#2
Children would be coming to play on the grounds, and as an engineer, Mr. Fotough felt it was unsafe for them to be around the cattle.
As an engineer, I can frankly say Fotough is a blithering idiot.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/17/2006 18:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A decision I made a while ago: If I ever have important dealings with any Moslems (unlikely if it's up to me) have a digital recorder in my shirt pocket and take down every word.
#4
Mr. Baker has more allies in this fight than he can imagine.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/17/2006 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I hope he serves beer at the pig races.
Oh, and last week's losers, as BBQ.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/17/2006 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I always felt Houston was not a desirable place to live. But I wish I was there now. I'd drive over and give this guy all the support possible. These assholes don't barge in and tell Americans to vacate. Hogs are a perfect solution. Hogshit has the foulest smell ever. And, sometimes hogs get out through fences.
#7
Upon learning that I was called a liar I became determined to make a statement to everyone that I was not leaving. Not only that, I am taking a stand. I will use my property as I see fit. I went to a local printing shop and had a huge banner made up. The banner states COMING SOON WEEKLY FRIDAY NIGHT PIG RACING. I also put up some pig pens on the north east corner of my property, which just happens to be the closest point to my new Muslim neighbors. So far I have bought 24 pigs and put them in the pens. Additional pigs will be delivered soon, and the pig racetrack is under construction, as well as the starting gates.
I'll be emailing this man regarding my complete and total support for him.
Speaking from my own professional culinary background, I'd advise Mr. Baker to use a time consuming slow smoking process for any barbecue he might happen to serve. While labor intensive by nature this method also produces the largest possible quantity of smoky aromatic byproducts. I'd also recommend a bank of powerful and strategically positioned fans.
Have you ever tasted slow smoked pork in the South? You don't need a knife to cut it. Diners use 2 forks to pull it apart. You won't taste better pork.
I beat you in sending an e-mail of support to the dude. He makes and sells up-scale marble counter tops. Ranching is a side business. I forgot to invite him to Rantburg.
#9
I didn't invite Mr. Baker to Rantburg either, although I may end up doing that. However, I did point him towards Fjordman's articles. I also offered him a set of recipes if he needs them for his BBQ. As to fork-tender pork, my Mexican style pork and beef for tacos can be fork shredded.
Mr Zimmerman has given this asshole more thought than he deserves.
by Bennett Zimmerman
Let's be clear before Jimmy Carter does any harm to the sole democracy in the Middle East. Israel's Arabs have full citizenship and full rights to vote. If a plurality of their fellow citizens deems it appropriate, any Arab of appropriate age can become the prime minister of Israel.
In the midst of the 1948 attack from six neighboring countries, Israel reached out to her Arab minority with a Declaration of Independence that should be a model of enlightenment for anyone interested in democracy. This, while Jimmy Carter rode around in Plains, Georgia, where Black Americans could not eat in the same restaurant with him, sleep in the same hotel next to him, and most could certainly not vote with him. And today, the radical Hamas government is elected while hall monitor, "My Name is Jimmy Carter," not only tolerates, but salutes, their victory.
In the late 19th century, the queen of England sent the president of the United States a desk made from the timbers of a decommissioned ship, the HMS Resolute. Almost every occupant of the White House since then has made the Resolute his desk. Perhaps more than most, President Bush has taken its name to heart.
But now, as Bush rethinks his strategy in Iraq and approaches one of the most fateful moments of his presidency, he confronts difficult questions: At what point does determination to a cause become self-defeating folly? Can he change direction in a meaningful way without sacrificing principle?
For Bush, this is a tension that goes to the heart of his political identity and governing style. He captured and retained the presidency in part by portraying two successive Democratic opponents as finger-in-the-wind politicians without a core set of beliefs. The notion of bending to critics or even popular will cuts against his grain. Yet it is also true that at key moments in his career, Bush has been willing to abandon his position and shift gears dramatically.
Continued on Page 49
#1
I think GW has made the decision to press on. However, the Congressional complexion has changed. When he announces his decision, you'll hear radically different tunes from the Dems. Ted Kennedy, our favorite, is on full attck today on the talk shows. Remember, it was this very same Teddy, who started the call for cutting funds for troops in VietNam in 1971-2. He led the charge and got it done. These radicals who head some of the committees in this new Congress will require a lot less persuasion. They not only will call for funding cuts, you'll soon start hearing grumblings about impeachment again. They have not forgotten Bill's impeachment and would like nothing better that to go after GW. They won't get him convicted, but they will tie up the situation and bring support for Iraq operations to a standstill. They feel invigorated, because the latest polls show only 12% support for continued Iraq engagement by US citizens. The voices here in this forum are now a distinct minority. We need to understand that.
