Just another indication of which way the wind's blowing....talks between Inspector Clouseau, AKA the IAEA's Mohammed El Baradi and the Iranians were abruptly cancelled today.
Apparently El Baradi was scheduled to meet with the Iranians in Vienna today, but the talks were cancelled after an abortive preliminary meeting between between Iranian deputy negotiator Javad Vaidi and EU negotiator Robert Cooper.
As accomodating as the EU has been, I think you can pretty much assume that the cancellation came from Iran.
Could be that Iran got wind of El Baradi's report to the IAEA's board of governors, which pretty much let them know that Iran is continuing to expand its uranium enrichment program regardless of any UN resolutions and that UN inspectors have no luck in determining "the nature and scope" of Iran's nuclear program...at least the part the IAEA boys have been allowed to see.
The deadline for Iran's compliance has passed, and the ball's back in the UN's court.
Monday, June 11, 2007
A Modest Proposal for Middle East Peace
Ahh, the wicked problem of the Israeli -Arab conflict. Can there possibly be a solution? I think there is, and this story from the Palestinian Authority sheds new light on it.
Now, normally, when people are placed in a situation where there is extreme lawlessness, an ongoing civil war, massively corrupt and violent leadership and 70% unemployment they usually vote with their feet and go elsewhere, if they can.
Many Palestinians are trying to do just that, and enough of them have tried so that the Palestinian Authority has had it's chief cleric issue a fatwa that forbids `Palestinian' Muslims to emigrate.
According to the above Jerusalem Post story, sources in the Palestinian Authority's Foreign Ministry said that about 10,000 Palestinians have filed requests to emigrate from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the year. They said the requests had been approved. "Every day we hear about hundreds of Palestinians who file requests for emigration with different consulates and diplomatic missions," the sources said. "According to our statistics, there are at least 45,000 emigration applications being reviewed by different countries."
Well, the Palestinian leadership can't have that. Massive immigration would deprive the mob bosses in Fatah and Hamas of the human fodder they thrive on. Imagine, no one to hold hostage as `victims' for all that aid money the Palestinian Authority receives, no one to exploit in the rackets that go on in the Palestinian areas every day..unthinkable!
So what did they do ? Use Islam, of course.
Entitled "No Permission to Emigrate from Palestine," the fatwa reads: "There has been much talk in Palestine about emigration, especially among the young people, due to the difficult security and economic situation. This is being done in search of a better life abroad. Many are continuing to rush to the gates of the embassies and consulates of the Western nations with requests for visas in order to reside permanently in those countries.
"We hereby declare that emigration from the blessed lands is not permitted according to religious law. The people living in these areas must remain in their homes and must not leave them to conquerors. Those who abide by this ruling will perform an honorable deed and will support the Aksa Mosque."
Actually, I have a modest proposal to put out here. A win-win situation, you might say.
Since much of the EU and non-EU countries like Norway continue to be so enamored of the Palestinians, I suggest they issue visas and take these people in forthwith. After all, the countries of the Middle East are pretty much tired of them, especially their `Arab brothers', who've killed and expelled more `Palestinians' then the Israelis ever did., and the Palestinians obviously are lining up to go there. With a little luck, the `Palestinian' leaders can go with them...to provide guidance and political representation, as it were. Thus, the Europeans who have such high regard for these folks can experience the joy of living next to them firsthand.
And the Europeans would get the chance to do what they've always advocated for Israel...make a Sacrifice for Peace.
As an added incentive for the Europeans, most of what's left of Europe's Jews would probably depart, something a great many Europeans would be just fine with and Europe's Jews in Western Europe should probably be thinking about anyway . And with the departure of the Palestinians, there'd be plenty of room for Europe's Jews in the newly vacated Judea, Samaria (AKA the West Bank) and Gaza.
Instead of an international basket case and a breeding grounds for Islamic terrorism, Gaza populated by Jews would go back to being a top area for agricultural production and a tourist resort, while Judea and Samaria would essentially become part of Israeli suburbia, with maybe a little high tech thrown in.
An exchange of populations, a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, if you believe James Baker, the Saudis and the whole crew of Middle East `realists', a surefire solution for peace in the region.
I can't wait to receive my Nobel Prize.
Paris Hilton, Jihad and us...
The Paris Hilton soap opera is more interesting in what it reveals about us as a culture and who may be taking notice than because of any innate value in the story itself.
Some of us see it in the context of a spoiled, rich heiress getting her just desserts, others as someone being prosecuted mercilessly `because she's rich, sexy and famous and people are jealous.'
Frankly, I could give a rip. There has always been a two tiered system of justice, and it will always a matter of `how much justice can you afford, Jack?' At least as long as we continue to allow lawyers to metasize like cancer cells and vomit litigation over all parts of everyday life.
What I'm concerned about is what this signifies to our enemies.
What do you imagine they think when they've already sneaked into internet cafes across the Muslim world and watched videos of this woman performing various sex acts for the camera, and now see this same young woman even more celebrated, famous and seemingly, the number one concern of Americans?
Rightly or wrongly, they are going to conclude that this young woman is an emblem of our culture, and a role model - and that our culture is weak, decadent, rotted from within and ready to be toppled, just like Osama, Zawahiri and their friendly neighborhood jihad preachin' imam always said.
What's more, they will consider it a Holy Act to cleanse it and make it submit to Dar Islam.
Our culture isn't nearly so decadent and rotting as all that (at least,once you get out of places like Hollywood, San Francisco and Manhattan) but that will be the perception, especially in parts of the world that already think the West is decadent and evil and have a somewhat ummm...jaundiced view of women and their place in society already.
Even more importantly is the effect on what I call the `swing vote' in Muslim society, people who aren't quite ready to pull the detonators on those suicide vests yet, are mainly concerned with everyday life and look around them at the societies they live in and think that maybe, just maybe, a little more western style progress would be most welcome.
When they see the hoopla over Paris Hilton, they are more than likely to think that this is where that road leads,and it's the last thing they want, especially for their wives and daughters.
Or to quote the immortal words of Big Sam to Scarlett in `Gone With The Wind' after a little taste of seeing how things were outside of the familiar: "I done seen enough of dis here freedom! Gets me back to Tara where I belongs!"
Part of this war that's been thrust upon us is a war of cultures, and a battle for hearts and minds.And the empowerment of Muslim women and the overthrow of the misogyny inherent in that culture is the key, the absolute cornerstone of defeating Radical Islam, in my opinion.
For the record, Paris Hilton is not to blame for this in the least. She is whom she is.
The fault lies with the dinosaur media who are willing to sell out any semblance of journalistic ethics and the role of the press in a free society for ratings..and with us, for watching like the celebrity voyeurs a lot of us are.
Some of us see it in the context of a spoiled, rich heiress getting her just desserts, others as someone being prosecuted mercilessly `because she's rich, sexy and famous and people are jealous.'
Frankly, I could give a rip. There has always been a two tiered system of justice, and it will always a matter of `how much justice can you afford, Jack?' At least as long as we continue to allow lawyers to metasize like cancer cells and vomit litigation over all parts of everyday life.
What I'm concerned about is what this signifies to our enemies.
What do you imagine they think when they've already sneaked into internet cafes across the Muslim world and watched videos of this woman performing various sex acts for the camera, and now see this same young woman even more celebrated, famous and seemingly, the number one concern of Americans?
