LGF posted this speech by Evan Sayet, a former writer for Bill Maher. It is rather long, about 45 minutes. But it is very good and fun to listen to: the guy is a comedian, after all. So, I desided to post it here. Listen whenever you have time.
Powered by Qumana
I posted several times about my Protest Warrior activities in San Diego. This particular article is an great reminder of why I consider it my duty to participate in the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior and why the only excuse for not being involved at all should be an actual combat deployment (yes, I really think that).
...Carl von Clausewitz is the father of modern strategic thought. His experience was in the Napoleonic Wars, at the dawn of the industrial revolution, but he did not discuss technology. He assumed that armies would acquire whatever weapons were available in pursuit of the traditional objective of war, "to compel our enemy to do our will." When determining the power of an adversary, he notes two "inseparable factors, viz, the total means at his disposal and the strength of his will." With 300 million people and a $14 trillion economy, U.S. means are unrivaled by any combination of enemies in the Middle East. The weakness is in America's will to mobilize adequate resources to sustain the kind of campaign needed to grind down a fanatical opponent. This is the weakness that the enemy has targeted with success. The high civilization of post-modern America seems unable to stand up to the ruthless exponents of Dark Age doctrines.
The eminent British military historian Jeremy Black reconfirms Clausewitz in his study War in the 21st Century, arguing that war "involves a constant– the willingness of organized groups to kill and, in particular, risk death." Material factors are "less important than its social, cultural and political context." In other words, the home front is the decisive theater of war (emphasis mine - Eric-Odessit). American forces that are superior in the overseas theaters of combat may be defeated, not by any failure of those who are there risking death, but by the betrayal of those who are consumed by domestic luxuries and cannot bring themselves to think about the brutal realities of a dangerous world.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Today, the U.S. Congress is a quarrelsome place. Proposals to micro-manage the Iraq War show no consistent thought or grasp of strategy. Fight al-Qaeda, but no other foes. Support the troops, but don't let them win before they are pulled out at some arbitrary date. The only unifying themes are partisanship and political ambition. This is the behavior that doomed democratic Athens, and which will render all the marvelous new military technology useless.
Please read it all. And please participate in our counter-protests in the future.
Powered by Qumana
Whenever I participate in countering the leftist demonstrations, I like to question the leftists about their beleifs. I always try to show them that if they are truly liberal and consistent in their beliefs, then they should not be supporting what they support. So, during last Saturday demonstration I gave one leftist lady a flier with this photograph on it:
I told her that I call this "Hezbo-Jugend", to which she replied: "Let's not call people names". Of course, the obvious response to her admonition is another question: "What else would you call a bunch of kids in a Hezbollah summer camp, raising their right hands in Nazi salute?". On the other hand, the leftists are never shy about calling people names. Last Saturday I was called "a criminal", and one of our marines was called "a baby killer". Dennis Prager, who I respect immensly, often says that, while the Right often considers those on the Left silly, uneducated and misguided, the Left often thinks of those on the Right as evil. Perhaps this could be explained by the common misconception that Fascism and Nazism are on the Right. But I am about to break with tradition of considering the Left stupid or misguided. Burning US soldier in effigy is evil. Supporting the people who train kids in the picture above is supporting the Nazis. Advocating abandonment of the people of Iraq to monsters who use kids in suicide bombings is depraved indifference and evil. Finally, attempting to force defeat on the United States is treasonous.
There. I've said it. The Left is evil, Nazi-sympathizing, indifferent and treasonous. Try proving me wrong.
A couple of days ago Little Green Footballs linked to this:
Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.
The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.
The general said it was the first time he had seen a report of insurgents using children in suicide bombings. But he said Al-Qaeda in Iraq is changing tactics in response to the tighter controls around the city.
A US defense official said the incident occurred on Sunday in Baghdad's Adhamiyah district, a mixed neighborhood adjacent to Sadr City, which is predominantly Shiite.
After going through the checkpoint, the vehicle parked next to a market across the street from a school, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
"And the two adults were seen to get out of the vehicle, and run from the vehicle, and then followed by the detonation of the vehicle," the official said.
"It killed the two children inside as well as three other civilians in the vicinity. So, a total of five killed, seven injured," the official said.
Calling the people creatures who did this "monsters" is insulting to monsters. But the news itself is a couple of days old, so it is not the point of this post. The Left might be skeptical about this story: they never trust US Government or US Military. But we know that this story is true because it is part of a pattern. There was this, and this, and this. There was this Hezbo-Jugend summer camp. And then there was the story of a British Muslim couple who took their 6-months old baby on a suicide mission and intended to use their baby's bottle to bring the liquid explosives to the airplane. Here is another link to that story. So, I think we can conclude that the story of the terrorists using children in a suicide bombing is not an invention of American propaganda.
And now we come to the question that I wanted to ask the opponents of the war effort, which is the point of this post:
Are you prepared to abandon the people of Iraq to the perverted monsters who use children in suicide bombings?