#2
Admit I'm too lazy to go look it up, but I think you're public opinion data are wrong, SpecOp. I believe around 60% have said they believe the US can be successful in Iraq, going back many months. Unpublished in-depth Pentagon survey data (at least as of a few months back) showed much the same thing. There's never been a "withdraw now" bloc larger than the 30-something hard-core who opposed the war, oppose just about everything and anything done by the administration.
#3
Don't know accuracy Verlaine, but this was a Bloomburg poll from last week. Now, admittedly, Bloomburg is about as friendly to GW as the NY Slimes, but my point was the Demos are feeling their oats due to shift in public opinion. And I was reading earlier today that Levin is going to convene hearings in his committee (Senate Armed Services) as soon as he's seated. Just trying to say this will become their tactic.
#4
The longer the USA stays in IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN, the more fighters Radical Islam will lose. Dubya will not leave the WH until mid-January 2009 - by that time, most of Radics' best men could be old men + tweens, no match for US/Brit-led/trained units. IMO the Radics =Iran can't afford to pull-back becuz that means leaving the area to both local Govt forces + Sunnis. Iff the USA raises the levels of troops in Iraq, I believe Radical Islam must do the same no matter the casualties or other internal damage to itself, and espec iff Dubya announces a FORTRESS IRAQ change in policy. ONCE THE BORDER AREAS WID IRAN ARE CLOSED OFF, NUTHIN EXCEPT US GOP-DEM POLITIX CAN SAVE THE LOCAL ANTi-US SHIA OR OTHER ISLAMIST INSURGENTS. Radical Iran will have to either cease support of regional factions, or else launch/initiate kinds of "last resort/ditch" intensive new Terror attacks outside of the ME which will directly influence Washington to get out of Iraq=ME once and for all. THE RADICS WANT AN ISOLATIONIST GLOBALIST DEM IN THE WH FOR 2008, SO THE HIGHER US CASUALTIES ARE THE BETTER. THEY WANT THEIR NUKES WHILE GETTING THE USA TO PAY THEIR BILLS.
Both bumbling groups may differ in the focus of their fretting, but fret they do. For the problem, as they have defined it, has to do with what is commonly stated as 'a statistically small group of Muslims around the world' who need to be dealt with in some manner so that greater Islam can get on with the historic task of being "a religion of peace and understanding."
Better known as the less desirable form of that proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.
Both positions, whether they focus on "giving" the benefits of the modern world to the West's Islamic populations spread out in its cities and nations, or "bringing" the same benefits to the center of Islamic mass in the Middle East, share the belief that Islam can be "fixed."
Theres that pesky light again. And it's still moving ...
It strikes me that a religion that doesn't view itself as broken is unlikely to take kindly to the notion that it needs fixing.
Maybe that explains the complete and total absence of any reformation.
What if, as has been repeatedly stated by Islamic spokesmen in their media and their capitols and their mosques, Islam has neither the interest in nor the capacity for assimilation?
Good question.
What if Islam continues, as it has for many centuries, to be implacably hostile to the West?
What if, in a series of increasingly violent incidents coming quickly over a relatively short number of years, what we so tenderly term "Islamic radicals" continue to attack the cities and nations in which large numbers of Muslims live in relative isolation from the body politic, and it is known that those attacking come from and fade back into these unassimilated populations?
This has already been happening for the past five years.
This society can even ride out the killing by weapons of mass destruction of any kind of a number of cities. America, Europe, and Western Civilization can survive anything the radical Islamists can throw at us.
Optimistic, but I'll roll with it.
The society that will have much more difficulty surviving with its cherished "values" intact will be what happens to the global society of Islam should it continue to attack the West with increasing ferocity.
Which is why Islams very survival hinges upon radical reformation and not any sort of gradual evolution.
A common catch phrase of Marxism is that "The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him." I dread the coming catch phrase, "The Muslim will supply the West with the excuse to eradicate Islam," but that is clearly lurking in one of our possible futures; a future that although unthinkable is not inconceivable.
Unreformed Islam can no more reverse this than it can make rivers run uphill.
A second series of attacks on America at the level of 9/11 or greater will not bring out more B-52s. They are already out. A second series will bring out the one arm of America's war machine that has rarely been asked about, written about, or even mentioned in passing since September, 2001; the ballistic missile submarines.
With a barely audible hiss, the sword quietly slides from its scabbard.
But the cold fact is that should America or the West feel its way of life and the lives of its citizens are sufficiently threatened by Islam these weapons will, in the end, be used against the Muslim centers of mass; cities in the middle-east or elsewhere where Muslims are the majority of the population. This is not some "Strangelovian" fantasy, but a very real option on the table of realpolitik. If you think our ballistic missile submarines don't carry the targeting information for these cities, think again.
