#1
Its too bad really, that one day the middle east will wake up and realize that if they really were the chosen sum of allen, then why did allen give the gift of innovation to infidels? Ah, but allen gave the ability to impose will upon and take from infidels? Take a look at the weapons used to do so, and tell which of them have their origins in the muslim realm.
Instead their heavyweight intellectuals through allens guidence spend their time divining how worthless women are outside of the house, how male on male rape is not gay, how a muslim astronaught is not closer to the moon but how to keep pointed toward mecca in orbit, and still prove how superior they are anyways. It stinks of a hyperinflated feeling of inadequacy. And thats what its really about, isn't it?
WASHINGTON -- One of the many television commercials exhorting viewers to buy gold says solemnly that it is an asset whose value "has never dropped to zero," a boast that surely sets a record for minimalism. Still, the world's appetite for gold as an investment option is intensifying. Last month, India purchased 200 tons of gold at $1,045 an ounce, before the price topped $1,108 on Monday. China, too, may increasingly diversify from paper -- i.e., bonds -- into gold, the price of which, some experienced investors believe, could soar to $2,500 an ounce in three to five years. One reason for all this is U.S. behavior.
India's 2008 GDP was $1.2 trillion, so its $6.7 billion purchase was small beer. It may, however, be a large portent: Gold increasingly looks to investors to be a more reliable store of value than governments' bonds are, especially U.S. bonds as the U.S. government threatens to pile a mammoth health care entitlement onto the nation's Ponzi welfare state, increasing the nation's debt and borrowing.
The fiscal year 2009 budget deficit, triple that of 2008, was 10 percent of GDP and, Lawrence Lindsey says, probable policies will produce deficits of 7 percent of GDP for a decade. Ronald Reagan's worst deficit was 6 percent of GDP, and for only one year.
Lindsey -- former member of the Federal Reserve board of governors and director of George W. Bush's National Economic Council (2001-02) -- says Americans' net worth has dropped at least $13 trillion since the recession began in December 2007. What is to be done?
The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious -- particularly about things like war, about which until Jan. 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.
When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.
"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."
Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.
Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq war bad, Afghan war good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.
So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?
Perhaps provide the resources to win it?
You would think so. And that's exactly what Obama's handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 -- a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.
That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don't commit troops before you decide on a strategy.
No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."
Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.
The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama's own choice, Stanley McChrystal. And it's McChrystal who submitted the request for the 40,000 troops, a request upon which the commander in chief promptly gagged.
The White House began leaking an alternate strategy, apparently proposed (invented?) by Vice President Biden, for achieving immaculate victory with arm's-length use of cruise missiles, Predator drones and special ops.
The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of "counterterrorism" in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.
When the world's expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy -- "counterinsurgency," meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge -- you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.
Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes. His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he'll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.
Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?
Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?
As a statewide strike deadline nears for Safeway and Fry's supermarkets and the union representing about 25,000 of their employees, the sides are plotting their strategies.
For the battling parties, the idea is to inflict brutal economic damage on the opponent, to force the other side into swift compromises on contract terms and end the walkout.
United Food and Commercial Union Local 99 hopes a strike will hurt the grocers' sales and pressure them into agreeing to higher wages and a strong benefits package.
The companies hope to outlast the union by hiring temporary workers and eventually forcing the union, pressured by its cash-strapped employees, to accept their proposal, particularly a plan that could charge new workers for health benefits.
The union has given the companies until 6 p.m. Friday to submit a contract proposal agreeable to its leadership. An existing contract expired Oct. 31, and the sides have been unable to agree to a deal largely because of a split over payments for health insurance. Workers already have given the union leaders authorization to call a strike.
With the local economy in the throes of the worst recession in decades and Arizona unemployment hovering over 9 percent, some have questioned the union's wisdom in calling a strike.
The union believes the stores have been weakened by the economy and would do anything to avoid a strike during the busiest and most highly profitable grocery-shopping time of the year.
