| August 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
Sign in New York Subway
On a trip to New York this past week, I saw the sign shown in this photo, on the subway. I was reminded that CAIR had recently sought to stop Americans from doing exactly what the sign called for. CAIR had sued the passengers on the plane who had reported the odd behavior of the flying imams. It literally took an act of Congress (the King Amendment) to shut that effort by CAIR down, forcing CAIR to drop those suits. This sign showed that New York city recognized the importance of the vigilance of our citizens in keeping us safe. In light of this, it's even more amazing that the Dems tried to kill the King amendment.
Two of my fellow subway passengers asked why I'd taken the photo. I told them about CAIR, and they were very aware of that organization. Then they volunteered the following surprising observation:
"We see them practicing all the time. You see one of them with an iPod and no headphones. Or carrying a dufflebag and wearing a turtleneck in the middle of the summer. I mean - come on!"
From U.S. News and World Report: "Momentum Shifting To GOP In Iraq Debate" - discussing how the views of key Dem lawmakers are now shifting in favor of our work in Iraq - our noble, heroic, difficult work, to bring Democracy and Capitalism to the heart of the Mid East - the accomplishment of which would be a historic achievement that would assist greatly in bringing Islam out of the dark ages that many of its practitioners still inhabit, of rage and hatred against non-Muslims.
Now, what could possibly have happened, to change the minds of these key Dem lawmakers?
It turns out that it was a little tiny thing called, checking out the facts. They actually went to Iraq and found out what was going on:
...the eyewitness reports from individual Democratic lawmakers who've recently visited Iraq appear to have changed the dynamic in the debate over the war. The Kansas City Star's "The Buzz," for example, reports Democratic Rep. Brian Baird "saw enough progress on the ground that he will no longer vote for binding withdrawal timelines." Rep. Jerry McNerney "suggested that his trip to Iraq made him more flexible in his search for a bipartisan accord on the war."
This is a much more powerful strategy for decision-making, than mindlessly parroting the verbiage of the far left.
I give great credit to Baird, McNerney, and others, who have had the courage to find out the facts, and to bring that news home to their party. Every Dem lawmakers who does as they have done, earns admiration for himself, and for his party as well.
As for those Dem lawmakers who have not yet come around:
Also changing his tune is Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, who says the troop increase 'has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaida on their heels.'" As the Washington Post says this morning, "Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with...Bush on the Iraq war." Instead, "Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions."
Republican leaders and Administration officials are looking on with interest at the newly found Democratic support for the troop surge. A GOP congressional aide tells the Political Bulletin, "We think it is interesting to hear Democrats reluctantly admitting that the surge has been a tactical success. It's fascinating considering the ride they've been on since January and that all Democrats in Congress voted to condemn the surge in one form or fashion." Republicans are speculating that with the recent drop in blockbuster attacks and American troop deaths in Iraq, the Democrats are a bit concerned that pushing for an immediate withdrawal might appear defeatist.
Gee - really? After a year of Dem lawmakers saying we can't win, we've already lost, yada yada yada, they're starting to be concerned that they might look defeatist? They should be ashamed of themselves for the damage they've done by encouraging the enemy to keep fighting and trying to kill our brave troops.
I'd like to see Dems like Baird and McNerney among the future leaders of their party.
LGF links a report from the NY Police Dept. that analyzes how Muslims may become radicalized and devoted to violence.
Yesterday the LA Times published additional information related to this subject:
After more than a decade of warning that the greatest threat of homegrown terrorism for the United States came from individual lone-wolf radicals, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have begun focusing on what they say is a greater threat -- small, anonymous groups of disaffected men who radicalize one another and turn to violence.
Federal officials say that most of the domestic terrorist threats now under investigation involve such groups, though they continue to rank Al Qaeda as the greatest danger globally.
Known among counter-terrorism officials as BOGs, for "bunch of guys," or GOGs, for "group of guys," the cells may offer greater opportunities for detection and infiltration than the lone-wolf threat because they are more numerous and most members are amateurs.
And even the LA Times didn't try to hide the key detail: the small groups of guys they are finding, are Islamic.
To illustrate the small-group threat, authorities cite the case of Derrick Shareef, a young Muslim convert. Shareef was arrested near Chicago in December on suspicion of plotting to use hand grenades to attack holiday shoppers.
Originally, authorities described Shareef as a loner. Now, they say that he was plotting with another American Muslim convert who allegedly had ties to terrorists in the United Kingdom. The two were discussing a variety of targets and tactics, including sniper attacks on U.S. troops and assaults on military recruiting stations, a federal prosecutor said at a July 28 court hearing.
..."It's an international phenomenon," according to one U.S. intelligence official, who said such cells were being monitored in the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere.