Rightly or wrongly, they are going to conclude that this young woman is an emblem of our culture, and a role model - and that our culture is weak, decadent, rotted from within and ready to be toppled, just like Osama, Zawahiri and their friendly neighborhood jihad preachin' imam always said.
What's more, they will consider it a Holy Act to cleanse it and make it submit to Dar Islam.
Our culture isn't nearly so decadent and rotting as all that (at least,once you get out of places like Hollywood, San Francisco and Manhattan) but that will be the perception, especially in parts of the world that already think the West is decadent and evil and have a somewhat ummm...jaundiced view of women and their place in society already.
Even more importantly is the effect on what I call the `swing vote' in Muslim society, people who aren't quite ready to pull the detonators on those suicide vests yet, are mainly concerned with everyday life and look around them at the societies they live in and think that maybe, just maybe, a little more western style progress would be most welcome.
When they see the hoopla over Paris Hilton, they are more than likely to think that this is where that road leads,and it's the last thing they want, especially for their wives and daughters.
Or to quote the immortal words of Big Sam to Scarlett in `Gone With The Wind' after a little taste of seeing how things were outside of the familiar: "I done seen enough of dis here freedom! Gets me back to Tara where I belongs!"
Part of this war that's been thrust upon us is a war of cultures, and a battle for hearts and minds.And the empowerment of Muslim women and the overthrow of the misogyny inherent in that culture is the key, the absolute cornerstone of defeating Radical Islam, in my opinion.
For the record, Paris Hilton is not to blame for this in the least. She is whom she is.
The fault lies with the dinosaur media who are willing to sell out any semblance of journalistic ethics and the role of the press in a free society for ratings..and with us, for watching like the celebrity voyeurs a lot of us are.
UK company caught smuggling weapons-grade uranium to Iran
Britain's MI6 has made a number of arrests after discovering a plot by a UK company to sell black-market weapons-grade uranium to Iran and Sudan.
During the 20-month investigation, which also involved MI5 and Customs and Excise, a group of Britons were under surveillance as they purchased weapons-grade uranium from the black market in Russia. The uranium was reportedly intended to be shipped to Iran and the Sudan.
MI6 is also keeping a close eye on what's described as `a number of Britons, who are understood to have links with Islamic terrorists abroad' remain under surveillance, and British investigators believe that they now have proof that al-Qaeda has been actively engaged in developing an atomic capability. The British company has been `wound up', Britspeak for dissolved or ended.
Roger Berry, chairman of the British Parliament's Quadripartite Committee which monitors arms exports, said: 'With the collapse of the Soviet Union there was always the question over not just uranium but where other WMD components were going and how this could be controlled. Real credit must go to the enforcement authorities that they have disrupted this. The really worrying aspect is that if one company is involved, are there others out there?'
Gee, you think?
Another aspect of this is the ongoing diplomatic tussle over Iran's nuclear program. If, as the mullahs say, they're only developing a nuclear program for peaceful purposes,why would they need to buy black market weapons grade uranium and have it smuggled in secretly?
Another aspect of this that the Brits are trying to nail down, according to one of my sources across the pond is Russia's role in all this.
Did the Russian government know about this and simply choose not to bother about it? Were figures in the Russian government, or even the government itself involved? What else has gone out the back door that we don't know about? Is this part of the reason Russia is so adamant about any meaningful sanctions against Iran in the UN?
The Sudan's involvement is also interesting.
The country has a long history of involvement with Islamic terrorism and radical Islam, the Sudan is another country the Russians protect in the UN and Iran and the Sudan have a number of military and economic ties.
A Sudanese delegation visited Iran's uranium conversion facility in February, and the Sudan recently signed a mutual defense pact with Iran that involves Iran deploying deploy ballistic missiles in the Sudan.
Iranian Republican Guards have been openly seen in the Sudan operating as `advisers', and as Joshua's Army members are already aware, a number of Sudanese and Somali jihadis were recruited by Iran for Hezbollah and ended up fighting in Lebanon.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Stalemate in Lebanon, as the fighting continues.
Smoke rises from artillery fire at Nahr el-BaredFighting continues at between the Lebanese Army and Fatah al-Islam and its allies in the Ein al-Hewar and Nahr al-Bared `Palestinian refugee camps'.
The Lebanese army is admitting to losing 57 soldiers in the month long battle as opposed to an estimated 42 of the enemy.
According to al-Reuters, Milad Badran, who still lives in the camp told reporters, “The army’s bombardment is haphazard and is hitting civilian areas. It is impossible to describe the humanitarian situation.” ( in other words, the Lebanese are using artillery on civilian areas - remember that, the next time some blowhard starts talking about how inhumane Israel is to the `Palestinians')
Fatah al-Islam’s commander Abu Hurayra stated, “The army is attacking from afar and they don’t come close. We will keep fighting until this oppression is lifted. We will fight until the end, even for months its not a problem.”
Actually, Abu Harayra is quite correct. Fatah al-Islam is being amply supplied by Syria via Hezbollah, they're dug in, and the Lebanese Army is nervous about a full-on frontal offensive, because it's a no-win situation - not only might they get their tails kicked but it would undoubtedly rile the rest of Lebanon's`Palestinian' population of about 400,000. And if the forces loyal to Siniora were successful, they run the risk of bringing Hezbollah and ultimately Syria into the picture.
What sparked this, of course, is the UN Security Council tribunal over the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri...with the UN's own investigations implicating high up figures in Syria's Assad regime, and probably leading to Basher Assad himself.
That, and continued control of Lebanon by Syria.
The Ballet at the G-8 Summit
`Swan Lake?' `Sleeping Beauty' perhaps? Or`The March of the Wooden Soldiers'?
Actually, there was a little of each in the latest G-8 Summit, and as usual, it's instructive to look at what was released for public consumption(at least those of you who weren't tuned to the Paris Hilton 24-7 news network) and allow me to apply a bit of knowledge and reasoning to get a fix on what's really going on...
After his ridiculously bellicose statements on US missile defense, Russia's Vladimir Putin folded quickly, as I predicted he would. Putin was, as I've said, merely testing the West to see what would happen and doing a rendition of an old classic from the Soviet songbook.
Y'see, Vlad needs the West, needs its markets, needs it as a strategic counterbalance. Otherwise, in a country with rapidly declining birthrates, an economy that still has distribution problems even with all that oil money, and a disaffected population at home, the choice is between being part of the Islamic Caliphate or a Chinese oil colony.
Putin `surprised' the dinosaur media by offering Washington joint use with Russia of the Qabala radar base in northern Azerbaijan on the Iranian border as part of the proposed missile defense shield. The reality of course, is that whether the US accepts it or not Putin is, as usual, playing a double game. That's why put the offer out there in the first place and why he's anxious for the US to accept it...it gives Russia a foot in both camps, it's good PR for gullible westerners and curtails US influence and protection of those segments of the old Soviet empire Putin has fantasies of having Russia swallow up again.
On the other side of the coin, Russia just collected an additional $387 million dollars towards completion of the Iranian nuclear facilities at Busher and Natanz..plus another $400 million for armaments,part of which are earmarked for the Syrians as part of the alliance the Assad regime has with the mullahs.
And then, the Mullahs got hit with this out of left field...
“Iran and Russia enjoy numerous grounds for cooperation,” is how Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Muhammad-Ali Hosseini reacted to the news of Putin's offer. “We are currently studying the issue. Iran will follow up the case in its talks with Russia.”