I wouldnt dream of thinking otherwise. Thank goodness our military doesnt either.
This is why I still deeply believe that the current effort in Iraq and the Middle East to counter and expunge Islamic terrorism and turn Islam from the road it is on towards one of reformation and assimilation is the best path that can be taken at this time. Indeed, for all the ineptitude of the current administration, for all the expense in treasure and lives, this shoot-the-moon, Hail Mary of a foreign policy in Iraq is not just a policy to make America safer at home. It is the only thing that stands between Islam and its own destruction.
I could not agree more.
Sometime shortly after 9/11 in an online forum I frequented then, an exasperated idealist proclaimed that "After all, you can't kill a billion Muslims." Like so many others he spoke from somewhere outside History. History, especially the world's most recent history, shows us all how wrong that statement is. The hard truth is rather that, "Yes, if you really want to, you can."
I could not agree more.
And that is the most terrible and terrorizing thought of the 21st century.
I could not disagree more. The most terrible and terrorizing thought of the 21st century is a half-dead world shackled and chained by the sharia law of a 7th century retrograde religion.
#2
"Ride out the killing" - Asymmetric Warfare > the greatest harm or damage that can be achieved is what a Nation = Gubmint DOES TO ITSELF, notsomuch at the ahnd sof its enemies. RUSSIA-CHINA is engaging in econ + resources AW, where all flows lead to Moscow-Beijing. THE US DEMOLEFT AGENDA OF PC/PDENIABLY "INCREASING SOCIALISM AT HOME, WEAKEN THE USA OVERSEAS" is consistent wid abovesame AW and GORBACHEV'S
"CHLDREN FEED THE MOTHER" strategem vv Russia-China + SCO.
#3
The only thing is, this is the program President Bush is in the process of executing: giving the Muslims a chance to demonstrate that they needn't all be killed in order for the rest of us to be safe. If the Iraqis and Afghanis can learn to live peacefully together and peacefully with us, then there is hope for the rest. If not, then only Jewish Israel will remain after the firestorm... which is why I hope desperately that we're building up a stock of daisycutters and such -- a nuclear holocaust will likely render Israel uninhabited as well, if my meager understanding is correct.
#4
Sadly, your capable understanding is quite correct, tw. This is why I've always advocated using conventional weapons unless we have no alternative. Worst of all is how Islam will quite possibly give us no alternative.
Yes, Bush is doing pretty much what the article outlines. I'd prefer he migrated away from espousing the Religion of Peace [spit] meme, but that's just me. What can only be speculated upon is how clearly Bush understands that unreformed Islam will most likely necessitate a Muslim holocaust.
On top of nearly constant anti-Semitic propaganda, much of the Muslim world hasn't even heard of it.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
AYAAN HIRSI ALI, a Somali immigrant who served in the parliament of the Netherlands until earlier this year, is the author of "Infidel," an autobiography to be published in February.
ONE DAY IN 1994, when I was living in Ede, a small town in Holland, I got a visit from my half-sister. She and I were both immigrants from Somalia and had both applied for asylum in Holland. I was granted it; she was denied. The fact that I got asylum gave me the opportunity to study. My half-sister couldn't.
In order for me to be admitted to the university I wanted to attend, I needed to pass three courses: a language course, a civics course and a history course. It was in the preparatory history course that I, for the first time, heard of the Holocaust. I was 24 years old at that time, and my half-sister was 21.
In those days, the daily news was filled with the Rwandan genocide and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. On the day that my half-sister visited me, my head was reeling from what happened to 6 million Jews in Germany, Holland, France and Eastern Europe.
I learned that innocent men, women and children were separated from each other. Stars pinned to their shoulders, transported by train to camps, they were gassed for no other reason than for being Jewish.
I saw pictures of masses of skeletons, even of kids. I heard horrifying accounts of some of the people who had survived the terror of Auschwitz and Sobibor. I told my half-sister all this and showed her the pictures in my history book. What she said was as awful as the information in my book.
With great conviction, my half-sister cried: "It's a lie! Jews have a way of blinding people. They were not killed, gassed or massacred. But I pray to Allah that one day all the Jews in the world will be destroyed."
She was not saying anything new. As a child growing up in Saudi Arabia, I remember my teachers, my mom and our neighbors telling us practically on a daily basis that Jews are evil, the sworn enemies of Muslims, and that their only goal was to destroy Islam. We were never informed about the Holocaust.
