is just as much a blueprint for world domination as the Communist Manifesto.
It is time to take radical Islam seriously; I take them at their 'word'.
So should you.
I noted:
Al and A.M., I think we're having an excellent exchange here.
Al, in your post #48, you presented a number of possible explanations for why Muslims in the U.S. don't oppose Muslims who are blowing up buses, trains, planes, restaurants, etc. So we agree that most Muslims in the U.S. are not yet seen opposing such things.
I agree with you that it's important to understand as much as possible why most Muslims are tacitly supporting the people who want to kill us; at the same time, we must take action to keep radical Islamists from killing Westerners in the name of Islam. Muslims in the U.S. must be required to assimilate, and ultimately to actively oppose those who kill in the name of their religion.
We just cant comprehend some of their thoughts about certain issues or why they differ from ours simply because we are not them.
Comprehending them is a plus, but it is not required. What is required is to take all actions to keep Islamists from killing Westerners.
And finally (so far), A.M. provided additional excellent observations:
Comprehending them is a plus.
Absolutely. I do comprehend them and have rejected their beliefs and laws.
I judge a people/country by their laws and judicial system.
Sharia Law is unacceptable to the Western world; it is wholly astounding that Sharia justice is motivated by the basest of human emotions and actions while Western justice is motivated by the highest ideals and models.
Sharia Law is followed by most Muslims around the world despite other laws that are in place in the respective countries where they live. Sharia binds them as a nation without walls or boundaries. It covers all aspects of a Muslim's day and life from dawn to dusk. It is a vastly complicated and draconian system which includes even the most mundane activities.
Sharia is deeply ingrained in each Muslim and part of their overall spiritual makeup; it cannot be easily separated. It supersedes national laws. The Qu'ran is more valid to most Muslims in the US than the Constitution.
Please read the section called, #7 Sharia, democracy and human rights concerning compatibility with democracy and human rights.
This is something that I've come to comprehend: Islam is not compatible with the West. It's as simple as that. It is dangerous to make exceptions, distinctions, accommodations, justifications, or rationalizations.
All U.S. citizens, or those who wish to be citizens, need to adhere to and be subject to US laws and judicial system. How is this possible when most of Sharia contradicts US law?
And it just may be that many moderate or non-observant Muslims are afraid or unwilling to stand up against the Islamists because of this internal struggle between Sharia and secular law.
From Newt Gingrich:
Pelosi voted:
- NO on the Border Security Bill
- NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent
- NO on eliminating the marriage penalty
- NO on eliminating the death tax
- NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
- NO on the Defense of Marriage Act
- NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization)
- NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
- NO on banning partial-birth abortion
- NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote
- NO on the Patriot Act
- NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists
- NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist detainees
The current issue (11-2-06 - no link) of Rolling Stone is wildly anti-Conservative, with a cover that proclaims, "Time to Go!" with regard to the Republican majority in Congress. However, they did let Pete Townshend, legendary songwriter of the Who, have his say in an interview:
...The problems of generations, and the denial of our parents' generation, echoes onto the next one. I know this is the stuff of psychoanalysis, and I know we have to live in the moment, but our response to what happens in the world today is tempered and shaped by the way we were brought up to deal with trauma, spectacular attacks on our sanctity, prejudice, brutality, bullying, religious fundamentalism, all those things.
"At this time in my life, with nuclear threats coming from Iran and Korea, I am becoming so impatient with the ex-hippies all around me."And where are we today? We're in the same anti-Semitic apologetic denial - it's a dishrag of a policy. Trying to blame Israel for defending a country we created. And I'm not even Jewish! Jesus ####### Christ. And let's start with him! Sweet jesus. This album absolutely had to have several songs about Jesus the man, Muhammad the man, but not modern Christianity or Islam. They are both potentially anti-Semitic today. And I think the fact is that, when I was working on this album I just thought, "It's ####### about time that I completed my story." At this time in my life, with nuclear threats coming from Iran and Korea, I am becoming so impatient with the ex-hippies all around me. I am suddenly thinking like an extreme reactionary, right-wing, war-mongering.... ####### hell, come inside my brain! The incredible numbers of dead in the last war make it clear that we can't afford to wait to be hit again. That's my opinion. That's my story. Peace is something that has to be made. It doesn't come from passivity.
[.....]