You say we should not have gone there in the first place. Fine. But does it mean that we should leave? You say that if we have not gone there, thing like this one would not be happening over there. It is arguable, but for the sake of this question I'll give you that. Again, does it mean that we should leave? I was always taught as a kid that if I break something, I have to fix it. So, why doesn't it applies to Iraq? Are you prepared to say that it is not our business? You call yourselves "liberals" and claim to be compassionate. So, please explain to me:
How is abandoning the people of Iraq to those monsters consistent with any sort of liberal ideology and compassion?
I'll wait patiently for answers.
My fellow Protest Warrior John posted his report on last Saturday action here and here. Meanwhile, my friend Smash is running 4-part series on the events in Washington, DC:
Part 4: The Tsunami of Stupid.
The stupid MSM managed to under-report the Gathering of Eagles, but they could not ignore it completely. We need large numbers. Large numbers are impossible to ignore. When will people on my side, presumably normal people, wake up and get off their collective butt? It seems that in San Diego so-called supporters of the troops and their mission for the most part limit their activity to bitching about "liberals" to their friends who agree with them anyway. Yes, I am pretty pissed that there were only about a dozen of us countering the moonbats. Between Free Republic and Protest Warrior it should have been more.
Yesterday was a Saturday and a day of big leftist demonstrations all over the country. Ever since the start of combat in Iraqi theater of the war against Islamo-Fascism the leftists mark the anniversary of the start of the hostilities on the Saturday closest to March 19, the date on which the current hostilities started. In Washington, DC, the Left was countered by the Gathering of Eagles, a counter-demonstration organized by a group of Vietnam War veterans in order to protect the Vietnam War Memorial from the violent and destructive representatives of the Left. Needless to say, Vietnam veterans were not the only ones there. Protest Warriors and Move America Forward also showed up in force. They apparently had a great success in DC: preliminary estimates are that there were about 30 thousands people on the side of Freedom and that they out-numbered the Left by a ratio of 3 to 1.
The leftists here in San Diego have also come out to play, and the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior was ready to oblige them with a counter-rally. Unfortunately, here in San Diego attendance by our side still leaves a lot to be desired, so we were out-numbered, as usual. There was maybe about a dozen of us total, including some marines who served multiple tours in Iraq. Nevertheless we got some news coverage by Channel 8. Channel 10 also covered us, but they were horribly biased: when our marines were attacked by the leftists, they made it look like it was marines' fault and they were being arrested by police. In fact, as Channel 8 correctly reported, police had to drive the marines to the destination of the demonstration in order to protect them. The guy who attacked the marines was on a bicycle, wearing a Palestinian scarf over his face. As a side note, when he rode by me, I called him "Nazi". He heard it and, I am sure, was shocked: he did not expect that. But he rode on. Channel 10 still has a video on their site.
We had a visitor from Hell:
He was passing out yummy yellow cake cupcakes. Here is a close-up of the left-overs:
There are some people who still think that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. This picture proves otherwise:
Looks like Osama supports Obama for 08. In al seriousness, even the 9/11 Commission Report admitted that there were links between the two. It was one of our marines dressed up as Osama bin Laden.
John interviewed Saddam:
Hopefully he will post the audio on the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior web site. Our marines engaged in a spirited debate with the leftists:
While the marines were presenting arguments based on facts and experience, the leftists resorted to calling them brainwashed idiots, demonstrating their "support for the troops". I actually got to talk to a guy who was reasonable. He acknowledged that he did not have a solution for the situation in Iraq and that just pulling out would not be a good idea. When I suggested that more troops might be needed, he agreed that it would be a solution, but insisted that there were no more troops available.
Finally, here are some more pictures of our marines, who, while on a break from combat, enter the battle of public opinion:
I can't even begin to express my gratitude to these guys.
In conclusion, I have to say that we were successful, despite pretty low turnout. We got the news coverage, and the leftists got pretty pissed off because of that. We had some fun and we got into the leftists' faces and rattled their cages. I have to say that comparing them to Nazis and calling them "Nazi sympathizers" is effective at this point because they don't expect that, and it bothers them. Over all, it was a good operation. I just wish there were more of us.
It's been almost 2 weeks since my post about Christina Aguilera. The reason is because I ended up in charge of organizing a Protest Warrior action by San Diego Chapter on March 17.
In case you did not know, the leftists are organizing big demonstrations all over the country on March 17. San Diego is no exception. For details on their plans go to http://www.sdcpj.org/. Here is their flier.
Are you ready to be counted? We need to counter the defeatist message with our own demonstration in support of Victory. We have to make it obvious to the media, to our friends and foes alike, that there are Americans who do not support defeat and surrender. This Global War has a mission for everybody. Those of us, who do not carry guns as members of American or Allied Armed Forces, have to participate in the battle of public opinion.
The details of the operation will follow. For now just mark your calendars and prepare to be there roughly from 1pm to 4pm.