"There is no useful profile to assist law enforcement or intelligence to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization. Rather, the individuals who take this course begin as 'unremarkable' from various walks of life," the NYPD said in a report released Wednesday.
"It is a phenomenon that occurs because the individual is looking for an identity and a cause and unfortunately, often finds them in extremist Islam," the report said.
..."I am from America, and this tape is to let you guys know, who disbelieve in Allah, to let the enemies of Islam know, and to let the Muslims alike know, that the time for jihad is now," Shareef said in a martyrdom video, according to the affidavit.
It's notable and praiseworthy that a MSM publication such as the LA Times would print such an article -- one that presents the facts, and does not leave out the M-word.
What can be done about the situation discussed in the Times' article? The key is to observe that radical mosques do not give specific directions to commit acts of violence; that is, they don't, as the Mafia did, have leaders who identify specific targets for attack. Instead, these mosques act by general direction, filling their members with rage toward the non-Islamic society around them in general -- as well as with an approval of violent acts. The results that are now being documented, are that a number of the members of such mosques are itching to commit violent acts, and some of them proceed to do so.
Quoting from the NYPD report:
The jihadist ideology combines the extreme and minority interpretation [jihadi- Salafi] of Islam with an activist-like commitment or responsibility to solve global political grievances through violence. Ultimately, the jihadist envisions a world in which jihadi-Salafi Islam is dominant and is the basis of government.
...Two key indicators within this self-identification stage that suggests progression along the radicalization continuum are:
• Progression or Gravitation Towards Salafi Islam
• Regular Attendance at a Salafi mosque [emphasis in original]
As these individuals adopt Salafism, typical signatures include:
o Becoming alienated from one's former life; affiliating with like-minded individuals
o Joining or forming a group of like-minded individuals in a quest to strengthen one's dedication to Salafi Islam
o Giving up cigarettes, drinking, gambling and urban hip-hop gangster clothes.
o Wearing traditional Islamic clothing, growing a beard
o Becoming involved in social activism and community issues
This is the precise nature of the cancer. These mosques produce killers who go out and violently attack the people around them.
In short, these Salafi mosques are filling their members with hate in a way that is documented to produce murderers. These mosques must be shut down. We must develop the legal structure which will permit us to shut down such mosques, for the safety of our nation.
Republicans want workers to increase the labor supply.
Democrats want more voters they can try to get to vote Democratic.
U.S. citizens don't want to have to compete in the labor force against illegal immigrants who have the unfair advantage of not paying taxes or for health care.
U.S. citiizens want to control the borders.
U.S. citizens are want immigrants who follow our laws, are disease free, don't traffic in drugs, pay taxes, and who don't treat our hospital emergency rooms like an HMO (causing the closings of dozens of overburdened hospitals).
There seems to be an impression that there's no way to resolve all this to everyone's satisfaction. In fact, there's nothing mutually exclusive about any of these goals.
Nobody actually needs the immigrants to be illegal in order to accomplish their goals. Democrats, in fact, need the immigrants to be legal, so that they can vote. Republicans will find it far easier building the work force with immigrants who are legal and pay for taxes and health care.
So all that's left is a feasible way to control the border and get the immigrants to be legal. There is a very straightforward way to do this, and it doesn't require waiting for years and spending billions of dollars on a porous wall. It's got three parts:
Part One: Controlling the Border
Per Chris Burgard, maker of the documentary film Border, station 40,000 U.S. National Guardsmen or troops on the border. That's it - that's the end of illegal immigration. No fence needed.
It could be done in two weeks: in two weeks, the troops could be in place, and our border would be secure -- as opposed to the many years it would take to build a porous fence. The incremental costs are zero, since we already maintain the troops. Looked at in absolute dollars, the costs would be far less than the $12 billion Burgard estimates would be required to build the fence.
Part Two: Getting the Cooperation of the Legal Migrant Workers
Again per the film Border, the way to do this is to require each legal migrant worker to make a deposit in a bank account upon entry into this country - in an amount that would be a lot less than what they pay to the "coyotes" who currently lead them over the border at risk to their lives. A percentage of each legal paycheck would also go into the same account. Legal migrant workers would be required to pay for their health care. At the end of their authorized time, each legal migrant worker must leave the country to collect those moneys. With, for example, $10,000 at stake, the migrants will leave. They can see their families. And they can return here, safely and conveniently, to work again. The savings in human terms to these migrant workers, who endure terrible danger and hardship to come here under the current system, would be enormous.
Part Three: A Path to Citizenship
Like all those who wish to immigrate and become citizens of the U.S., there would be a path to full citizenship for these migrant workers who follow the rules and obey the law. This would let the Democrats achieve their goals of having more voters they can try to get to vote Democratic.