The companies believe that the workers also have been weakened by the recession and that they are worried about losing their jobs, racking up debt and joining the large ranks of the unemployed. What is not seen is the behind the scenes fight between the AFL-CIO, a wing of the Democrat party, which has been pushing the UFCU, one of its unions, to strike *now*, in an ongoing fight against Kroger Foods, the parent company of Fry's, the #1 grocery store chain. Kroger is mostly in Right to Work States, and is being attacked both to force it to hire *only* union workers *and* to back Obamacare. So the union is doing this despite the wishes of the employees, who are being used as expendable pawns.
#1
What's amusing is that these unions have pretty good health benefits, but the economics of their industry and of Obamacare will cost them those benfits and force them into the public option.
Newspaper guilds will get there even quicker. Their companies can only cut so many workers. Their declining revenues are forcing them to cut back on comp and benefits for existing workers. The public option is the next logical step.
We know absolutely no one in Bush family circles and have never met former President George W. Bush or his wife Laura.
If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of "Dubya" nearly every day...parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.
Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000...and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.
We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster. President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it. ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly.
Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.
Honestly, we don't think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day...and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.
As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack.
FOR HOURS.
The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.
If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks...you tell them at a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes...and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.
You may be as surprised by this as we are ourselves, but from this day forward George W. and Laura Bush are now on the same list for us as the Clintons, Geraldine Ferraro, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and the other political figures we keep in our hearts and never allow anyone to badmouth.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Follow the link and read the whole article and then read the comments on it.
It appears to me that the scales are falling from people's eyes about George.
The Bushes are good people.
My father worked at the Bush library as a volunteer and Laura always stopped by to talk to him. I wish we still had HIM in office instead of the ONE.
Posted by: Karl Rove ||
11/12/2009 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yup, Camera were NOT permitted and Bush went.
Cameras were NOT permitted and Obama didn't.
Says it all for me.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/12/2009 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I have met former President Bush. This was about two weeks before Obama was sworn into office. I got a chance to shake the man's hand and look into his eyes while we exchanged a few kind words. He is a decent and honest human being. While never claiming to be the smartest guy in the room, he was a leader who recognized that the buck stopped with him. He was the "Decider-In-Chief" whether you agreed with all of his decisions or not (such decisiveness is sorely lacking in our current POTUS). Whatever the case, he did what he felt was the right thing to do. So while some may question his methods, as should be the case with any POTUS, his motives were never in doubt.
In the words of the Dalai Llama himself:
"On the level of a human being, as a human being, I love your former president: Bush. Very straightforward! Sometimes politicians they take too much pride. President Bushnot like that. And, he wants to be a very close friend, so I love him. Very straightforward."
So Bush has got that going for him. Which is nice. ;-)
#5
A family member and a number of people met him in Greensburg. I don't mean to speak for them, but I think they would agree President W. Bush is a class act.
The story goes something like:
(group is picking through a demolished house, hears a voice from behind)
PB: "Where'd you get all this help?"
A: "He's our friend, we came from Oklahoma"
PB: "Oklahoma?! Thats a long ways-how'd he talk you into that (jokingly)?"
A: "Told us the liquor cabinet is in the basement."
President makes that good funny smirk of his, continues on. Got pictures afterwards, handshakes.
#5
the jihadis are going to over reach and do something absolutely heinous again. The avg American will then lose all inhibitions and start going after the muslim communities (right or wrong). The gov't pc retardation will exacerbate it until it's too late.
#7
When did you start the humanity test? I've been gone for a few days in the hospital(I'm the Doodle formerly known as Richard of Oregon and proud to be a teabagger for American freedom). Perhaps we can send a few of those preachers home.
#8
10 percent of 2,000 mosques that's 200 mosques. How many future "alleged" murderers does that make? and what can the LAW do about it, without being attacked by the [anti-anti terrorism] gangs?
#9
"I've been gone for a few days in the hospital(I'm the Doodle formerly known as Richard of Oregon)"
Nothing serious, I hope, Richard/Doodle. Hope you're feeling better.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/12/2009 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Try 80%. And what do they teach (PDF)? Daniel Pipes: Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes "that churches are houses of God and that God is worshiped therein is an infidel."
Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam ("should be killed"), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of Shariah in America.