Later, as a teenager in Kenya, when Saudi and other Persian Gulf philanthropy reached us, I remember that the building of mosques and donations to hospitals and the poor went hand in hand with the cursing of Jews. Jews were said to be responsible for the deaths of babies and for epidemics such as AIDS, and they were believed to be the cause of wars. They were greedy and would do absolutely anything to kill us Muslims. If we ever wanted to know peace and stability, and if we didn't want to be wiped out, we would have to destroy the Jews. For those of us who were not in a position to take up arms against them, it was enough for us to cup our hands, raise our eyes heavenward and pray to Allah to destroy them.
Western leaders today who say they are shocked by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference this week denying the Holocaust need to wake up to that reality. For the majority of Muslims in the world, the Holocaust is not a major historical event that they deny. We simply do not know it ever happened because we were never informed of it.
The total number of Jews in the world today is estimated to be about 15 million, certainly no more than 20 million. On the other hand, the world's Muslim population is estimated to be between 1.2 billion and 1.5 billion. And not only is this population rapidly growing, it is also very young.
What's striking about Ahmadinejad's conference is the (silent) acquiescence of mainstream Muslims. I cannot help but wonder: Why is there no counter-conference in Riyadh, Cairo, Lahore, Khartoum or Jakarta condemning Ahmadinejad? Why are the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference silent on this?
Could the answer be as simple as it is horrifying: For generations, the leaders of these so-called Muslim countries have been spoon-feeding their populations a constant diet of propaganda similar to the one that generations of Germans (and other Europeans) were fed that Jews are vermin and should be dealt with as such? In Europe, the logical conclusion was the Holocaust. If Ahmadinejad has his way, he shall not want for compliant Muslims ready to act on his wish.
The world needs to be informed again and again about the Holocaust not only in the interest of the Jews who survived and their offspring but in the interest of humanity.
#2
Yup, that twitched the surprise meter allright.
Any time Ms. Ali wishes to become an American citizen, I'll be happy to co-sponsor her.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/17/2006 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I've never seen Ms. Ali on television. Not saying she hasn't been just saying if she has I didn't see it.
I've been reading about her ever since the murder of Theo van Gogh and have seen photos of her. She's extremely sharp, bright, and articulate on paper. Rather attractive to boot.
I wish this woman got the airtime those assh**** from CAIR get on a regular basis.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/17/2006 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Unfortunately for Muslims, there is one, even more vital history lesson that they were never taught: that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
#5
Moud in TIME?/NEWSWEEK? > the Holocaust is the basis of the post-WW2 existence of ISRAEL. Disprove the Holocaust, and you disprove the right of Israel = Jewish State to exist and be protected by the USA-West. IOW, the defeat = extermination of Israel, AND SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH THOSE NATIONS WHICH KNOWINGLY ALLOWED HER TO EXIST UNDER FRAUDULENT PREMISES, thus becomes a RIGHTEOUS CAUSE, UNDER GOD-HEAVEN.
#6
What's striking about Ahmadinejad's conference is the (silent) acquiescence of mainstream Muslims. I cannot help but wonder: Why is there no counter-conference in Riyadh, Cairo, Lahore, Khartoum or Jakarta condemning Ahmadinejad? Why are the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference silent on this?
The usual Thundering Silence from mainstream or moderate Islam.
After a while silence is no longer consent. To remain silent is to lie.
Surging Troops?
If we add another 30,000 or so troops to Iraq, in a final effort to win the war, then we must change (widen) the rules of engagement. Only that way can America ensure that it simply does not create more targets for the insurgents, add a larger logistical trail, and ensure more Iraqi dependency on our soldiers.
What would that entail?
Putting Iran and Syria on notice that we will bomb terrorists flocking across their borders.
Give an ultimatum to militia heads, especially Moqtadar Sadr, to disband or face annihilation from the United States.
Expand the rules of engagement in all matters dealing with IEDs, with a shoot on sight rule concerning anyone found implanting or aiding such efforts.
Enlarge the planned Iraqi security forces to near 400,000, and embed far more Americans in those units.
Recalibrate the ratio of support to combat troops, so that we dont simply create bigger compounds to facilitate larger troop levels to end up with more stationary and more numerous targetsand ever more enclaves of Americans behind thousands of acres of bermed reserves.
So spell out the mission, the new rules of engagement, and then, and only then, surgeif need be more troops.
#2
Cutting farm subsidies and raising taxes on gas? Are those the best ways he can think of funding raising those troops? That is the first time Victor has lost me in his argument.
#3
These people conduct the vast majority of their cowardly activies along major supply routes (MSR). Tele-commuting has not caught on here yet, so it would follow that most of them reside within walking distance or a short Toyota drive of their operational areas. The "kill boxes" are already identified. All that is needed is the will to put some B-52's in the ATO and monitor the kinetic effects. The kak will stop soon thereafter.