The Mullahs are undoubtedly wondering who's side Putin is really on. Azerbaijan and Iran had certain economic and military understandings,but this offer probably wouldn't have been made without Azerbaijan's acquiescence, which means they may have switched sides as well. A substantial part of Iran's population is native Azeris, and that also is undoubtedly providing some food for thought to Iran's rulers as well.
While Bush will probably not take the Russians up on their offer (Poland and Czecholslovakia have already agreed to host the facilities and there's no reason to give Putin access to out technology)the fact that the offer was even made, and made so publicly may be a signal that relations between Iran and Russia aren't all they're made out to be.
Another subplot of all this was another part of the missile shield, the part in Israel. And that's something that has a more immediate importance to Russia and it's clients, Syria and Iran and Russia's ambitions to penetrate into the Middle East again. Putin's offer obviously had something to do with ending or curtailing the joint missile programs and the planned coordination of the Israeli and American missile defense systems as a quid pro quo.
Senate Judiciary Committee votes to aid Islamic terrorists
Your public servants in DC in action....
The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to rescind certain portions of the Military Commissions Act.
While not as publicity worthy as the open borders and amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, this is almost as damaging.
What the newly amended Act now allows is access by Islamic terrorists to Federal Courts,which essentially means that the Department of Defense will now be faced with an evil choice - either they protect their intelligence sources and their means of gathering intelligence and let Islamic terrorists walk away scot free, or they comply with subpoenas and rules of discovery and put this information on the public record, allowing jihadis access to exactly how their attacks were foiled, so they can do a better job next time.
Needless to say, this idiocy was supported and pushed through by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, notably Chairman Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and Joe Biden. Legislation will now be sent to the full Senate. This was done with the inane idea of `restoring Habeas Corpus', to non-citizens like the guests at Club Gitmo - and never mind that Habeas Corpus was originally conceived as a right solely confined to US citizens!
This legislation was heavily lobbied for by the usual suspects - the ACLU,CAIR and Radical Leftist fronts the National Lawyer's Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Access by terrorists to criminal trials have led to intelligence leaks in the past. In the 1995 trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, evidence turned over to his attorneys by the government ended up being found in documents seized at an al-Qaeda headquarters in the Sudan. And given the political beliefs of some of the lawyers who make a living defending these jihadi scum, they're not exactly safe to have around confidential information. Remember Lynne Stewart?
The more information terrorist cells have on how they're being infiltrated,what FBI is looking for and how intel is being collected, the less likely they are to make mistakes..and keep in mind that we have been incredibly lucky, that lives have been saved because the jihadis made stupid mistakes like dropping a cell phone at a crime location or taking jihad training videos to Circuit City to turn into DVDs.
When people voted to send president Bush a message in the 2006 elections, I have a feeling that most of them didn't realize the nature of the people they were empowering and putting in control of the all important Congressional committees.
Now, they're starting to find out.
Legislation like this is beyond defeatist - it constitutes criminal negligence.And it could get some of us killed.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Weekend Monkey Sez: Happy Weekend...and remember, love's in short supply
Be good, Y'all...see you in 24 or so.
Olmert's attempt to `negotiate' with Syria and what's behind it
There have been a number of reports claiming that Israeli PM Ehud Olmert sent what's described as secret messages to Syria's Thug-In-Chief Basher Assad offering to give up the strategic Golan Heights in return for a peace agreement.
The IDF paid in blood top capture those fortified heights in the `67 war.
Nothing Olmert might do surprises me any more, but as always, there's the front story and the back story.
While he might want to give up the Golan, I think that if he tried,we'd see the first actual public lynching of an Israeli head of state.
Effi Eitam, (NU-NRP) the almost universally respected ex-general who kindly helped Olmert extract his head from his posterior during the Lebanon War said:"The Olmert government that failed in Lebanon, is behaving as failed regimes have acted throughout history, and in an attempt to hide his responsibility for the failure he is embarking on a dangerous political adventure."
The personal advantage for selling out his own country for Olmert if he could pull it off would be to try and resuscitate a coalition to cling to power among the far Left and maybe the Arab Parties and keep himself out of jail as long as possible. However, if he tried it, Israel Beiteinu and other parties would would probably bail out of the coalition post haste.
At the very least,he'd be forced to do a referendum and the numbers simply aren't there; A Ma'ariv-TNS poll showed that only 10% of Israelis supported a full withdrawal from the Golan and upwards of 74% don't trust Assad.
So, aside from saving his personal skin, why would Olmert try to shove such an obviously unpopular policy down Israel's throat?
Actually, I sense George Bush and Condi Rice channeling James Baker behind this.
President George Bush apparently gave Olmert the green light for negotiations with Syria in an hour-long phone conversation last month, according to the report(Yediot and Army Radio), and the two of them are supposed to have a sit down and discuss the matter further when Olmert comes to the White House for their scheduled meeting on June 19.
The Bush Administration is having major problems with the Iran/Syria axis, and right now is on the losing end of two proxy wars in the region.In Lebanon, Bush proxy Fouad Siniora in Lebanon is having major problems defeating the Iranian/Syrian backed uprisings in the Palestinian `refugee' camps of Nahar al-Bared in the north and Ein al Hilwa in the south. Lebanese troops have been unable to decisively defeat Fatah al-Islam and the pro-Syrian Palestinian fighters commanded by Ahmad Jibril and Naif Hawatme.
What's more, Hezbollah could openly come into this anytime, especially if the UN continues to try and enforce the tribunal over the murder of ex-Lebanese PM Hariri.
In Gaza, Hamas, so far, has been victorious over Bush's preferred terrorists, Fatah, in spite of all of the money and weapons we've lavished on Abbas to try and keep him afloat. And Israel's strikes against Hamas have not been decisive enough to tip the balance.
What Bush is trying to do, I think, is to try to bribe Syria away from Iran at Israel's expense, since Olmert is weak, easy to manipulate and has a personal motive to try to go along with this charade.
The US military is having notable success in Iraq against al-Qaeda, but the Shiite militias, armed and trained by Iran are just as powerful as they were before, and just as pervasive when it comes to their influence with the Maliki government. Our military is even partnering up with Iran backed thugs like Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army to help with security in Baghdad in areas like Sadr City.
President Bush and Secretary Rice are apparently still under the delusion that bribing Syria via Israel will help stabilize the situation in Iraq, mollify the Sunni autocrats Bush is so enamored of and aid in that `comprehensive Middle East settlement' so-called Middle East `Realists' like James Baker keep pushing.
Of course, the proof of how wrong they are lies in Lebanon and Syria, where the Syrian military, their Iranian allies and Hezbollah are refurbishing their arsenals and busily preparing for war.
In Lebanon, for instance, the IDF Head of military intelligence research Brigadier General Yosi Baidatz briefed the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee that Hezbollah is busy restoring its fortified positions south of the Litani an dhas pretty much refurbished its rocket arsenal without the UNIFIL international `peacekeepers' doing a thing to interfere.
According to General Baidatz, UNIFIL has gone beyond merely not stopping the free flow of arms to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran - UNIFIL has allowed them to take positions along the Israeli border....both of which UNIFIL was supposed to prevent according to UN Resolution 1709.
Olmert may be typically clueless, but most of the Israelis know the fallacy of trying to `negotiate' with someone like Assad..as with Iran, it's a case of baksheesh (bribery), with a virtual guarantee that anything you'd give up will merely lead to more `negotiations' and eventual war.