And there you have it. Everybody wins. Everybody gets what they want. Republicans get more workers to help build the economy. Democrats get more voters they can try to get to vote Democratic. U.S. citizens get safer nation to live in, and a fair labor market.
It's a win-win-win.
What kind of religion teaches that hatred between husband and wife is the norm? What kind of religion teaches that such hatred may be expected?
A cleric, Mahmoud Al-Masri - a teacher of Islam to little children - was televised in Egypt. last month. Here are some excerpts (you can view the clip on the Memri site).
Mahmoud Al-Masri: We should not teach our children to lie, because it is forbidden. But there are three types of lies that are permitted. Let me tell you what they are.
[...]
The first, my dears, is lying to the wife in matters of the heart. You are not married yet, but Allah willing, you will be one day, and then you will know what I'm talking about. The wife always likes her husband to say sweet things to her: "I love you," "I'm crazy about you," things like that. All the forbidden things he used to say before he was married –he should say them now, when they are no longer forbidden. The wife always likes to hear emotional stuff, in order to feel stability in life. The wife does not want money. She wants sweet words and emotions. Sometimes, the husband reaches the point where he gets tired of his wife, and can't stand her, and doesn't want to see her anymore. The same goes for the wife – she can't wait for the day that Allah will take him away from her. So what should we do in such a situation? In order to preserve the Muslim family, the Prophet Muhammad allowed the husband or wife to lie to one another – but only about matters of the heart, mind you. About what?
Children: Matters of the heart.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: Matters of the heart. If the wife asks her husband: "Do you love me, Abu Muhammad?" He should say: "Of course I love you, honey. How could anyone not love you?" He might not love her at all, but when he says: "I love you," she feels happy and stable, and feels that this is still her home, and that these are still her children and her husband. Right? But if he were to say to her: "The Prophet has forbidden lying, so I cannot tell a lie – I hate you, I want to kill you, and get rid of you..." Can they possibly continue to live together after this? No. That's why the Prophet Muhammad said: "You are allowed to lie to your wife, but only about matters of the heart." He is not allowed to lie to her about money, or about his comings and goings, and so on. No – only about matters of the heart. "Do you love me?" "I'm crazy about you, my life, you are a part of my heart. If you opened my heart, you wouldn't find anybody there but you." You should say such things that will make her happy and fix matters. That, my dears, is the first kind of lies that are permitted. What lies?
Children: Permitted lies.
The cleric is teaching the little children that it is expected that husbands and wives will hate each other -- to the point of wishing each other were dead. These are the expectations he wants them brought up with; this is the kind of marriage he teaches them to expect for themselves. To preach, as a religious teaching, something that is so damaging to a healthy relationship between husbands and wives, is to practice a religion of those who condemn themselves - who damn themselves - to lifelong suffering.
One would like to think that this cleric is some strange anomaly, and that his co-religionists would be outraged by his teachings. But the fact that he was televised demonstrates that his teachings were found acceptable by the TV station that broadcast them.
As taught by this cleric to these unfortunate children, Islam is a religion of the damned.
Chris Burgard and Larry Elder
With the engaging film, "BORDER," Chris Burgard emerges as one of America's most watchable and compelling new documentary filmmakers. The film effortlessly mixes laughs, outrage, and compassion, as it presents what for most viewers will be revelations about the state of our southern border.
It's a border where American ranchers are afraid to leave their homes unattended, or to take walks on their own property, because of the armed "coyotes" (guides of illegal immigrants) who frequently come through, and who frequently raid unattended ranch homes.
It's a border where many American ranchers, on a nightly basis, see bands of 20 - 30 men and women illegally cross into the U.S., often backpacking in drugs worth up $90 million -- just in the backpacks of those 30 individuals.
It's a border where there have been hundreds of documented armed paramilitary incursions into our territory.
It's a border where many American ranchers commonly find dead bodies of the illegals who were betrayed and abandoned by their "coyotes" within a few hundred yards of their property.
It's a border that is permitting people to enter this country with dreaded diseases that have been unheard of here - like the mass killer of men, tuberculosis, and the ancient horror, leprosy.
How much more dangerous does a situation have to get before our government will act to protect us?
As Larry Elder said afterwards, our government isn't composed of leaders, but of followers, and it's up to us to lead them. As Burgard said, we don't get the government we deserve - we get the government we put up with.
Why does our government permit such a clear and present danger to the citizens of this country? The film includes footage of George W. Bush stating to Congress - to great applause - that the American economy cannot survive without immigrants. Fine. Let them be legal immigrants, who follow our laws, are disease free, don't traffic in drugs, pay taxes, don't treat our hospital emergency rooms like an HMO (causing the closings of dozens of overburdened hospitals), and who regularly return home to their families.