See non-Muslims as the enemy: "Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law."
See America as hostile territory: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways."
Prepare for war against America: "To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government."
Looks like Maj. Hasan was paying attention. Why won't Attorney General Eric Holder?
Posted by: ed ||
11/12/2009 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#11
BTW, I strongly recommend everyone download the PDF and read it.
Posted by: ed ||
11/12/2009 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
One, he doesn't bugger little boys, and two, he's even more ineffectual ...
RAMALLAH - Thousands of Fatah supporters gathered yesterday in the Muqata in Ramallah to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat. The memorial ceremony quickly turned into a mass support rally for his successor, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Key to everything is the uncertainty regarding Abbas' plans for the future. Only a week ago he declared that he did not intend to run again for the presidency of the PA. In what appears to have been a well-planned and calculated display of support - void of any spontaneity - the speakers at the rally urged Abbas to recall his announcement.
But Abbas is avoiding any direct reference to his plans. Instead, he once more charged Israel with scheming against the Palestinians. "Israel is trying to undermine a two-state solution," he said. "It is trying to play down the value of international support for a two-state solution."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Are all Muslims enemies of everyone not part of the House of Submission to Islam?
In one sense this is a very silly question: that is, anyone who cares to can find someone who calls himself a Muslim and who is generally agreed to be a Muslim who does not consider everyone not part of the Dar al-Islam to be an enemy to be put to tribute or converted to Islam. Moreover, it's not hard to find honorably discharged Muslim veterans of the US Armed forces, and with a bit more effort one can find heroes among their number. They don't consider the rest of us enemies to be converted by force. The question is mindless and stupid.
And yet, then the question becomes, are those people Muslims? Surely another silly question?
Continued on Page 49
#1
Pournelle has popularized a law, which he calls Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
Also stated as:
...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
By Alicia Colon
One would hope that common sense would prevail in perilous times, but that's not the case since political correctness reared its ugly head. It's my belief that P.C. advocates are basically cowards who fear that those offended will resort to lawsuits or violence. What other explanation can explain how Major Nidal Malik Hasan didn't raise the "potential terrorist" antennae of the authorities at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military base in the world?
According to statements by his colleagues, Maj. Hasan, a 39-year-old U.S. Army psychiatrist, was very vocal about his opposition to the war and his feeling that Muslims in the military were being persecuted. In addition, his discontent was evident all over the Internet to any cursory investigation that should have warranted his discharge. This would not be the first time that an aggrieved Muslim has been involved in terrorist activities (e.g., Ahmad Al-Halabi, Ali Mohamed, Ryan Anderson, Semi Osman, John A. Muhammad, and Jeffrey Leon Battle) so why weren't they on guard that such an incident could be repeated?
It's alleged that Maj. Hasan, the U.S.-born son of Palestinian parents, shouted "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic) before his murderous rampage, but almost immediately Muslim spokespersons spoke to the media insisting that this incident has nothing to do with his Muslim faith. In fact, relatives are trying to depict him as a victim of harassment by fellow soldiers. P.C. media journalists are also stepping very carefully to avoid any various defamation charges.
The prayer leader at the mosque that Maj. Hasan attended regularly, Imam Mohammed Abdullahi, said that Islam is not "responsible."
In one sense, the imam is correct because all the acts of terrorism made in the name of Allah are not permitted in the Koran. It's forbidden to attack the innocent who've offered no offense. It's forbidden to kill women and children. It's forbidden to take hostages and it's forbidden to mistreat, torture or kill prisoners.
It's a terrible thing when planes are hijacked but it's even worse when a religion is hijacked by its leaders for their own self-interests. It's been said that while all Muslims are not terrorists, the majority of terrorists are Muslim. It's very important, however, that we distinguish the difference between devout and fanatical Muslims. Al Qaeda has invented new rules for a holy war and used false preachers and imams to trick the recruits. We've been calling these evildoers "jihadists," but, strictly speaking, a true jihad can only be declared by a legitimate Koranic authority with a proven and accepted authority.