The Gaza retreat accomplished one thing, if nothing else...it will be difficult to sell that particular used car again so easily.
It remains to be seen how much pressure President Bush and Condi Rice can bring to bear on the hapless Olmert to give away the store. Meanwhile, the Israelis had best hustle Olmert, Tzipi Livni and the rest of the gang out the door before it's too late.
Scott Rasmussen - common sense on why the Amnesty bill failed
Ace pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports has some uncommon common sense to offer on why the Senate amnesty legislation failed(emphasis mine):
Elite newspapers and countless bloggers are writing their own explanations of why the compromise immigration legislation failed last night. Most of the write-ups discuss legislative tactics, an amendment offered by Senator Byron Dorgan (D), or some particular provision of the bill dealing with amnesty or guest workers.
The reality is much simpler and has nothing to do with legislative tactics. The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don’t like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed.
The last Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that just 23% of Americans supported the legislation. When a bill has less popular support than the War in Iraq, it deserves to be defeated.
There is no mystery to why the public opposed the bill. In the minds of most Americans, immigration means reducing illegal immigration and enforcing the border. Only 16% believed the Senate bill would accomplish that goal.
It wasn’t amnesty or guest-worker programs or paths to citizenship that doomed the bill. Each of those provisions made it more difficult for some segments of the population to accept. However, most voters were willing to accept them as part of a true compromise that accomplished the primary goal of reducing illegal immigration.
The key to winning voter support was to accomplish that primary goal.
The Senators missed that point and that’s where the mystery resides in analyzing why this bill failed. It’s not unusual for political leaders to be out of touch with their constituents, but rarely this out of touch. How could something this unpopular with voters get so close to passage in a legislative body that is supposed to represent them?
From the beginning, the Senate approached the issue with top priority of addressing the legal status of the illegal aliens. They addressed concerns about guest-worker programs and questions about whether family or skill level should be more important when determining who could enter the country.
All of those are important questions, but they are not the most important question. Rasmussen Reports polling found that 72% of Americans believe it’s Very Important to reduce illegal immigration and enforce the borders. Just 29% said it was Very Important to legalize the status of those illegally living in the country today.
After ignoring the main point that voters were hoping to address, Senators should not have been shocked at the public reaction. But they were.
With all the polling data in the world today, how could they have failed to see this coming? While Rasmussen Reports was the only public polling firm to directly ask about support or opposition to the Senate bill, other polling data such as a recent CBS News/New York Times survey provided plenty of warning signs. Besides, the nation’s politicians purchase plenty of private polling data that should have given them a hint.
We live in a world where most Americans believe that most Members of Congress will sell their vote for cash or a campaign contribution. Only 16% believe the legislators’ votes are not for sale. By a nearly 5-to-1 margin, voters believe that Members of Congress are more interested in their own careers and agenda rather than the public good.
In that environment, the only way for political leaders to prove they are serious about enforcing the border and reducing illegal immigration will be to do it. That’s the next logical step in the immigration debate.
There are plenty of steps that could be taken quickly with solid voter support. Some may require new laws while others may simply require enforcement of the existing laws. But, voters aren’t concerned about the specifics—they’ll support serious efforts to reduce illegal immigration. This could include imposing employer sanctions, building a barrier, adding more border patrol agents, supporting local law enforcement efforts, and more.
Once the government actually enforces the border, then the debate can begin on all other aspects of immigration reform. Then, the same politicians who were stunned by their misreading of the public on this bill will probably be stunned to learn something else—most Americans actually do favor a welcoming and open immigration policy.
The United States is a nation of immigrants. It is also a nation of laws. Voters want to honor both aspects of the national heritage. And, like good parents trying to instill values in their children, voters want their elected representatives to do the same.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser; The Pew Report on Muslims dissembles in favor of Islamists
Regular members of Joshua's Army are familiar with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser , the courageous ex-navy vet in Arizona who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
Here he weighs in on the Pew Report on America's Muslims, and why it's skewed as much as possible in favor of Islamists - primarily due to misdirection and because it was flawed in the formulation by Islamists invited by Pew to assist in developing the questions (emphasis mine):
"Significant national attention has turned in the past week toward dissecting all of the data from the Pew Research Center’s study on an array of subjects concerning Muslim Americans. The full Pew study, Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream, contains information on a number of issues of great importance to our direction in the ideological struggle against political Islam (Islamism). {...}
The Pew poll touches on the periphery of some of these issues but leaves the reader to infer a number of conclusions on political Islam from the data. The focus of most media attention thus far has simply been the study’s indicators regarding the threat of terrorism from the Muslim population and its counterbalancing data on the apparent general assimilation of Muslims.
Optimism v. Realism: Where’s the counter-jihad?
Optimistic mainstream media (MSM) have understandably focused on the study’s positive aspects indicating that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, assimilated, and condemn terrorism. This optimism is necessary because that same majority holds the keys toward decreasing the numbers of the more troubling minority. The realists, however, did the math and raised valid concerns about the implications of the number of potential militant Islamists. The statistics reveal that 1% of the study’s estimated 2.3 million Muslim Americans say that suicide bombings against civilian targets are “often justified” and 7% felt, “sometimes justified.” This demonstrates a potential threat of 184,000 potential Islamist terrorists in the United States. The study does nothing to connect the imminent responsibility of the remaining 92% in changing, deprogramming, and defeating this radical 8%. Moreover, even more concerning is the total 26% of those younger than 30 who even ‘rarely’ find justification for terrorism. Again, we find no questions or conclusions from Pew about the responsibility of the remaining 74% to lead a counter-jihad.
Similarly, 5% of Muslim Americans expressed “somewhat favorable opinions of Al Qaeda”. Yet, only 63% of foreign-born Muslims were able to muster “strong hostility” toward Al Qaeda, with 52% of all native-born Muslims, and a shocking 36% of African American Muslims doing the same. The need for a counter-jihad becomes all the more relevant in this context with such an “underwhelming” majority of Muslims demonstrating the moral courage simply to identify the clearest enemy of America in our time. Certainly, the seeds of leadership in this counter-jihad will come from these Muslims who have the courage to name Al Qaeda and have the courage unequivocally to condemn terrorism as an immoral act with never a justification.
Thus, from here, what is so sorely needed in reviewing the data, and what few have done, is actually to begin to connect the study’s plethora of revealed ideologies of Muslim Americans diagnostically to the radicalized minority over which so many have expressed concern. To discuss the 184,000 potential terrorists (FOA - friends of Al Qaeda, if you will) in a vacuum, with no ideological connections or offshoots from the Muslim majority is to flail helplessly in post 9-11 diagnostics with no insight into cause, effect, or treatment. FOA are not a crime problem.
There can be no other explanation as to how it is that Al Qaeda, basically a euphemism for the whole of radical Islam, is able continually to regenerate itself like a metastatic cancer immune to any chemotherapy. The Fort Dix Six had no apparent contact with Al Qaeda. Yet their ends, their means and execution were the same as Al Qaeda. The only common thread is radical Islam, which is a militant offshoot of an even more common thread - political Islam.