As the album's release approaches, do you have any anxiety about how people will interpret the meaning of the new songs?
Once the song is out, I don't have a problem with people feeling whatever they're going to feel about it. You take a song like "Won't Get Fooled Again," which has been rightly fingered now as a reactionary tune written to say, "Listen, I can't cope with the counterculture. I'm twenty four years old and I've got a baby. Please don't come a-knocking on my door and say, 'The revolution is happening, Pete, and you've got to lead us.' Go away." When Roger sang it, suddenly it became almost the anthem of the counterculturalists. You say to somebody, "I'm not doing it," and they hear you say, "I'm doing it." Like, "I'm not going to tell you that I think President Bush is a bad man." And people go, "Oh, OK, so President Bush is a bad man." Let me tell you again: He ####### is not a ####### bad man, you ####### idiot.
When a pro-Iraq-War article appears in the LA Times, it deserves appreciation, because we need a lot more of that from that paper. Today's edition has the following headline:
War on West shifts back to Afghanistan
Militants are being drawn away from Iraq, experts say.
This says that in Iraq, the U.S. is fighting those who have made "war on the West." In this way it appears to recognize that the U.S. is right to be fighting in Iraq.
The article continues:
The conflict in Iraq is drawing fewer foreign fighters as Muslim extremists aspiring to battle the West turn their attention back to the symbolically important and increasingly violent turf of Afghanistan, European and U.S. anti-terrorism officials say.
The shift of militants to Afghanistan this year suggests that Al Qaeda and its allies, armed with new tactics honed in Iraq, are coming full circle five years after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban mullahs.
That says that in Iraq the U.S. has been fighting "Al Qaeda and its allies" - again an unmistakable recognition that the U.S. is right to be in Iraq.
And again:
After the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003, Muslim extremists from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa and Europe flocked to confront the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Although foreigners have been a minority in the Iraqi insurgency, militants such as Jordanian-born Abu Musab Zarqawi played a major role in suicide attacks and kidnap-killings.
The article uses the phrase, "Muslim extremists" - not "militants," as in the article's subhead, and as is so often used by an MSM which refuses to show disapproval of those who behead and who purposely bomb restaurants, planes and trains. And, these Muslim extremists were drawn from many nations to Iraq, where our army has been fighting them.
LA Times, this is the direction to go in - to boost readership, improve profits, and to help defend America from these Muslim extremists who are making war on the West. Keep it up!
From the LA Times:
Saudi prisoner release gives U.S. pause
The 29 ex-inmates from Guantanamo, freed for Ramadan, are to return to jail soon in the kingdom.
U.S. officials, apparently caught off guard by the Saudi government's recent release of more than two dozen former Guantanamo Bay prisoners, are voicing fears that the men will join the camp of violent extremist groups.
The Saudis released the 29 men from jail for observance of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting and atonement, with instructions to return to custody by the end of this month.
I can't wait to see if these guys turn themselves back in.
The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation states that they are suing Kerry associates:
PHILADELPHIA, Oct 10, 2006 -- The ongoing battle over the truth of alleged war crimes and atrocities committed by Americans in the Vietnam War moves to a Philadelphia courtroom this week.
An action filed in Philadelphia's Common Pleas Court today by a group of highly decorated veterans and POWs may finally hold Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and his allies accountable for the allegations they have propagated over the past 35 years.
On the same site, per Col. "Bud" Day:
Thirty five years ago John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam branding them as a "war criminals." Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.
Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry's anti-war persona for the first time. It isn't dubious medals or Kerry's disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.
The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then-Lt. (j.g.) Kerry's acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry's public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
The VVLF site states that Kerry had previously sued the VVLF 2004 in order to halt distribution of the film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal:"
The suit seeks to recover legal fees and other costs associated with Sherwood and the VVLF's defense against legal actions brought by Kerry's associates. Those actions claimed that "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a film documenting the impact of John Kerry's allegations against POWs, defamed them by challenging their assertions and those of John Kerry that they personally committed or witnessed other U.S. Servicemen engage in war crimes. Those actions were suddenly withdrawn this summer.
During the 2004 campaign, top Kerry campaign officials circulated memos seeking to silence the film and used the Campbell and Bjornson lawsuit as a threat against at least one Philadelphia-area theater to not show the film. That theater ended up canceling the showing just before it was to be viewed. At the time the suit was withdrawn, The Legal Intelligencer (July 13, 2006) reported that the lawyer for Kerry's associates had said that bringing the suit had accomplished their goals of gaining publicity and stopping the film from being shown.