#5
Well, unless you add more troops with the same rules of engagement, so that more dumb stupid troops are killed, so that the Cut and Run imperative becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It is all about Stupid George, after all.
/sarcasm
Posted by: john ||
12/17/2006 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Jules, I think VDH is simply pointing out how easy it would be to fund the extra troops if we had the will power. We were just paying $3 a gallon for gas; an extra 10 cents right now wouldn't hurt anyone.
I'm no expert, but I'm coming around to the belief that our military needs to be bigger in the long term. I know Rumsfeld was against that, but we're going to be in situations where we need more Marines and more soldiers. Starting now with a new division of each, properly raised, trained and equipped (and yes I know how long that'll take) seems to be a good idea to me.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/17/2006 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
100% of Rantburgers who open and study the following map of Baghdad, will understand the need to support one sect over the other. Kurdistan is peaceful because Kurds dominate. (Pardon AOL's subversion of easy linkage)
The second issue: who do we support? We have never had good relations with non-Secular Shiites. On the other hand, we have mutual beneficial relations with Sunnis. (Screw the Wall Street Journal for promoting play of the Shiite card)
#8
And the world, especially in Europe, has become vigilant against Islamic fundamentalism.
That is painfully optimistic.
And of course they play to the millions of their brethren appeasers who dont really want these radicals to bring them a Taliban Dark Ages, but sorta, kinda, like the idea that they kill a few of those arrogant infidel Westerners as blood sport.
And therein lies the rub. So long as we do not make Muslims in general feel our pain, they will never summon the will to begin singling out their jihadists. Instead, it will be the same old have-it-both-ways for as long as we let them get away with it.
If more Muslims were actually being shipped back to those "Dark Ages" locations, they might have second thoughts about tactily supporting terrorism. Until then, we are just so many targets that have not been hit ... yet.
#9
I'd like to have the advice and counsel of folk here at RB on a serious and personal matter.
My better half and I have been saving money for my daughter's college education for a number of years. All of the savings are in mutual funds (stocks). My daughter is 19 months away from starting college.
In 2000 we had approximately $45K in custodial accounts and Ed. IRA set aside. Today that amount is now about $50K with no intervening contributions. (times been tough)
We (actually SHE, my daughter) can't afford to take a major hit in the stock market insofar as these monies are for her college education because there isn't enough time for the market to rebound to help pay for her education.
I guess this is the Big Question: Knowing what I do about the world, believing as I do that the President and CIC is gonna take it to the f*ckin' Persians in due course: Should I liquidate her mutual funds and put 'em into CD's and money market funds NOW or can I afford to be greedy and wait another 8-12 months in light of the superb returns the market is giving now?
What would the folk at RB do?
I'm listening.
Flash poll: "Sell" or "hold for 8-12 months"? (or any combination thereof?)
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/17/2006 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm still hopeful we'll take action against Iran, but don't know if we will. I have my $ in Janus Overseas, JAOSX. It's invested enough in the Pac Rim economy to (hopefully) weather an Iran shutoff, although that may depend on others upping their output. YMMV
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/17/2006 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
According to everything I've read, Mark Z, (and remembering that I really don't have a good grasp on topics related to money), you should be slowly -- at monthly intervals or so, perhaps? -- liquidating the college funds precisely because you can't afford to take a big hit just as the young lady arrives at the door of her dormitory. Remember that most of those who lost big in the technology bubble of the '90s rode the wave up, then all the way back down, because they weren't willing to leave the table with enough rather than with the maximum of the peak. Only God gets the timing right every time. ;-)
Vanguard's website talks a bit about this link, and has a link to an asset allocator calculator.
Choose an asset allocation
In formulating an asset allocation for your college investment portfolio, focus on growing your assets in the early years and on protecting your accumulated assets in later years. As your beneficiary moves through the teenage years, you should methodically shift from more aggressive assets, such as stocks, to more conservative assets, such as bonds and short-term reserves.
If you're investing in a 529 plan, you'll find that most plans offer age-based options that automatically adjust your allocation to be more conservative as the beneficiary ages. If you're managing your own investment strategy, you should check your allocations at least once a year.
The allocation strategy that's best for you depends on your investor temperament, which reflects your risk tolerance. Keep this in mind: Even if you tend to be an aggressive investor, force yourself to move toward more-conservative investments sooner than you would with your retirement savings because of the limited time you have to save and use the proceeds.
Our asset allocation questionnaire can help you determine your investor temperament and a suitable mix of investments for your college savings plan.
By the way, $50,000 is an impressive sum to get her started in life! She's lucky to have to have you and Mrs. Z as parents.