Islamist Insiders obfuscate the dangers of political Islam
The Pew Research Center interestingly sought the advice of some known leading Islamists such as Ingrid Mattson and Ihsan Bagby. Islamists will often try to obfuscate or deny the threat and the goals of political Islam. It doesn’t seem that any anti-Islamist Muslims had any input on the poll, which perhaps would have clarified the results on political Islam. Regardless, the data still did not camouflage the problem of political Islam, and the hope from the study that there is a significant plurality if not a majority of Muslims who are potential anti-Islamists. We ignore the signs and symptoms of the threat of political Islam in the Pew study at our own peril.
Make no mistake: current Islamist leadership in America are already running away from the reality of political Islam revealed in this study. Ingrid Mattson, an adviser to the study and the head of the Islamic Society of North America released her “Reflection on the 2007 Pew Report”. Her self-described ‘Call for Moral Leadership’ was not in any way a call against the ends of political Islam. It was not a clear, solitary call of moral courage against Islamist extremism. It was, rather, an apologetic against terrorism, which had the audacity to claim a moral equivalency of Al Qaeda’s terror means with the claim by America’s politicians that American armed forces also employ torture! Ms. Mattson equates the political ends of Al Qaeda with the ends of our armed forces intending to liberate Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a sweeping statement of grand moral equivalency between terror and torture, she says, “We have allowed the appropriation of sinful and immoral means for political ends.”
Nowhere in Mattson’s political screed presented under the laudable guise of theological leadership of “imagining of a new Heroism” is she actually able to condemn the ends of America’s enemies—the Islamic state. Yet, she is able to juxtapose in an insulting equation a discussion of the barbaric evil of the likes of Al Qaeda with an admonition to our legislators and President to stop supporting torture—a classical Islamist doublespeak mixture of religion and politics. Such juxtaposition of radical Islamism with American political leadership feeds directly from the demagogic techniques of Islamists in order to speak to their Islamist constituencies under the guise of even-handedness. This technique actually perpetuates a greater divide between Muslims and the general American public. Is it any wonder that political Islam is thriving and continuing to provide political fodder for its militant offshoots when such a mixture of religion and politics speaks for American Muslims? . . .
Reviewing the Pew data in the context of political Islam
On the war in Afghanistan
The penetration and influence of Islamism (political Islam) is deep in the American Muslim community. While most of the media focused on Muslim opinions of the Iraq war. Only 35% of American Muslims supported the war in Afghanistan while 61% of the general public did. The only explanation for the difference between Muslims and the general American public who are exposed to the same anti-war MSM is the impact of rampantly political sermons and the additional consequences of the constant barrage viewed by Muslims of national and international Muslim media (from Al Jazeera to CAIR’s eletter) against the war.
Muslim media repetitively defined the conflict in Afghanistan in terms of a “war against Muslims” rather than a war against the oppressive Taliban, who would not give up the sworn enemy of the American people - Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, within this much deeper discussion is evidence that political Islam brings with it loyalty to the ummah (the transnational Muslim nation or community) over loyalty to one’s own nation even when our national interests in a just war such as in Afghanistan are clear and moral.
On extremism
The study repeatedly demonstrated a significant direct correlation between religious observance and extremism. The Islamists have and will dismiss the extremism as ‘political extremism” having nothing to do with the practice of religion. While to a moral, spiritual Muslim, extremism and coercion is an anathema, this correlation, however, between Muslim observance and extremism is a direct indicator of the lethality of political Islam (Islamism). Political Islam is a dominating societal and governmental ideology that is wedded to and exploits the theology of Islam while trying to overwhelm the voices of reason, pluralism, humility, and secularism. Islamists in their typical denials will reject the correlation of extremist views with religious observance as misguided or purely political unrelated to religious practice. They cannot have it both ways—that is to live and practice in a toxic mixture of religion and politics and then say that the dominating political ideology of Islamism has no connection to the religious (immoral leadership).
The Pew study confirms this. Its indicators of political Islam—opinions of the use of mosques for social and political speech, attitudes against the war in Afghanistan, conspiracy theory explanations for 9-11, and an affection for big government (i.e.) - all correlated directly with religious observance. Thus, the pervasiveness of Islamist political ideologies (shown in the Pew study) within the Muslim community provides a substantial stimulus for radical Islam and its extremism. It only stands to reason that a pervasive political ideology that cloaks itself in religion will have an order of magnitude toward greater fertilization within the religious practicing community than outside it. Obviously, the more immoral the religious leadership and its apologetics, the more political Islam will spread. Thus the correlation between religious observance and extremism is clear. Certainly, some Islamists may preach non-violence, which can serve as a short-term prevention of militancy. But in the long term, the only antidote is the separation of the political from the religious in Islam.
. . . Islamism can only be defeated by a counter-jihad from a spiritual Islam devoid of the political and governmental realms and led by a universally moral, pluralistic, and humane construct from the God of Abraham. . .
On conspiracy theories
How is it that only 40% of Muslim respondents would identify the fact that Arabs carried out the attacks of 9-11? This cannot be ignored. More specifically, 32% of American Muslims refused to answer and 28% were in complete disbelief that Arabs did it. Again, the more religious the Muslim American, the more likely they are to believe in this conspiracy theory. So if Islam is to provide moral courage for making brave stances against evil, significant concern should be raised that political Islam and its propaganda have a significant impact upon moral clarity.
Political Islam at its core thrives on dishonesty, fabricated enemies, and conspiracies in a world of spin over truth and corruption over morality. At the center of mechanisms of denial, is the creation of fantastic stories, which create false assumptions and feed the ego of those with inferiority complexes. In order to exert control, theocracy (political Islam) must manipulate information and create enemies while uniting the masses in Machiavellian ends - in many ways planting the seeds for fascism. . .
On Mosque and state
A significant percentage (43%) of Muslims felt that mosques should express their views on social and political questions. The fact that 49% felt that the mosque should not be involved in politics gives hope to the dream that ultimately the primary vehicle of religious education, the mosque, can possibly be cleansed of the toxic Islamist influence. However, the penetration of political Islam is not only in the mosque, it includes the Muslim media, and Islamist political organizations. So the 49% is as small as it is possibly because only 40% of Muslims frequent the mosque. Therefore, their answers may have more to do with idealized perceptions of the mosque than of the faith of Islam and the need to separate religion and politics. More study is desperately needed in this question.
For the very reason that we are daily faced with national Muslim organizations who exploit the faith of Islam for their own heavy political agendas, it is more and more essential to dissect the current reality and telescope the process by which anti-Islamist Muslims can lead the extrication of spiritual, moral Islam from political Islam.
On American Nationalism
When American Muslims were asked whether they were American or Muslim first, 47% felt they were Muslim first and only 28% American first. The study compared this to Christians who reported 42% as being Christian first. This comparison is unfortunately not valid in this context. A better comparison would have been to ask Muslims and Christians whether the United States should be “under God,” “under Islam,” or “under Christianity.” It would stand to reason that while most Christians would say ‘under God,’ far more Muslims would say, ‘under Islam.’ In the concept of political Islam, the theocratic Islamic state has not been reformed or defeated in the way the Christian theocracy has in American history. Those 47% of Muslims pose a more significant ideological threat in the context of current Islamic thinking vis-Ã -vis the state.
This is especially true when considering the ends sought by radical Islamists. - theocracy over our pluralistic democracy. The study demonstrates this by showing that “13% of those who think of themselves primarily as Muslim believe that suicide bombing to defend Islam from its enemies can be often or sometimes justified compared with 4% of those who are American first.” Additionally, those who identified themselves as Muslim first were twice as likely to believe that Arabs did not commit 9/11 (40%-20%). Those who were American first were much more likely to accept that 9/11 was committed by Arabs (61%). Again we see a significant correlation between religious observance, radicalism, and Islamism.