Kerry's suit against the VVLF has recently been dropped, under timing that leads the VVLF to the following obervation:
The suits by Kerry's associates were suddenly dropped earlier this year just as they and several of their allies faced depositions under oath and subpoenas of their military records.
If you have links to additional reports on this story, please post them or email them to me.
The NY Times has finally decided to let the public in on the secret of how well our economy is doing. Of course, they do it with a headline that proclaims that a successful economy is now irrelevant to voters.
This Time, It's Not the Economy
In many ways, the economy has not looked so good in a long time.
President Bush Monday with the first lady, Laura Bush. He is campaigning this week on the theme that the economy is doing well.
The price of gas at the pump has tumbled since midsummer. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in more than five years. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average has finally returned to its glory days of the late 1990's, setting records almost daily.
President Bush, in hopes of winning credit for his party's stewardship of the economy, is spending two days this week campaigning on the theme that the economy is purring. "No question that a strong economy is going to help our candidates," Mr. Bush said in a CNBC interview yesterday, "primarily because they have got something to run on, they can say our economy's good because I voted for tax relief."
But Republican candidates do not seem to be getting any traction from the glowing economic statistics with midterm elections just two weeks away.
The economy is virtually nowhere to be found among the campaign ads of embattled Republican incumbents fighting to hold onto their House or Senate seats. Nor is it showing up as a strong weapon in the arsenal of Republican governors defending their jobs from Democrats.
"I don't know of another election cycle in which the economy was so good, yet the election prospects for the incumbent party looked so bad," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist. "If something goes wrong, Republicans are to blame. If something goes right, Republicans don't get credit."...Disenchantment over the war in Iraq has morphed into disillusionment over the direction of the country, breeding distrust in the administration's policies, surveys suggest. Moreover, concerned by weak wage growth, costly health care and eroding benefits, many middle-class voters do not see the economy improving for them.
"Voters overwhelmingly don't approve of the president on the economy," said Amy Walter, a senior editor at the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm that handicaps political races. "It comes down to the issue of credibility. And so many voters feel so pessimistic about the direction of the country."
Richard Curtin, who runs the University of Michigan's consumer surveys, has found that even as consumer confidence has improved since gasoline prices took a tumble in August, the White House has gotten no credit for the gain.
"The one indicator that didn't improve," Mr. Curtin said, "was confidence in the government's economic policies."
So the Times can print one feature story on the economy, slanted as hard as they can against GWB, and claim they didn't suppress the news about it.
In fact, if they had been covering the story of the booming economy regularly since GWB took office, the Dems would have no hope of getting elected to anything.
Rep. Hunter to CNN: "YOU CAN'T BE ON BOTH SIDES."
From The Christian Science Monitor:
Radical Islam finds US 'sterile ground'
Home-grown terror cells are largely missing in action, a contrast to Europe's situation.
It is good that the CSM finds evidence to this effect. However, the article contains a number of statements which may be overly reassuring. For example:
"The success of ... Saudi-inspired religious zealotry in Europe was in large part because the Saudis put up the money to build mosques and pay for imams," says Ian Cuthbertson, a counterterrorism expert at the World Policy Institute at the New School for Social Research. "The American Muslim community was rich enough not to require Saudi money to build its mosques."
This would be news to people including:
• Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. From his web site:
At Judiciary Hearing, Schumer details how top officials in the Saudi government help finance schools and mosques in the US and Middle East that spread militant teachings
• Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam:"
Of the more than 1,200 mosques in America, more than 80 percent have been built within the last 20 years - thanks in large part to Saudi money, according to Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam."
"Saudi Arabia alone has spent $87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere," Safa said.
• The 60+ Congressional sponsors and co-sponsors who introduced H.R. 2037: Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005:
To halt Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents, and for other purposes.
...(5) A report released on January 28, 2005 by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom found that Saudi Arabia is the state most responsible for the propagation of material promoting hatred, intolerance, and violence within United States mosques and Islamic centers, and that these publications are often official publications of a Saudi ministry or distributed by the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C.
Here's another observation from the Christian Science Monitor article that may be open to question:
In mosques in America, it's fairly common for imams to preach assimilation, says Mr. Zogby. That's not as true in Europe, particularly in poorer neighborhoods where sermons can be laced with extremism.