#12
Mark Z, I favor "Sell", But what are the tax consequences?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/17/2006 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#13
FJ, RJ, TW...thank you one and all for your input.
You're kind to take the time to jot down your thoughts. Much appreciated.
I hear what you're saying TW (thanks for the link BTW) but I'm leaning towards RJ's advice: PULL NOW out of the stock funds (and just transfer into "custodial fund / ED. IRA" money market funds until she needs to draw down for tuition).
(TW...I'm content the 1996 Buick I drive and my wife says she is happy with her 1999 Toyota.)
Thanks again...
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/17/2006 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Mark Z, I married a man who offered me the choice of a fancy diamond engagement ring or a new bed, then a fancy wedding or the downpayment on a house... so I knew what I was getting into. ;-) And honestly, you probably have a better grasp of matters financial than I, since most people do.
#15
Mark, I saw what was coming in Iraq and I believed that the market was high enough, so I moved mine to fixed dollar account, but as always, the lack of victory in Iraq or at the polls has had no effect at all on Wall St.
You may be right about future war with Iran, even nuclear, but that does not necessarily translate to a decline in the DOW. Real oil shortage, however would have an effect.
#16
Here on Guam we have TWO CNN channels. Anyhoo, CNN guests > MOUD + RADICAL ISLAM WANT A WORLD WITHOUT AMERICA. As said times before, Dubya correctly interpreted the 9-11/WOT > EITHER AMER RULES THE WORLD, OR AMER WILL BE DESTROYED, ERGO AMER CHOOSES TO RULE THE WORLD. In absence of Dubya-USA imposing democratic regime change around the world vv the Rogues, the best Dubya and any GOP-Dem POTUS successor can hope for is to MINIMIZE, NOT 100% ELIMINATE, ANY NEW 9-11's = Amer Hiroshimas. The USA needs to do what is needed or requisite to SURVIVE, PREVAIL, AND BE VICTORIOUS - DRAFT > about Survival and victory of the Amer Nation, NOT GOP-DEM, etal.........@ ideo POLITIX. GEN. SHERMAN on WINDSOFCHANGE.NET > WAR IS CRUELTY/HELL. One side engages in cruelty = hellishness not for same's sake, BUT TO INDUCE THE ENEMY TO SURRENDER OR OTHERWISE CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT CONFLICT. Sherman's fam adage > NOT MEAN SO POLITICOS CAN WIN ELEX FOR ELEX'S SAKE. Sherman = MAcArthur > Prolonged, Protracted in-decision and inaction in War only results in Protracted Casualties. TO NOT FIGHT FOR VICTORY IN WAR IS THE SUREST, QUICKEST WAY TO CERTAIN DEFEAT = DESTRUCTION. MAY NOT HAPPEN OVER-NITE, BUT YOU AND YOUR SIDE WILL END UP JUST AS DEFEATED, JUST AS DEAD, JUST AS DESTROYED, BECUZ ARE PUTTING YOUR FATE-SURVIVAL IN THE UNILATERAL, SINGULAR HANDS OF YOUR ENEMIES. CHICOMS DEFENSE WHITE PAPER > America is not even officially Socialist or Communist or under OWG yet but have already lost 1/2 of CONUS-NORAM and 200Miyuhn out of 300Milyuhn AMericans.
Looks like Desmond Tutu won't be making a visit to Israel after all. Upset that Israel refused to roll out the red carpet for the Archbishop, Tutu packed off in a huff, taking his six-person band of merry UN pranksters with him.
Too bad for the people who think the peace effort could use another biased report on Israel from the UN Human Rights Council, a body so blatantly anti-Israel that it makes one long for the old, discredited UN Commission on Human Rights. In only six months of existence, the UNHRC has managed to condemn Israel eight times, compared to none for any other state in the world.
It was clearly going for number nine when it picked outspoken Israel critic Tutu to head its mission to Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip where, after days of heavy fighting between Israeli troops and Palestinians attempting to fire Kassam rockets at Israeli civilians, an Israeli shell flew off course and killed 19 innocent Palestinians.
Continued on Page 49
#3
Tutu can only thrive where those in power revel in self-hatred. Because all Tutu does is agree that they are indeed despicable and should give up and die.
I passed through Shannon Airport in Ireland the other day. They've got a "holiday" display in the terminal, but guess what? It says "Merry Christmas." The Emerald Isle has a few Jews, and these days rather a lot of Muslims, and presumably even a militant atheist or two, but they don't seem inclined to sue the bejasus out of every event in the Yuletide season.