Political Islam is the problem. Identification of nationality as Muslim is fertile soil for conspiracy theories. The only antidote to the spread of Islamism is a counter-jihad, which includes a strong American nationalism embodied in a belief in liberty, freedom, and pluralism under God. American nationalism alone is not an antidote because Islamists may have theocratic goals for their own American patriotism. American nationalism can defeat Islamism only if it also takes back the mantle of faith from the Islamists with the growth of a moral, spiritual Islam that can combat the immorality of terrorism in a counter-jihad from within a nation under God but anti-Islamist.
The Future
While political Islam may seem to be pervasive, it is not overwhelming. The untold story in this poll is the hope it gives to anti-Islamist Muslims. As noted, a plurality of Muslims - 49% - believe that mosques should stay out of politics. Interestingly, most of those are the foreign born Muslims versus the native-born Muslims who seem to have grown up in Islamist incubators without understanding the harms of political Islam, which so many immigrants lived through.
If we are going to win this global conflict, analysis of studies like this one should not be overly negative or positive and should be reviewed through the Islamist lens to understand the context—the root cause (Islamism), effect (radicalization), and treatments (a counter-jihad separating spiritual Islam from political Islam). A morally clear spiritual Islam can eliminate politics from the domain of faith, which should be only a personal journey of individual Muslims to God. This process requires ijtihad, which is a re-interpretation of scripture in light of modern day. It also requires imams and scholars with moral courage to denounce each and every suicide operation around the world as immoral, un-Islamic, and barbaric without any justification - ever.
. . . One can only hope that the next study of the American Muslim population will include a much more probative questioning, specifically with regard to political Islam in order to distinguish how many Muslims believe in theocracy over pluralistic democracy. Current Islamist leadership in mosques and national political organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), MAS (Muslim American Society), or ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) have no personal interest in pushing an exposure of political Islam since it embodies the daily practice of their organizations.
With time, the MSM, the government, and the general American public will have to become more savvy regarding the need to expose the insidious threat of political Islam and its causative association with radical Islamism."
The entire article can be found here...and it's a must read.
The Amnesty roll call vote...
Here, courtesy of FOX news is the roll call that put the Senate amnesty bill to sleep, at least for a while...and there are some surprises as well.
The Senators that voted for this nonsense were concerned primarily about campaign contributions from businesses that hire illegal aliens and like the idea of a continued flow of cheap labor, no matter what the effect on the country.
These weasels are, plain and simple, for sale...strip them down to the skin and you'd find a bar code. Here are the votes - Note that every Democratic presidential candidate voted for this nonsense, and I've highlighted them and some others in scarlet, so we remember:
The Senators that voted for this nonsense were concerned primarily about campaign contributions from businesses that hire illegal aliens and like the idea of a continued flow of cheap labor, no matter what the effect on the country.
These weasels are, plain and simple, for sale...strip them down to the skin and you'd find a bar code. Here are the votes - Note that every Democratic presidential candidate voted for this nonsense, and I've highlighted them and some others in scarlet, so we remember:
A "yes" vote is a vote to cut off debate and shove this through the Senate:
Voting yes were 37 Democrats and 7 Republicans and one independent.
Voting no were 11 Democrats and 38 Republicans and one independent.
Alabama
Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.
Alaska
Murkowski (R) No; Stevens (R) No.
Arizona
Kyl (R) No; McCain (R) Yes.
-Say goodbye to your presidential prospects, senator.Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) No.
California
Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) Yes.
Now there's an interesting split..Colorado
Allard (R) No; Salazar (D) Yes.
Connecticut
Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) Yes.
Joe, I'm surprised - shame on you...
Delaware
Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.
And you want to be president,Biden?Florida
Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Ah,yes, the chairman of the Senate campaign committee. This speaks for itselfGeorgia
Chambliss (R) No; Isakson (R) No.
I guess Chamblis getting booed in public had an effect.Hawaii
Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.
Idaho
Craig (R) No; Crapo (R) No.
Illinois
Durbin (D) Yes; Obama (D) Yes.
Being `presidential, eh, Obama? Not.Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Yes.
Iowa
Grassley (R) No; Harkin (D) Yes.
Kansas
Brownback (R) Not Voting; Roberts (R) No.
Kentucky
Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) No.
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) No; Vitter (R) No.
Maine
Collins (R) No; Snowe (R) No.
Maryland
Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.
Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) Yes; Kerry (D) Yes.
What else would you expect?Michigan
Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) Yes.
Minnesota
Coleman (R) No; Klobuchar (D) Yes.
Mississippi
Cochran (R) No; Lott (R) No.
Missouri
Bond (R) No; McCaskill (D) No.
Montana
Baucus (D) No; Tester (D) No.
Nebraska
Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Nevada
Ensign (R) No; Reid (D) Yes.
The Senator from slotsville, paying back his casino owner backers who like cheap hotel labor.New Hampshire
Gregg (R) No; Sununu (R) No.
New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.
New Mexico
Bingaman (D) No; Domenici (R) No.
New York
Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.
Senator Clinton, paying for some of those campaign contributions from the big corporations shge hates so much.North Carolina
Burr (R) No; Dole (R) No.
North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) No.
Ohio
Brown (D) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.
Oklahoma
Coburn (R) Not Voting; Inhofe (R) No.
Oregon
Smith (R) No; Wyden (D) Yes.
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.
Rhode Island
Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.
South Carolina
DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) Yes.
You're history, Senator.South Dakota
Johnson (D) Not Voting; Thune (R) No.
Tennessee
Alexander (R) No; Corker (R) No.
Texas
Cornyn (R) No; Hutchison (R) No.
Utah
Bennett (R) No; Hatch (R) No.
Vermont
Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) No.
A socialist with the intelligence to realize what this bill does to Labor.Virginia
Warner (R) No; Webb (D) No.
Washington
Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.
West Virginia
Byrd (D) No; Rockefeller (D) No.
And a couple of other senators who got the message from their Labor voters.Wisconsin
Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.
Wyoming
Enzi (R) Not Voting.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Amnesty bill withdrawn from the Senate - for now
It appears that what Senator Lindsay Graham nastily referred to as `the loud people' seem to have had an effect. The Senate Amnesty bill crashed and burned when Harry Reid and the so-called `grand bargainers' in the Senate tried to shove it through in a late night session.
The bill failed a crucial test when it could not attract even a simple majority to limit debate and bring it to the floor for a vote.The final total was 50-45, against. 7 Republicans (I'm sure we can guess who) voted with the majority of Democrats to try and push this bill through,while 11 democrats voted with the Republicans to block efforts to speed the bill through.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid quickly pulled it from the floor and moved on to other business..which means it's off the agenda-for now.
Jon Kyl, (R-Ariz) was one of the `grand bargainers' who watched as even fairly moderate enforcement measures, like his amendment not to include felons or people already ordered deported by the courts in the amnesty were voted down.
In the end, Kyl simply couldn't stand it any more. He broke with Ted Kennedy and John McCain and ended up siding with the senators who said they hadn't gotten enough time to study the 380 page bill or to toughen the enforcement aspects.
Like Lindsay Graham, he's another incumbent who might be experiencing a change in employment come the next election, though he may be able to redeem himself if he keeps on the right side of this issue.