This seems to imply that radical Islam is not preached in mosques in the U.S., or taught in the affiliated schools. This would be a surprise to Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. From counterterrorism expert Harvey Kushner, author of "Holy War on the The Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States:"
In 1997, there were over a hundred Islamic day schools and more than a thousand Sunday or weekend schools in the United States, many of them affiliated with mosques, all expanding the reach of Wahhabi doctrine.
For years, mainstream America wasn't watching what was taught in Islamic religious schools, but 9/11 put these learning institutions in the spotlight. The USA Patriot Act allowed the government to look into mosques for the first time. What investigators found was very disturbing. The Saudis, either directly or through intermediary groups such as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), are pouring "truckloads" of money into American mosques and schools, New York Senator Charles Schumer told a congressional subcommittee." In exchange, they demand that these mosques and schools toe the Wahhabi line. Saudi textbooks that preach violence against infidels can be found in some American Muslim schools."In February 2003, the American Jewish Committee and the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace released an analysis of ninety-three textbooks published by the Saudi Ministry of Education and used between 1999 and 2002. The books, American Jewish Committee Executive Director David A. Harris told a congressional committee, "reveal a widespread presence of contempt towards Western civilization and followers of other religions.
According to the study the teachings include:
...It is of little comfort that, in defense of the books, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told CBS's 60 Minutes that "85 percent of what was being taught in the schools was not hateful."
- Islam is the only true religion.
- Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Muslim world.
- Christians and Jews are infidels.
- The West is a "decaying society" and the source of Muslim misfortunes.
- There can be no peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.
- Jews are wicked
- Israel does not exist on world maps.
The CSM article notes that there are no Islamic ghettos in the U.S., but then appears to jump to the conclusion, that Islam in the U.S. excludes what Steve Emerson has called, the "cultural jihadist," i.e. the otherwise peaceful person who encourages other Muslims to violence. From the CSM article:
"What we have here among Muslim-Americans is a very conservative success ethic," says John Zogby, president of Zogby International in Utica, N.Y., whose polling firm has surveyed the Muslim-American community. "People come to this country and they like it. They don't view it as the belly of the beast. With very few exceptions, you don't see the bitter enclaves that you have in Europe."
"The culture is qualitatively different [in the American Muslim community] from what we've seen from public information from Europe, and that actually says very positive things about our society," says Jonathan Winer, a terrorism expert in Washington. "We don't have large populations of immigrants with a generation sitting around semi-employed and deeply frustrated. That's a gigantic difference."
While it is true that the U.S. does not have the large populations of underemployed Muslims that Europe has, it may be jumping to a conclusion to assume that there is no culture of radical Islam in the U.S.
From Dr. Wafa Sultan, one of Time magazines' 100 most influential people in the world:
Muslims at my house say, "wait a few years -- we will replace the U.S. constitution with sharia law, here in the U.S." They are working for that. They don't say it to your face, but they are working for that.
From Steve Emerson:
There are essentially two types of jihadists. The hard-core military jihadists who are prepared to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. They have already been indoctrinated. All they await is a charismatic leader or the external order that gives them a green light. Secondly, there is the far greater number of what I call "cultural jihadists." The cultural jihadists are not willing to carry out attacks themselves, but rather, they provide the moral support for the military jihadists.
They are the ones that believe that Israel or the US carried out 9-11. In the trial of the would-be NYC Herald Square bomber, an undercover informant for the NYPD recounted an astonishing observation. He said that as he made his rounds among two different mosques, he encountered a virulent hatred for the United States. This does not mean that all mosque members hate the United States-I know of mosques and Islamic leaders who genuinely foreswear violence--but it does tell us that there is a problem that has been brewing here for a long time. For example, I can show you a tape of a Hamas rally held in New Jersey where thousands of people in attendance-women, children and men-are all chanting slogans such as "We buy paradise with the blood of the Jews." Do I think that all of them are terrorists? Of course not. But they are cultural jihadists.
And here's a first-hand account posted here by commenter A.M. Whittaker, a resident of Virginia:
I live in a large building complex where over 60% of my neighbors are Arab Muslims. I have had many heart-to-heart discussions since the events of September 11th and despite the fact that the neighbors who will speak to me are educated and doing well financially, there is such a different ethic and view of others outside their faith.