If you are in San Diego and planning to participate, sign up to San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior message board at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SDPW/, as well as San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior at www.protestwarrior.com.
You can also e-mail us at sandiegopw@gmail.com or leave comments on the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior blog. You can also just show up in front of the NBC building on Broadway at 12:30pm next Saturday, March 17, 2007.
If you are in San Diego, I hope to see you there.
My Canadian cousin left a comment on my post about my lonely Protest Warrior action. While she agrees with the notion that our forces have to stay in Iraq because Iraq cannot be surrendered to Iranian Islamo-Fascists, she still asks: "What is Victory?" Indeed, there will be no surrender documents signed in Rheims, Karlshorst or on a battleship. By now it is very widely accepted by friends and foes alike that a Western-style democracy in Iraq is very unlikely in the near future, if ever. What we have in Iraq is insurgency. Thus, our forces are conducting a counter-insurgency campaign. A victory in a counter-insurgency campaign is achieved when the insurgency stops. Unsuccessful counter-insurgency campaigns in recent history are most often associated with American war in Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. But there was number of successful counter-insurgency operations. Examples are:
Russian Caucasian War of 1817-1864;
The Philippine-American War (note some anti-American slant of Wikipedia);
Soviet suppression of the Baltic countries;
Soviet suppression of Ukrainian nationalists.
There were more, but this is enough for now. These campaigns were conducted by democracies, an empire and a dictatorship. So, there are quite a few differences between these campaigns. But here is what they have in common:
1. Lack of outside support for the insurgency;
2. Willingness of the government forces to take and inflict casualties;
3. Patience of the government to conduct counter-insurgency operations for many years.
I doubt that the Soviet successes are good examples for us: I don't think we would ever follow in Stalin's footsteps. Thus, perhaps the best example for us is the Philippines, now the loyal ally of the United States. A lady who is a dental assistant in my dentist's office told me stories her grandmother told her (she is a Filipino). Her grandma told her that during World War 2, whenever there was a battle between American and Japanese Navies nearby, the local Filipino fishermen would always rescue the Americans from damaged ships, but finish off the Japanese. Filipinos fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Americans against the Japanese. Manuel Quezon, the first President of the Philippines, did participate in the anti-American insurgency in the early 20th century. Apparently, he used to say: "Damn the Americans! Why don't they tyrannize us more?". At the time he apparently was complaining about the difficulty of getting people to fight against the Americans (despite anti-American slant of Wikipedia). So, I think that a counter-insurgency campaign that turned insurgents into loyal allies could be considered successful. For reference I would recommend The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot and Small Wars Manual by United States Marine Corps.
So, what could be defined as victory in Iraq? Simple: when the insurgency is over, there will be victory. We will have to establish presence in Iraq in order to contain and, if necessary, fight against the Iranian Nazis. It will probably take many years to pacify Iraq. We just have to have the patience and political will to wait the insurgency out. We also have to ensure that there is no outside support for the insurgency. It might take some diplomatic or military action to do so. But the most important thing is patience. Without it we will lose simply because we will quit.
I was never a fan of Christina Aguilera. Not because I had anything against her, but because I was not into modern American pop music. Maybe I am simply too old for this. But today I became a fan.
Apparently this song is based on "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" by the Andrews Sisters. Click here to listen.
If I weren't told that Aguilera's "Candyman" is based on the "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy", I would have never recognized the melody, even though it is one of my (and my 6-years old daughter's) favorite Andrews Sisters songs. But then, as the Russian saying goes, a bear must have stepped on my ear when I was little, so no wonder I can't recognize a tune. Nevertheless, Aguilera's song is clearly a tribute to the Andrews Sisters, to American Armed Forces and to American resolve against ruthless enemies. Note the big American Flag in the video with "V for Victory" on it. Note also Rosie the Riveter in the video.
And while we are on the subject of the Andrews Sisters, listen to my favorite of their songs. I'd like to think that they recorded this translated into English originally Yiddish song, made popular by the Barry Sisters, in order to piss off the Nazis. But it was recorded before World War 2, so maybe it is just wishful thinking.
This Saturday I got a call from one of my friends from our local San Diego chapter of Protest Warrior. He told me about the impending so called "anti-war" demonstration on President's Day. I prefer calling it anti-victory demonstration, but that is besides the point.