"It's time to scrap this mess of a bill," said Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-S.C) one of the senators who opposed the amnesty legislation from the jump.
One could think of it as saving the taxpayer $2.3 trillion dollars - which is what the Congressional Budget Office estimates the amnesty bill would end up costing us.
And that's without figuring in the cost of a major terrorist attack originating from our open borders.
For those of us `loud people' who took the time and trouble to read up on this disaster and inform the good senators how we felt about it, it doesn't end here.
They will try and sneak this nonsense through again, and we will have to be vigilant.
The beast isn't dead..just wounded.
We need to insist on enforcement first, as a security matter - and then,once the government proves itself capable of policing the borders, we can talk about how to deal with the illegal aliens already here.
Res Ipsa Loquiter
The bill failed a crucial test when it could not attract even a simple majority to limit debate and bring it to the floor for a vote.The final total was 50-45, against. 7 Republicans (I'm sure we can guess who) voted with the majority of Democrats to try and push this bill through,while 11 democrats voted with the Republicans to block efforts to speed the bill through.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid quickly pulled it from the floor and moved on to other business..which means it's off the agenda-for now.
Jon Kyl, (R-Ariz) was one of the `grand bargainers' who watched as even fairly moderate enforcement measures, like his amendment not to include felons or people already ordered deported by the courts in the amnesty were voted down.
In the end, Kyl simply couldn't stand it any more. He broke with Ted Kennedy and John McCain and ended up siding with the senators who said they hadn't gotten enough time to study the 380 page bill or to toughen the enforcement aspects.
Like Lindsay Graham, he's another incumbent who might be experiencing a change in employment come the next election, though he may be able to redeem himself if he keeps on the right side of this issue.
"It's time to scrap this mess of a bill," said Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-S.C) one of the senators who opposed the amnesty legislation from the jump.
One could think of it as saving the taxpayer $2.3 trillion dollars - which is what the Congressional Budget Office estimates the amnesty bill would end up costing us.
And that's without figuring in the cost of a major terrorist attack originating from our open borders.
For those of us `loud people' who took the time and trouble to read up on this disaster and inform the good senators how we felt about it, it doesn't end here.
They will try and sneak this nonsense through again, and we will have to be vigilant.
The beast isn't dead..just wounded.
We need to insist on enforcement first, as a security matter - and then,once the government proves itself capable of policing the borders, we can talk about how to deal with the illegal aliens already here.
Res Ipsa Loquiter
The Council has spoken! A complete list of results can be found at the site of our fearless leader, the infamous Watcher of WeaselsI'm happy to note that both my picks and my non-Council nominee finished in the money this week..
This week's winner is:
Soccer Dad: 3 spies and six days Soccer Dad's fascinating piece on three Mossad legends that helped win the Six-Day War for Israel. Bechatzlechah, Soccer Dad!
In second place was another outstanding piece which used Israel's `67 victory as a topic, The Six Day War in real time:Bookworm Room the always scintillating Ms.Bookworm's worthy attempt to combat the revisionist nonsense circulating in the dinosaur media on the anniversary of this event. Congrats,Ms. Bookworm!
For non-Council, I'm pleased to see that my nominee, Dan Simmons: Four modest proposals for getting out of Iraq won the honors...a superb piece that reduces our alternatives in Iraq to simple, logical choices....although my personal `modest proposal', that we ally with the Kurds, help them create a strong, independent Kurdistan and deploy our forces there as a base against Syria and Iran wasn't included by Mr. Simmons. (I've only been touting this for about a year now..)
In second place for non-Council was History News Network: Six-Day War - Israeli perspective I don't entirely agree with everything in this piece,( who cares, right?) but it is a well written exploration of this event and a worthy read.
Hearty Kudos to all the winners!
Trouble in amnesty land? The bill loses a key test vote
The pundits are already wondering if the Senate's amnesty bill on illegal immigration is DOA. It may pull through, but the odds are diminished,partly because in spite of their bravado, at some some of the senators are feeling the heat from both sides.
The first sign of blood in the water was a failed atempt by Senate majority Leader Harry Reid to shut down debate and hurry up and push this mess through. It failed, 33-63, largely because Republicans, even the amnesty friendly ones largely saw it as a chance to stifle further study and to prevent Republican amendments from being offered.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton offered amendments designed to circumvent one of the few decent parts of the bill, the emphasis on a `points' system of needed skills, English proficiency and other criteria and the de-emphasis on family ties as a criteria...and both lost,which angered some Democrats no end.
Finally, Kent Dorgan (D-SD) scored a surprise upset by getting his amendment passed 49-48 to limit the silly `guest worker' provisions from a permanent program to a mere five years.
This was considered a key part of the bi-partisan brokering and deal making that went on to cobble this 380 page abortion of a bill together, and it remains to be seen whether something is going to be worked out.
Democrats urged President Bush, presumably drooling at the prospect of signing an amnesty bill into law to get busy and lean on those members of his party that still remain holdouts.
Harry Reid,predictably put the blame for any failure on the President, saying the legislation's demise would produce headlines that ``the president fails again.''
"It's his bill, it's not our bill,'' Reid told reporters after the vote in Washington. ``It can't pass unless we get significant Republican support."
Lindsay Graham (r-SC) one of the senators knee deep in the backroom deal surrounding this legislation put his foot in his mouth again with pungent remarks about standing up to `the loud people' ( those Americans having the unmitigated gall to exercise their First Amendment rights,presumably)and compared them to a bunch of spoiled children who `weren't going to get their way this time.'
That didn't exactly play well back home, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Graham in another line of work after the next election.
As for the bill, Reid, Kennedy, McCain and the rest are presumably doing whatever they can to beat down resistance...will they succeed? We'll see..
The first sign of blood in the water was a failed atempt by Senate majority Leader Harry Reid to shut down debate and hurry up and push this mess through. It failed, 33-63, largely because Republicans, even the amnesty friendly ones largely saw it as a chance to stifle further study and to prevent Republican amendments from being offered.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton offered amendments designed to circumvent one of the few decent parts of the bill, the emphasis on a `points' system of needed skills, English proficiency and other criteria and the de-emphasis on family ties as a criteria...and both lost,which angered some Democrats no end.
Finally, Kent Dorgan (D-SD) scored a surprise upset by getting his amendment passed 49-48 to limit the silly `guest worker' provisions from a permanent program to a mere five years.
This was considered a key part of the bi-partisan brokering and deal making that went on to cobble this 380 page abortion of a bill together, and it remains to be seen whether something is going to be worked out.
Democrats urged President Bush, presumably drooling at the prospect of signing an amnesty bill into law to get busy and lean on those members of his party that still remain holdouts.
Harry Reid,predictably put the blame for any failure on the President, saying the legislation's demise would produce headlines that ``the president fails again.''
"It's his bill, it's not our bill,'' Reid told reporters after the vote in Washington. ``It can't pass unless we get significant Republican support."
Lindsay Graham (r-SC) one of the senators knee deep in the backroom deal surrounding this legislation put his foot in his mouth again with pungent remarks about standing up to `the loud people' ( those Americans having the unmitigated gall to exercise their First Amendment rights,presumably)and compared them to a bunch of spoiled children who `weren't going to get their way this time.'
That didn't exactly play well back home, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Graham in another line of work after the next election.
As for the bill, Reid, Kennedy, McCain and the rest are presumably doing whatever they can to beat down resistance...will they succeed? We'll see..