"BORDER" makes the case that the right way to do legal immigration is in just that way. Each migrant would make a deposit in a bank account. A percentage of each paycheck goes into the same account. At the end of his legal stay, he must leave the country to collect those moneys. With, for example, $10,000 at stake, the migrants will leave. They can see their families. And they can return here, safely and conveniently, to work again.
This would work.
In the Q&A, Burgard said (from my handwritten notes - not expected to be verbatim):
The "coyotes" are all part of the drug cartels now. The cartels have killed or driven out all the mom and pops. They run the migrants around for 7-8 days until they're just about dead. Then they say, you want water? That'll be $300. You want some MRE's [meals ready-to-eat - a military term]? It's $300. Afterwards, they say, now you owe me $5000. You have to make payments every week. If you don't, I know where your family lives, and I'll kill them.
In the Q&A Burgard also made a surprising statement: he's opposed to building a fence on the border. He said that the fence:
He said that the right way to do it is to station 40,000 U.S. National Guardsmen or troops on the border. He believes that this number would be sufficient. He has footage from a month in which troops with tanks were stationed along part of the border -- and he personally saw it work. It stopped the "coyotes." Then someone in Washington forced the troops to leave.
It could be done in two weeks: in two weeks, the troops could be in place, and our border would be secure -- as opposed to the many years it would take to build a porous fence. The incremental costs are zero, since we already maintain the troops. Looked at in absolute dollars, the costs would be far less than the $12 billion required to build the fence.
We must make sure that the next president of this country understands the terrible - and completely unnecessary - danger of the current situation, both to citizens of the U.S., and to those of Mexico. We have to take control of our southern border back from the drug cartels, for the safety and security and financial success of all.
Burgard has been screening "BORDER" to full houses, and is planning a 30-city tour, to be followed up with a DVD release. If you care about this issue, make sure to see this film. Click here for more information.
I had high hopes for Condi. But this can't be explained favorably: she's signed onto the disastrous "land-for-peace" policy, that has been demonstrated to fail since the Oslo accords.
On the first day of her Middle East tour, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday signed a joint statement with Egypt, Jordan and six Persian Gulf states, endorsing the 2002 Arab peace initiative as one of the foundations for Middle East peace.
Visiting the region with Rice is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
The initiative offers Israel normalized relations with all Arab countries in return for full withdrawal from the territory Israel captured in 1967.
The absurd land-for-peace strategy practically has billboards advertising it as a failure, in the form of rockets lobbed onto Israel from Gaza as a result of the last time Israel gave away land per this foolish strategy.
The reason the strategy doesn't work is that the Islamists don't want the peace and they don't want the land. They want to destroy the state of Israel. Cutting up pieces of Israel and giving them away to the Islamists is like telling a robber that you'll make a deal, that if you give him 10 bucks, he won't take the rest of the money in your wallet.
Can Condi be deluding herself, after decades of proof to the contrary, that such a strategy makes sense? The answer appears to be found in an insight provided last February by Bruce Hershensohn:
...The State Dept. believes that they are the permanent government of the United States. They believe that Presidents are a nuisance -- a temporary nuisance that they can put up with. They can put up with them for 4 to 8 years, and then they're gone. The State Department believes in stability -- not in liberty. They believe that Patrick Henry said, "Give me stability or give me death."
This is likely the explanation. Condi's been captured by the culture of the State department. She doesn't care if Israel is destroyed. She doesn't care if she's rewarding those who make war specifically for the purpose of destroying a U.S. ally and a U.N. member nation.
All she wants is short-term peace.
It's a narrow, limited vision, that is conducive to long-term tragedy.
Spread the news far and wide: CAIR made big moves this week to use the threat of lawsuits to destroy our freedom of speech - and Americans who heard about it are getting sick and tired of it, and are standing up to defend our way of life from those who seek to destroy it.
First came the news this week that CAIR had pressured PACE university to get a student, Stanislav Shmulevich, arrested for throwing a Koran in a toilet at PACE university. This move has generated millions of dollars in adverse publicity against CAIR, via talk radio, blogs, newspapers, and on TV.
Evidently emboldened by what they foolishly considered a success, CAIR then sent a letter threatening legal action against the Young America's Foundation, unless they shut down an event at which Robert Spencer was scheduled to speak. The YAF responded: “CAIR can go to Hell and they can take their 72 virgins with them.” This is a rallying cry ranking with "Nuts!" and "Give 'em Hell, Harry!"
Page 1 of 1 pages