Jeeni Criscenzo, former candidate for Congress, has organized a protest called "Bring their buddies home". The leftists dress in black and stand along a road, with names of US soldiers killed in Iraq pinned to their chests. They call it "An Act of Art". San Diego chapter of Protest Warrior decided to stage a little counter-protest. This morning I went to the corner on Tamarack and Carlsbad Blvd. and started passing little 4"x6" American Flags. You know, a general expectation is that a stereotypical leftist would hate to hold an American Flag. As it turns out, it is not always the case. In the beginning the leftists just thought that the flags were part of the whole thing, although a couple did refuse to take them outright. After I passed around about a dozen or so flags, Jeeni Criscenzo confronted me. She said that the flags are not part of the demonstration and asked me "to respect her artwork, because the flags are spoiling it" ( I am paraphrasing). My argument that the flags add something good to her message did not persuade her. She was polite and got me to say "OK". After thinking a bit about what to do next, I just started walking with a bunch of flags in my hand in front of the protesters and giving them to those who asked. Pretty soon I gave away all my flags (about 50). Many protesters wanted to take the flags, but could not because they were too cold or covered with plastic because of the rain. Some of the protesters refused to take the flags, especially after hearing me explain to KUSI that I represented an opposing point of view. But many were happy to take the flags. They were obviously more patriotic than the organizers of the demonstration. I also talked to FOX6 News. The KUSI reporter at least seemed neutral, but the FOX6 guy was likely biased in favor of the anti-victory people. I told him that you can't cut reinforcements from the troops in battle. I also told them both that I was originally from the former Soviet Union, and I appreciate this country very much, because I have something to compare it to. The FOX6 guy asked me what I thought about WMD not found in Iraq, and I said that Saddam did have them. So, the anti-victory people started shouting: "Where are they?!", to which I replied that that was a good question that needs to be answered, but Saddam did have them because he did use them. Later I called Roger Hedgecock and told him about my morning because I did not trust the TV news to accurately report on my actions there. Let's see what part of my 2 interviews will make a cut.
UPDATE at 6:25pm:
The 6 o'clock edition of KUSI news did not show my interview at all. They did show me passing flags and people holding my flags, but it made it look like they were the ones who came up with flags. I don't want them to hide their defeatist message behind my flags, so I am very disappointed at this time. Let's see what happens at 10pm.
UPDATE on 2/20/07 at 11:25pm:
KUSI news at 10pm did not show the demonstration at all. The 11pm edition was the same as the 6pm edition. However, FOX6 News did show me passing the flags around and even a small portion of my interview. Here it is.
Additionally, my fellow Protest Warriors pointed out to me one crucial detail that I told them over the phone, but forgot to mention in this post. As I was returning back to my car, I passed by the people whom I gave the flags before Jeeni Criscenzo confronted me. They did not have the flags any longer. Jeeni must have taken the flags away from them or just told them to put the flags away. After all, she could not allow American Flags to "spoil her artwork". Besides, the flags would represent a dissent from her plan, and the Left can't tolerate that.
Julia Gorin has written this article for the Front Page Magazine:
It is somewhat pathetic that even after 9/11, and even after a nearly four-year trial at the Hague disproving “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” of Albanians in Kosovo (something the late reporter Daniel Pearl uncovered as early as 1999), the Jewish community still insists on being used to promote the agenda of the Albanian lobby that allied us with the al Qaeda-trained Kosovo Liberation Army in 1999.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Bosnia and Kosovo have been part of Islam’s current divide-and-conquer approach. Israeli Colonel Dr. Shaul Shay, author of Islamic Terror and the Balkans, explains the significance of the Kosovo, Albania and Bosnia region that Americans ignore: “In the eyes of the radical Islamic circles, the establishment of an independent Islamic territory including Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania along the Adriatic Coast, is one of the most prominent achievements of Islam since the siege of Vienna in 1683. Islamic penetration into Europe through the Balkans is one of the main achievements of Islam in the twentieth century.”
The Balkans also have given Islam its long-sought gateway into Europe, as the Kosovo connection to the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London demonstrate. (According to Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily and German intelligence, the explosives used in both bombings came from Kosovo, and just last week the Greek Kathimerini news service reported that the missile fired on the U.S. embassy in Athens a few weeks ago appears to have come from Kosovo.)
Albanians argue that their fight for Kosovo is not an Islamic movement but a national one. (DioGuardi himself is Christian.) Palestinians, of course, make the same claim. But the big picture is the same: jihad. The day that Kosovo becomes “Kosova” (the Muslims’, nationalists’, dhimmis’ and Mr. DioGuardi’s invented pronunciation) is the day we’ve lost a key battle in the war on terror.
Read it all. I suspected this all to some extent from other articles I read, but this time I also followed the links. Do that too. Then I went to Julia's blog where she just posted (at that time) her comments on the Salt Lake City shooter. I followed the links there too: this very graphic link and this one. And then I was horrified. Horrified by the strong possibility that our country supported the wrong side in the Yugoslavian wars. Do follow the links that I copied from Julia Gorin's blog. And note the links provided there. They are not from some cookie sites similar to those denying the Holocaust. The sources referenced there are quite reputable. Plus, there is another reason I tend to believe this new version of events. Remember the Jenin Massacre? The one that never happened? The same people that created that big lie that was fortunately exposed in time are the people talking about the Serb atrocities. Their credibility is clearly suspect. So, how is it possible that we took the wrong side in those wars? I see 3 reasons. First is that the Left is always willing to support the side that is not seen as Western. Thus, in the conflict between between Christian Serbs and Muslim Bosnians the Left automatically took the Bosnian side. The same was true in Kosovo. In the conflict between Serbs and Croats the Serbs were perceived as stronger side. The Left always takes the weaker side, regardless of who is right. Finally, there was a reason from the Right: the Serbs were traditionally supported by the Russians. There must have been some Cold War inertia in play. Plus, Milosevic was a former Communist and genuine thug (according to my former co-workers from Serbia).