By contrast, the Associated Press reports the following from Riverside, Calif.:
"A high school choir was asked to stop singing Christmas carols during an ice skating show featuring Olympic medalist Sasha Cohen out of concern the skater would be offended . . . "
I hasten to add this Sasha Cohen is not the Sacha Baron Cohen of the hit movie 'Borat.' The Olympic S. Cohen is a young lady; the Borat S. Cohen is a man, though his singlet would not be out of place in a louche Slav entry to the ice-dancing pairs. Likewise, the skater-puts-carols-on-ice incident seems as sharply satirical of contemporary America as anything in 'Borat,' at least in its distillation of the coerciveness of "tolerance":
"A city staff member, accompanied by a police officer, approached the Rubidoux High School Madrigals at the Riverside Outdoor Ice Skating Rink just as they launched into 'God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen' and requested that the troupe stop singing . . . "
Continued on Page 49
#1
Everyone who knows Rabbi Bogomilsky says he's an affable fellow, he doesn't want to Scrooge up anybody's Christmas, he's an all-around swell guy. No doubt. But in the week when the president of Iran hosts an international (and well-attended) Holocaust Denial Convention (which simultaneously denies the last Holocaust while gleefully anticipating the next one), this rabbi thinks it's in the interests of the Jewish people to take legal action against "holiday" decorations at Seattle Airport? Sorry, it's not the airport but the plaintiff who's out of his tree. An ability to prioritize is an indispensable quality of adulthood, and a sense of proportion is a crucial ingredient of a mature society.
Agreed. Though this line of argument renders Steyn's column equally problematical. If an impending Holocaust is more important than "holiday trees" in airports it is also more important than no "holiday trees" in airports. Unless we are somehow meant to believe this fake, pagan version of Christianity is on the front line against the islamists.
#2
Don't quite follow that Excalibur. The Rabbi presumably has a vested interest in avoiding another holocaust. Yet, he's spending his energies trying to horn in on American traditions. In fact, his actions are creating space for muslims to do the same I might add.
The airport has no direct vested interest in Iran's evil plotting. Putting up a Christmas tree is practically a responsibility in such a venue during the holiday season. The airport has no place in the Holocaust denial controversy or preventing a Holocaust II, and therefore in putting up a conifer, the airport is not diverting any energies better spent.
#5
Obviously Mr. Steyn, whose writings I normally like, never read past the report of the eeeeevil Jewish rabbi who shut down Christmas to find the real story. Y'all know, because it was posted here at Rantburg a few days ago: the Chassidic rabbi who wanted to add a privately funded Chanukkah menorah to the publically funded Christmas trees, and the airport bureaucrat who decided to get rid of the entire display instead, lest any others desire to be allowed to add their own bits to the display. Yes, there was talk about suing if the menorah couldn't be added, but nobody has yet bothered to ask why the rabbi felt it necessary to do so when there are plenty of precedents for allowing such things in the public square. Yes, something like 75% of Americans regard themselves as Christians of one sort or the other, but acknowledging the rest of us does not diminish your holiday. And if you're going to argue Holocaust (a subject upon which I have a few personal credentials), what harm does it do to publically acknowledge -- at least by implication -- that the Jews who were intended to be erased by the Nazi Holocaust are still around to celebrate the holiday commemorating the second time a nation attempted to eradicate its Jewish subjects for daring to worship differently?
How does this diminish Christmas?
/end rant as I glance over at Mr. Wife's 7' Christmas tree in the front room window, then in the other direction at the Hanukkah menorah and dreidles on the kitchen counter, awaiting celebration of the third night of the holiday.
#6
I politely disagree, he was in the wrong. A christmas tree is a secular symbol (of pagan origins IIUC), as is Santa and the reindeer. A Nativity would be a different thing, entirely. Or do you want Islamic, Wiccan and Kwanzaa, etc. displays too?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/17/2006 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
The battle that could shatter Hillary Clinton's dreams
17 December 2006 09:13
In the murky world of Hillary Clinton's undeclared run for the White House, official denials and bland statements are ubiquitous. But, as Kremlinologists did in the Cold War, it pays to monitor the guests shuttling in and out of her townhouse in Washington, DC. Last week that list revealed a campaign moving rapidly into top gear, spurred into action by the meteoric rise of Barack Obama.
Last Sunday, Clinton hosted a dinner with key officials from New Hampshire. On Tuesday, she held one with figures from Iowa. Both states are vital first battlegrounds in any nomination campaign. Then, last Wednesday, Clinton had a private party with old hands from her husband's two presidential campaigns, including James "The Raging Cajun" Carville, who masterminded Bill's rise.
Early Daze: Can I follow you around, can I, huh, can I? Please Spike, can I, huh?