It is they who refuse to communicate.
Muslim-owned shops in this area threw out Danish products and held meetings to protest the cartoons.
They live apart from their non-Muslim neighbors and do not join in community activities or national celebrations (as I have been informed by many of my Muslim neighbors) i.e. the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving as it is forbidden for them to do so.
They laud Christians and Jews as, People of the Book, yet their hatred against Israel, Jews, the Catholic Church, Christians, those of other faiths, and the United States is far more vehement than our outpourings on these pages. Consider the most popular pop song they sing is, <quote>'I Hate Israel'</quote>. It is sung in all the local Arab clubs in my area - especially at the hookah shisha lounges.
Please visit: ['Bully Bush', 'Vampire Sharon' In Egyptian Music Video]
and: [Meet the man behind 'I hate Israel' (and other popular favourites)]
This is the face of ordinary Muslims.
Could you imagine a similar song in the US called, I Hate Muslims being tolerated by the mainstream?
To be a good Muslim, one is obligated to follow the words and direction of Mohammad, just as to be a good Christian, one is obligated to follow the words and direction of Jesus.
They are diametrically opposite commissions.
It is also interesting to note that I did not see any Muslims who gathered to condemn and protest the actions of September 11th - or any other time fellow Americans have been attacked. I cannot remember one instance when Muslims gathered en masse in Washington to support the United States. I did not see any Muslim rescue workers or volunteers at either Ground Zero or the Pentagon. (I am originally from New York and lived near the Pentagon.) So by their silence and apathy towards their fellow Americans, one infers that they support terrorism. they certainly don't support this country.
While my local church immediately invited a Muslim speaker to explain how the American Islamic community felt after September 11th, there weren't any other Muslims in attendance or reciprocation of fellowship by the local mosque.
My Ethiopian and Sudanese neighbors have some interesting insights from their perspective that are less flattering. These people have moved here and are trying to assimilate as quickly as possible into the American way of life.
What a contrast!
If the American Muslim community wants to distance themselves from Islamists and terrorists, they should be more visible and strive to become part of the American community.
This is an Islamic community in the U.S., in the state of Virginia, where it is common in social gatherings to sing songs of hate. Such a culture is by definition one of cultural jihad, one that encourages hate and violence.
The CSM article contains much good news. But as shown here, it appears to be overly reassuring on a number of points.
First of all, I want to applaud NBC for reportedly deciding not to show Madonna on the cross in her upcoming concert special. NBC is showing that it will not have double standards for Christians and Muslims.
Second, I want to note how this incident is an example of what Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park are talking about when they say, that either everything is okay to show, or nothing is. Because MSM bowed to the threats (mostly to kill each other) of radical Islamists, and didn't show the Mohammed cartoons, we now find that Madonna can't do her whole act on TV.
So I applaud NBC for their decision, and observe that the thing that would be even better, would be, to show the Mohammed cartoons, and also let Madonna do her whole act.
You know, I'd been starting to think that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are being responsive enough to the voters, and that maybe this needs to be reflected in the upcoming elections, to the detriment of the Republicans. Instapundit has an excellent rundown of the many errors of the Republicans - Terry Schiavo, Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports deal, GWB's semi-amnesty approach to immigration, William Jefferson, and Foleygate.
But then I saw this video from Braden Barty and Larry Elder :
In this video, Barty and Elder provide a comparable list of the government's achievements. Here are quotes from the video:
( The video also debunks the vicious "Bush lied" argument with quotes from John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, proclaiming the "need to disarm Saddam Hussein" due to the threat of his "weapons of mass destruction," "secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons", and efforts to "develop nuclear weapons." )
These are all huge, historic achievements - exactly the kinds of big wins we want from our most successful governments. They are wins on both national security and on the economy.
The matters of Schiavo, Miers, the Dubai ports, William Jefferson, and Foleygate, are all serious political blunders, harming the rapport of the government with the people. Yet in comparison to these historic achievements, isn't it apparent that these matters are, by comparison, trivialities?
Instapundit's list also included GWB's semi-amnesty approach to immigration, an issue of the greatest importance to this country. But with the passage by Congress of the bill to build a 700-mile fence, there has been movement on this issue in the direction of enforcing the laws against illegal immigration.
Did you know that online gambling just became criminalized?