But the evidence that we took the wrong side in both Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts is very strong. And that is very tragic. It is now well documented that Al Qaeda is active in both Bosnia and Kosovo. They always insert themselves into conflicts were Muslims are one of the sides, even if the original reason for the conflict is very secular. Just follow the links.
I always thought that Israel will play the role of both Poland and Czechoslovakia in the current world war. It turns out that there is another candidate for the role of Czechoslovakia: Serbia. You see, unlike us, Jews, the Serbs did not suffer the Holocaust. They were being killed by the Nazis and their Bosnian and Croat helpers because they interfered with the extermination of the Jews. You know, like hiding the Jews, fighting the Nazis along with the other Allies. (Note that in the link that I provided the claims about Bosnian Muslims participating in the Holocaust are disputed. Nevertheless, the Bosnian SS division was organized with the help of Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Arafat's uncle). So, Serbs did not suffer through a methodical extermination campaign. Thus, it is easier to demonize them. And now many people would rather keep them demonized, because otherwise it might become necessary to admit an embarrassing and tragic mistake.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., on Thursday called for a rejection of new Palestinian textbooks that portray a world without Israel, refer to Jews as "Zionist gangs" and rewrite the Holocaust to ignore atrocities committed against Jews.
"We must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are exposed," Clinton said in a news conference in Washington, D.C. "These children deserve an education that instills respect for life and peace instead of glorifying death and violence."
Clinton, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, called the conference to release a report by Palestinian Media Watch, a Jerusalem-based group that monitors Palestinian media for anti-Israel bias. She said the books "do not give Palestinian children an education, they give them an indoctrination."
WASHINGTON — Hezbollah is presently receiving a "constant stream of armaments" from Syria, Iran and other foreign sources, senior Israeli officials said Tuesday, and the terror group is "preparing for violence" in an increasingly radicalized Middle East.
"They are getting all kinds of rockets, advanced anti-tank missiles, command-and-control systems, training, finance," an Israeli official said. Asked if the group has fully reconstituted back to where it was before the war in terms of military capability, the official said: "They are certainly on their way."
The official, a top-ranked officer in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and an accompanying aide briefed a handful of reporters on the condition the officials' names not be used.
While Hezbollah has been unable to return to, or rebuild, bunkers and other fortifications it was using before the start of last summer's Israeli-Hezbollah war, the Israeli official said the group maintains an "operational" presence along the Lebanese-Israeli border, and cited as evidence the IDF's discovery Monday of a "cluster of explosives" near the border on the Lebanese side.
Enabling Hezbollah's rearmament, the official said, is the "open border" Lebanon shares with Syria, and the lack of "real teeth for enforcement" in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718, which established a ceasefire in the Israeli-Hezbollah war last August.
At the same time, and in a similar way, the Israeli military officer said, foreign sources are providing Hamas with anti-tank missiles, high-trajectory rockets and missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and their launchers, explosive devices and automatic rifles.
…………………………………………………………………………….
The official and the aide claimed the IDF has had "no operational activity whatsoever" in Gaza for the last three months, since an informal ceasefire was established between the Palestinians and the Israelis in that area, but that in the same time Hamas fighters have launched more than 100 Qassam rockets across the border aimed at Israeli civilian targets.
As further evidence of the problems originating in Gaza and its porous border with Egypt, the official pointed to the deadly homicide bombing on January 29 in Eilat, the first ever in the southern Israeli resort town, and said IDF officials "know for sure" the bomber came from Gaza.
The official was skeptical about Western plans to shore up the Fatah security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen.
"Every meeting we have on this subject always ends in the conclusion, 'Bolster Abu Mazen, bolster Abu Mazen' as if that will solve all the problems," the IDF official said. "He was in power two years ago [before Hamas came to power], wasn't he?" the official asked. "What did he do then?"
The convocation for the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting was delivered today by Shi’ite Imam Husham Al-Husainy, of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Michigan, and it’s amazing what this spiritual leader managed to get away with saying, in front of America’s Democrat leadership:In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.
Meet Husham Al-Husainy. In Iraq, he was an aircraft engineer. But in America, he's an extremist cleric and disciple of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who enjoys huge mainstream support.
…………………………………………………………………………….
This past summer, Al-Husainy seemed very happy leading almost-daily protests of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit, swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs.
Later, I watched him very much enjoy himself at an anti-Semitic rally of 3,000 Hezbollah supporters at Dearborn's Bint Jebail Cultural Center. He was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric. I watched him cheer others on when they called for the hastened destruction of the Jews and when they said Americans are "diseased."