Political correctness has allowed the blurring of these lines and given legitimacy to anyone claiming to speak for the Muslim community. These self-appointed and illegitimate Islamic theologians have managed to easily incite violence and hysteria among their followers. These are the rabble-rousers who increase their influence by insinuating insults by non-believers against the prophet Mohammed or the Koran. Well, we all know that such a response likely would occur if even a rumor of such an incident had occurred. In 2005, Newsweek published an incorrect report on Gitmo that alleged desecration of the Koran. That false report triggered several days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which 15 people died.
Hollywood has become the Mecca of P.C. behavior. In HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm," creator Larry David accidentally splashed his urine on a picture of Jesus Christ hanging above a toilet. Christian critics have complained that he wouldn't dare do something like that to the Koran. Probably not, but the question I had about the episode was "What was a picture of Christ doing in the bathroom?" In La-La land, mocking Islam is definitely a no-no.
In a recent interview with the director of the upcoming disaster film "2012," Roland Emmerich, an avowed atheist who loathes religion, was asked why he showed the destruction of Rome and the Vatican but left Mecca unharmed. Mr. Emmerich, the coward, said, "Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit, but my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right."
There are very few heroes left in Hollywood and plenty of craven individuals, so it's not surprising that their careers come before integrity. They certainly don't wish to go into exile like Salman Rushdie. But it's criminal and dangerous when our military and law enforcement personnel fall into the same gutless category.
I once attended the Libel Tourism Conference held at the Princeton Club given by very brave writers and journalists trying to battle the encroaching legal power waged against free speech. Conservative columnist and author Mark Steyn was the keynote speaker, and he charmed us with his characteristic blend of humor and insight in his luncheon talk, "The Dimming of Liberty: Legal Jihad and the Criminalization of Resistance." The Canadian Islamic Congress had denounced his best-selling book, "America Alone," as flagrantly Islamophobic, and, before you knew it, the Canadian Human Rights Commission had agreed. The commission cited passages in Mr. Steyn's book as inflammatory and Islamophobic when, in fact, Mr. Steyn was merely quoting remarks made by Muslims. Free speech should be exactly that, Mr. Steyn said, adding, "The problem with those Holocaust-denial laws is that they gave everyone the right to be offended."
I wrote an article for The New Individualist magazine about my own experience addressing a controversial Arab public school here in New York City, which resulted in unbelievable vitriolic mail from "offended Muslims." What I wrote 2 years ago is even more relevant today:
"I found particularly chilling remarks made by Steven Emerson, executive director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism. He reported that a program operating out of Northeastern University and funded by George Soros has been contracted by the FBI to teach agents that the greatest danger since 9/11 is not Islamic terrorism but Islamophobia. If the FBI is accommodating radical Islamists with Political Correctness and tolerance, what hope is there?"
Terrorists depend on the political-correctness crowd to dull surveillance of their deadly intentions. No legitimate religion, including Islam, advocates mass murder, and it's high time that the proponents of such deadly dogma be identified and treated as threats to our nation's security. At the very least, they should all have their tax-exempt status nullified by the I.R.S.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Read VARIOUS ARTICS at COUNTERRTERROSIM BLOG.
* RIGHTWINGNEWS > FOUR REASONS WHY THE AMERICAN DREAM WILL BE OVER UNLESS WE ACT NOW.
#2
Joe, pardon my french, but f*** you!
Why on earth you can't copy a link from the browser's link field and simply paste it in the comment? I know I asked before, but you never replied, so it seems. Please elucidate me why is it so difficult for you.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
WASHINGTON -- One of the many television commercials exhorting viewers to buy gold says solemnly that it is an asset whose value "has never dropped to zero," a boast that surely sets a record for minimalism. Still, the world's appetite for gold as an investment option is intensifying. Last month, India purchased 200 tons of gold at $1,045 an ounce, before the price topped $1,108 on Monday. China, too, may increasingly diversify from paper -- i.e., bonds -- into gold, the price of which, some experienced investors believe, could soar to $2,500 an ounce in three to five years. One reason for all this is U.S. behavior.
We know absolutely no one in Bush family circles and have never met former President George W. Bush or his wife Laura.