The race is on. Senator Obama, of Illinois, has electrified the Democratic party like no other figure in recent political memory and the shock is being felt most in Clinton's campaign. "I think they have suddenly sat up and taken notice of this -- they have to," said a Democratic strategist close to Clinton's campaign.
Obama is aggressively exploring a presidential run, scuppering Clinton's carefully laid plans and threatening her grip on the party's power structure. Her march to power, years in the making, is being speeded into action by Obama's unexpected emergence, which has blind-sided her close advisers.
"In an America caught in the throes of Obama-mania, Clinton is suddenly having to seek publicity"
For the past two years Clinton has deliberately stayed out of New Hampshire and Iowa for fear of stoking up presidential speculation too early. But now the gloves are off. Aside from the dinner parties, Clinton has been hitting the phones to key players in these and other early primary states such as Nevada and South Carolina. In an America caught in the throes of Obama-mania, Clinton is suddenly having to seek publicity. Last week she re-released her bestselling book It Takes a Village, and is planning some book-signing appearances.
Obama is a real threat. His first rally last week in New Hampshire drew screaming crowds. The week before he had been in Clinton's home turf of New York City, speaking at a fashion-industry dinner, where he pitched himself as a viable alternative to Clinton, saying that the country was keen to move on from the political battles of the 1980s and 1990s.
"Believe again!" the [Obama] advert exhorts.
"The country is waiting for the next thing," he told an admiring audience. It was clear who he was referring to. In New Hampshire, TV adverts supporting Obama are already running. They beat out the same message -- Obama is a fresh face. "Believe again!" the advert exhorts. Obama is becoming a huge symbol of change. "People are projecting on him whatever they want to see," said Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist at the University of Michigan.
It is easy to see why Obama is such a threat. His liberal politics appeal to many of Clinton's base supporters. He has been consistently anti-war and was not even in the Senate when Clinton voted for invading Iraq. Her hawkish support of the war has been a millstone around her neck in courting the Democratic base.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Hillbilly should get Obama as potential Veep, thus killing three taboos with one gross error
1, Woman President.
2. Black Veep.
3. Totaly unelectable combo.
The good part is that Obama would get a huge prestige boost.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/17/2006 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
To quote Mrs. Secret Master: "I would like to vote for a woman for president - just not THAT woman!"
THE hottest potential contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, has been drawn into his first scandal, coming under scrutiny for links to a shady businessman over the purchase of his $US1.65million ($2.1 million) family home in Chicago.
Although this is primarily a fun piece (Warning: Werdsmith at Werk) there are serious ramifications to the underlying truth... The PCism that prevails, that underpins the social points he lampoons, are deadly. Social suicide is in progress and it's fucking time for both sides to back the fuck off and let Wymyns be Wymyns and Myns be Myns. It's Nature's Way. Okay, I'm done. As you were. Lol. Enjoy.
A long time ago I read a short online piece about how women could get their men to put the toilet seat down. Inherent in it was the idea that this was an example of mens lack of consideration and that the task at hand was one of disciplining these bad boys. I dont know, my attitude is that if women can leave a toilet seat down, men can leave it up.
Of course, this is just a silly, pebble-in-the-shoe issue, but I see it as a metaphor for a modern phenomenon: The casting of womens characteristic behaviors as the norm and mens as dysfunctional deviations.
This is strikingly obvious with the topic of communication. Man has long known that women were the more loquacious sex, and youve probably heard of studies to this effect. A recent book states that women have about 20,000 communication events (I love these terms the psycho-babblers conjure up) a day, versus about 7,000 for men. But this is nothing new; who didnt know a bevy of garrulous girls in school?
Continued on Page 49
#5
"Men" who give in to the "always put the toilet seat down" directive, really should be sitting down to take aleak, also...
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
12/17/2006 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Nothing makes you leave the toilet lid down faster than living with a wolf hybrid who thinks that toilet water is Dom fucking Perignon.
The casting of womens characteristic behaviors as the norm and mens as dysfunctional deviations.
Somewhere along the path to universal suffrage women became a new "minority". It should be no surprise then that all things white and male should be subjected to the wrong-at-all-times self-loathing rule.
As to the less is more bullshit. Didn't we all hear this little addage about the superior aspects of Japanese culture and management style? Are we supposed to live in shoebox houses and be forcibly packed into our subway cars like sardines? Didn't we eat Japan's bento box for a midnight snack over a decade ago?
White man's burden is rapidly becoming white male's burden.
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.
Looks like Desmond Tutu won't be making a visit to Israel after all. Upset that Israel refused to roll out the red carpet for the Archbishop, Tutu packed off in a huff, taking his six-person band of merry UN pranksters with him. 