…………………………………………………………………………….
Imam Husainy was also in great spirits when he led a number of pro-HAMAS and pro-Arafat rallies in the area. Yes, Shi'ites who hate Sunnis to death in Iraq, love Sunnis in Israel when they're killing the Jews. In late 2004, he seemed thrilled to lead a rally on the streets of Dearborn, commemorating Arafat's death. He and his followers held signs featuring enlarged photos of Khomeini at the rally.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Imam Al-Husainy and other Shi'ite leaders in Dearborn are not just followers of Khomeini, they are supporters of Moqtada Al-Sadr and proteges of his late uncle, Imam Mohammed Bakr Al-Sadr--who was murdered by Saddam Hussein. Every year, the Al-Sadr Foundation holds a fundraising banquet in Dearborn. Does any Foundation money go to fund the Mehdi Army?
…………………………………………………………………………….
America's Shi'ite enemies are not just in Sadr City or Central Beirut and Southern Lebanon. They are in America's own Little Sadr City--East Dearborn, where they danced on the streets after Saddam Hussein's execution.
Proving the old adage wrong. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
Sometimes, he's just our enemy. And, unfortunately, he's living on American soil with permanent citizenship. And a lot of easily-incited followers.
...America is faced with two very hard paths forward in Iraq.
We can accept defeat and try to rebuild our position in the region while accommodating the painful possibility that these enemies of freedom in Iraq -- evil men, vicious murderers, and sadistic inflictors of atrocities will have defeated both the millions of Iraqis who voted for legal self government and the American people and their government.
Alternatively we can insist on defeating the enemies of America and the enemies of the Iraqi people and can develop the strategies and the implementation mechanisms necessary to force victory despite the incompetence of the Iraqi government, the unreliability of Iraqi leaders, and the interference of Syria and Iran on behalf of our enemies.
Both these paths are hard. Both involve great risk. Both have unknowable difficulties and will produce surprise events.
Both will be complicated.
Yet either is preferable to continuing to accept an ineffective American implementation system while relying on the hope that the Iraqi system can be made to work in the next six months.
There are three fundamental weaknesses in the current strategy.
First, the strategy relies on the Iraqis somehow magically improving their performance in a very short time period. Yet the argument for staying in Iraq is that it is a vital AMERICAN interest. If we are seeking victory in Iraq because it is vital to America then we need a strategy which will win even if our Iraqi allies are inadequate. We did not rely on the Free French to defeat Nazi Germany. We did not rely on the South Koreans to stop North Korea and China during the Korean War. When it mattered to American vital interests we accepted all the help we could get but we made sure we had enough strength to win on our own if need be.
President Bush has asserted that Iraq is a vital American interest. In January 2007 alone he has said the following things:But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.
[F]ailure in one part of the world could lead to disaster here at home. It's important for our citizens to understand that as tempting as it might be, to understand the consequences of leaving before the job is done, radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength. They would be emboldened. It would make it easier to recruit for their cause. They would be in a position to do that which they have said they want to do, which is to topple moderate governments, to spread their radical vision across an important region of the world.
If we were to leave before the job is done, if we were to fail in Iraq, Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have safe havens from which to launch attacks. People would look back at this moment in history and say, what happened to them in America? How come they couldn't see the threats to a future generation?
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
Iraq is a central component of defeating the extremists who want to establish safe haven in the Middle East, extremists who would use their safe haven from which to attack the United States, extremists and radicals who have stated that they want to topple moderate governments in order to be able to achieve assets necessary to effect their dream of spreading their totalitarian ideology as far and wide as possible.
This is really the calling of our time, that is, to defeat these extremists and radicals, and Iraq is a component part, an important part of laying the foundation for peace.
The inherent contradiction in the administration strategy is simple. If Iraq matters as much as the President says it does (and here I agree with the President on the supreme importance of victory) then the United States must not design and rely on a strategy which relies on the Iraqis to win.
On the other hand if the war is so unimportant that the fate of Iraq can be allowed to rest with the efforts of a new, weak, untested and inexperienced government then why are we risking American lives.
Both propositions cannot be true.
I accept the President’s analysis of the importance of winning in Iraq and therefore I am compelled to propose that his recently announced strategy is inadequate.
The second weakness is that the current strategy debate once again focuses too much on the military and too little on everything that has not been working. The one instrument that has been reasonably competent is the combat element of American military power. That is a very narrow definition and should not be expanded to include the non combat elements of the Department of Defense which also have a lot of difficulties in performing adequately.
…………………………………………………………………………….
The third weakness in the current strategy is its inability to impose war time decision making and accountability in Washington.
The interagency process is hopelessly broken.
…………………………………………………………………………….
5. Establish a War Cabinet which will meet once a week to review metrics of implementation and resolve failures and enforce decisions. The President should chair the War Cabinet personally and his deputy chief of staff for Iraq implementation should prepare the agenda for the weekly review and meeting.
6. Establish three plans: one for achieving victory with the help of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory with the passive acquiescence of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory even if the current Iraqi government is unhappy. The third plan may involve very significant shifts in troops and resources away from Baghdad and a process of allowing the Iraqi central government to fend for itself if it refuses to cooperate.
7. Communicate clearly to Syria and Iran that the United States is determined to win in Iraq and that any further interference (such as the recent reports of sophisticated Iranian explosives being sent to Iraq to target Americans) will lead to direct and aggressive countermeasures.
8. Pour as many intelligence assets into the fight as needed to develop an overwhelming advantage in intelligence preparation of the battlefield.
9. Develop a commander’s capacity to spend money on local activities sufficient to enable every local American commander to have substantial leverage in dealing with local communities.
Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor
By PATRICIA COHEN
The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.
...In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, “Perhaps the most surprising — and distressing — feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State.” Those who oppose Israel’s basic right to exist, he continues, “whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted.”
The essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are seeing not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off condemnations of Israel from onetime allies and respected figures, like former President Jimmy Carter, who titled his new book on the Mideast “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.
The essay, written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an English professor and the director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana University in Bloomington, castigates a number of people by name, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in addition to a number of academics.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Over the telephone, the dinner table and the Internet, people who follow Jewish issues have been buzzing over Mr. Rosenfeld’s article. Alan Wolfe, a political scientist and the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, said, “I’m almost in a state of shock” at the verbal assaults directed at liberal Jews.
On H-Antisemitism (h-net.org), an Internet forum for scholarly discussions of the subject, Michael Posluns, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, wrote, “Sad and misbegotten missives of the sort below make me wonder if it is not the purpose of mainstream Jewish organizations to foster anti-Jewishness by calling down all who take from their Jewish experience and Jewish thought a different ethos and different ways of being as feeding anti-Semitism.”
Others have praised Mr. Rosenfeld’s indictment and joined the fray. Shulamit Reinharz, a sociologist who is also the wife of Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University, wrote in a column for The Jewish Advocate in Boston: “Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites. But I disagree, because in a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to endanger Jews.”
Although many of the responses to the essay have referred to its subject as “Jewish anti-Semitism,” Mr. Rosenfeld said in a telephone interview that he was very careful not to use that phrase. But whatever it is called, he said, “I wanted to show that in an age when anti-Semitism is resurgent, Jews thinking the way they’re thinking is feeding into a very nasty cause.”
CARACAS, Venezuela — Hugo Chavez has just about everything a president could want: popular support, a marginalized opposition, congress firmly on his side and a booming economy as he starts his new six-year term.
Now, he's about to become even more powerful _ the all-Chavista National Assembly is poised to approve a "mother law" as early as Wednesday enabling him to remake society by presidential decree. In its latest draft, the law would allow Chavez to dictate measures for 18 months in 11 broad areas, from the "economic and social sphere" to the "transformation of state institutions."
Chavez calls it a new era of "maximum revolution," setting the tone for months of upheaval as he plans to nationalize companies, impose new taxes on the rich and reorient schools to teach socialist values. With near-religious fervor and plenty of oil wealth, Chavez is mobilizing millions of Venezuelans, intent on creating a more egalitarian society.
Already, profound changes can be seen throughout Venezuela. Those who felt left out of the old system are thrilled at the prospect of having a voice in politics. Others are horrified, predicting that doors will close on their personal freedoms under one-man rule, although exactly what Chavez will do with his power remains unclear.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Outside the Spanish Embassy, dozens line up with documents in hand. Many plan trips for tourism or study, but Henry Krakower is thinking darker thoughts. He wants a passport for his 10-year-old son in case they need to leave for good.
"I don't really know what all the coming changes are, but I don't think it's the best idea to give all the power to a single person for him to decide on my behalf," says Krakower, the son of a Polish concentration camp survivor who found a haven in Venezuela after World War II.
Government officials insist there will be total freedom of religion and speech and that private property will be safe, but the Krakowers aren't so sure. Listening for clues to what lies ahead, they worry about economic restrictions and ideology in education. At their son's private Jewish school, some parents are talking about how and when to leave the country.
"I think the president is going to do what he wants to do, because he will have all the power to decide on all things," Krakower says. "I think we're headed toward totalitarianism."
…………………………………………………………………………….
How much say the public will have in how Chavez uses the "enabling law" remains unclear, but lawmakers have been holding assemblies to gather public input.
"If there is no popular participation, there will be no socialism," lawmaker Dario Vivas said at one meeting. "Socialism is, definitively, giving power to the people."
CARACAS, Venezuela — A congress wholly loyal to President Hugo Chavez approved a law Wednesday granting the Venezuelan leader authority to enact sweeping measures by presidential decree.
Meeting at a downtown plaza in a session that resembled a political rally, lawmakers unanimously approved all four articles of the law by a show of hands.
"Long live the sovereign people! Long live President Hugo Chavez! Long live socialism!" said National Assembly President Cilia Flores as she proclaimed the law approved. "Fatherland, socialism or death! We will prevail!"
Chavez, who is beginning a fresh six-year term, says the legislation will be the start of a new era of "maximum revolution" during which he will consolidate Venezuela's transformation into a socialist society. His critics, however, are calling it a radical lurch toward authoritarianism by a leader with unchecked power.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Chavez, a former paratroop commander who easily won re-election in December, has said he will use the law to decree nationalizations of Venezuela's largest telecommunications company and the electricity sector, slap new taxes on the rich and impose greater state control over the oil and natural gas industries.
The law also allows Chavez to dictate unspecified measures to transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance and financial regulations; decide on security and defense matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and "adapt" legislation to ensure "the equal distribution of wealth" as part of a new "social and economic model."
The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.
…………………………………………………………………………….
While there had been previous enabling acts in the earliest years of the Weimar Republic, this one was more far reaching since Article 2 allowed for deviations from the constitution. The law therefore formally required a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag.
Though the Act had formally given legislative powers to the government as a whole, these powers were for all intents and purposes exercised by Hitler himself; as Joseph Goebbels wrote shortly after the passage of the Enabling Act:
The authority of the Führer has now been wholly established. Votes are no longer taken. The Führer decides. All this is going much faster than we had dared to hope.
Formal cabinet meetings were rare during the whole Third Reich and non-existent during World War II.
It is indicative of the care that Hitler took to give his dictatorship an appearance of legality that the Enabling Act was formally extended twice by the Reichstag (by then a puppet of Hitler) beyond its original 1937 expiration date.
The passage of the Enabling Act reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler's speeches. The opposition parties were suppressed or banned, and eventually even the parties making up Hitler's coalition yielded to government pressure and dissolved themselves. On July 14, 1933 the government decreed a law eliminating political parties other than the Nazi Party. By this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: "I set for myself one aim ... to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!".
...[P]resident Paul von Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934. Rather than holding new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferred the role and powers of the head of state to Hitler as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor). Thereby Hitler also became supreme commander of the military, which then swore their military oath not to the state or the constitution but to Hitler personally. In a mid-August plebiscite, these acts found the approval of 84.6% of the electorate. Combining the highest offices in state, military and party in his hand, Hitler had attained supreme rule that could no longer be legally challenged.
The dishonor of America Jewry
Caroline Glick takes on jewicidal American Jews - self loathing, "enlightened" and reminiscent of the German Jew before the "extermination." It's open season on the Jews and the Islamists here in America can smell blood, as evidenced here.
Glick ran it in the Jewish Press. One can only hope that those Jewish schmucks that vote Democrat (87% of Jews vote Democratic!) read it and think. JEWS PAY ATTENTION TO THIS.
It would seem that American Jewry has lost its sense of honor. In early 1984, as he sought the Democratic nomination for the presidency, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson made a major misstep. In a conversation with African-American Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman, Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies,” and to New York City as “Hymietown.”
When the remarks were reported, a storm of protest erupted. Jewish leaders and organizations issued uniform demands that Jackson publicly apologize for his remarks. Jackson accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. Appearing on a radio broadcast with the notorious anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Jackson was silent as Farrakhan threatened Coleman and then issued a public warning to Jews: “If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm.”
Yet the Jews of America did not relent. And the U.S. media also did not relent. In February 1984, Jackson belatedly issued a public apology to Jews in a synagogue in New Hampshire. But his electoral prospects had dried up by that point. When he ran again for president four years later, then-New York mayor Ed Koch said ahead of the New York Democratic primary, “Jews and supporters of Israel who are not Jewish would be crazy to vote for him.” Jackson lost big in New York and shortly thereafter retreated from the race.
Compare the properly angry and unforgiving response of American Jewry in 1984 to the American Jewish response earlier in the month when General Wesley Clark made a similar anti-Semitic slur in remarks to the press. Clark, who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2004 and has made noises about another run in 2008, expressed his anger to popular left-wing blogger Arianna Huffington over reports that the Bush administration may order preemptive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear installations.
When asked why he felt that the administration is heading in that direction, Clark responded, “You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”
Clark’s anti-Semitic attack received precious little attention in the mainstream media. Jewish organizations have uttered no significant outcries against him. Clark put the remark behind him by writing an abject letter to Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman, but the ADL’s website makes no mention of the incident.
From the perspective of the American Jewish leadership, apparently, Clark’s obscene attack on Jews was a non-incident.
Unfortunately, Clark’s attack was anything but unique. Indeed, it fits into a larger trend in which politicians and public figures feel an unacceptable level of comfort in attacking Jews and accusing both Israel and its American Jewish supporters of nefariously subverting America’s national interest in order to advance Israel’s security interests.
Then how can you explain extraordinary rendition? Your argument is that we can trust "our" guys to be given free reign in interrogation. The problem is, once we take free reign, so will everyone else, and exonerate themselves with a finger pointed directly at us.