Last JFK muslim terrorist surrenders to authorites inTrinidad
Here's a bit of good news - the fourth suspect in the plot to attack New York's John F. Kennedy Airport surrendered Tuesday in Trinidad. ( you can find the AP story online, but it contains such ridiculous politically correct language, editorializing and rationalization for Islamic terrorism in what's supposed to be a straight news story that I have no intention of linking to it - ff).
Abdel Nur, a Guyanese Muslim national who's accused of being part of the JFK plots turned himself in at a police station outside the capital, Port-of-Spain.
"I am confident that the pressure brought to bear by the Trinidadian police authorities contributed to his surrender," said Mark Mershon, the head of the FBI in New York. "We are very grateful for their tremendous cooperation in this investigation."
The ridiculous AP article doesn't mention it, bur Nur, along with other conspirators was part of Jamaat al Muslimeen, an Islamist group that tried to violently overthrow the government in a take over attempt of the island nation back in 1990.
Trinidad and Tobago have a Muslim population of 6%, about 80,000 people..some of whom have been radicalized by the usual suspects.
As I've noted before, the 5% mark seems to be the guideline for when relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in a given country becomes problematic.
The Trinidad police deserve a special attaboy for their prompt cooperation in apprehending these creeps so quickly and taking them out of circulation.
As the Mighty Sparrow once said `Dey mess wit' me, dey mess with my cutlass'!
Iran caught red handed supplying arms to the Taliban
NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against Afghan civilians and US and NATO forces.
An analysis by a senior NATO coalition official makes no bones about Iran's direct involvement. "This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling."
"I think their goal is to make it very clear that Iran has the capability to make life worse for the United States on a variety of fronts," said Seth Jones of the Rand Institute.
The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."
According to the NATO report. the April convoy was successfully tracked from Iran into Helmand province and ambushed. One vehicle was destroyed and another vehicle was found to contain small arms ammo, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges.
A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says.
Also part of the shipment were components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs utilizing molten armor piercing plasma that Iran has been providing to US enemies in Iraq.
"These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards' Quds force," said Jones.
The report says that the seized explosives "contained the same fake U.S. markings found on explosives recovered from insurgents operating in the Baghdad area....We believe these intercepted munitions are part of a much bigger flow of support from Iran to the Taliban."
What we have here, of course, is a deliberate act of war that directly targets our troops.
So far, Iran has pretty much gotten away with it, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
It remains to be seen what President Bush plans to do about it, aside from rhetoric.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Weekend Monkey on the Democrat's Debate
Hideyho, my fellow Primates!
As you may have noticed, I was once again shamefully excluded from the Democratic debates. They wouldn't even let Terwilliger and me into the building. This kind of species-ist nonsense makes a real rotten banana out of the Democrat's claims to be for justice and equality.
You know what? I think they're afraid of this monkey and his ideas.
So what we got here, anyway? `Oooh, I was against the Iraq war before you were, nyah nyah nyah!'
What kind of poop is that? These are supposed to be serious candidates, with new ideas on which way the country ought to swing?
We got competing health plans from Obama, from Hillary and from Edwards that all basically say the same thing...raise taxes to the roof and let the government run health care. Hah! Two words, kiddo that ought to tell any sane person that we don't want government anywhere near controlling mandated health care - ever hear of `Walter Reed'?
What's more, I was listening closely, and I didn't hear much in the way of keeping our part of the jungle secure..unless you count some inane comments about gays in the military. Of course, if you listen to John Edwards, all we're involved in is a bumper sticker...which brings a picture to mind involving putting a bumper sticker in contact with his mouth.
I mean, some wacked out school teacher actually asked "Given that the circumstances in this country and in our world were essentially the same when you take office, what would be your top priority for your first hundred days?"
Check this out...
Edwards : "To travel the world, reestablish America's moral authority in the world, which I think is absolutely crucial. The other things become less important and subservient.
"We have huge issues here at home {...} energy; global warming; health care in America; {...} But the single greatest responsibility of the next president is to travel the world, speak to the world about what real American values are(...) to lead in taking action that demonstrates that America is strong, but that America is also moral and just, and we're going to help other people in the world and we're going to demonstrate our commitment to humanity."
Hillary : "Well, if President Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, to bring our troops home. That would be the very first thing that I would do."
Barack Yo Mama : "That would be the number one priority, assuming nothing has changed. The second priority is getting moving on health care because that's something that we can get done, I think, very quickly."
Bill Richardson : "Nobody's talked about your profession, education. I would upgrade our schools. I would have pre-school for every American, full-day kindergarten. I would pay our teachers what they deserve. I'd have a minimum wage for our teachers, $40,000....I would bring science and math academies to get America more competitive. I would emphasize the arts. I would emphasize civics, again, science and math. I would have universal education."
I won't even bother with the other schmucks. I mean, here we just caught some guys trying to blow up JFK, and Edwards wants to fix it by going on a junket and singing kumbayah with everybody, Hillary sez it'll all be fine if we just pull our troops out of Iraq and come home, Yo Mama likes that too, except he threw in a zinger about health care, and Richardson wants to give the same people who are turning out poorly educated primates in failed public schools even more money to do it!
Here's how this monkey answers that question....if you don't make your part of the jungle safe and secure, the other stuff doesn't matter!
As your new leader, Weekend Monkey's administration would pull our primates out of Iraq, all right..I mean, if we're gonna spend millions on undesirable desert real estate, there's always Rubidoux and East Salt Lick. But you gotta do it right. A premature pullout would just leave a mess, and one that always ends up getting some on you. Believe me, this monkey knows all about that.
Education? Hey, I'm the edjamacation monkey,just like I said on Larry King .If we're going to really effect education we need to end the species-ist admission policies - no primate left behind! And we need to see government funded tuition for our university students.
Immigration? My plan would create a program to bring monkeys and apes from around the world to America to insure that America gets the cheap labor it needs while letting the market place eliminate illegal primates by attrition.
There are thousands of my fellow primates who would jump at the chance to swing into the jungle that is America. Monkeys and apes will pick your crops, wash your cars and clean your toilets and work in the service industries to endure that the cost of labor stays wa-ay down.
Like I say, if we can create one set of special policies aimed at creating a low wage underclass and exploit their labor, why not do it right?
Y'know, Roger Ailes said today that if the Democrat candidates weren't able to handle FOX, they weren't able to handle al-Qaeda. He's right...and not only can't they handle al-Qaeda, but they're afraid of this Monkey and the aroma of his ideas for the future.
I ask you, primates...DO YOU WANT LEADERSHIP THAT'S AFRAID OF A MONKEY?? WELL, DO YOU??
Vote Monkey in `08...your chance to climb to the top of the tree!
The GOP debate - the candidates begin to run against Bush
The second time the cameras have caught Rudy and Romney arm in arm..could this be the `08 ticket?Well I predicted it, and it appears that the same thing occurred to the GOP front runners as did to me - the road to victory is to run against a failed and unpopular incumbent and promise change, ala' Sarkozy in France.
At last night's GOP debate,(for a transcript, go here ) Rudy Giuliani once again came across as the front runner he is, and the clear winner according to most observers.
Once again, he proved that. along with Duncan Hunter, he has the best understanding of whom we're truly at war with than any of the candidates on either side:
"...the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.
The problem the Democrats make is they're in denial. That's why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isn't dangerous; it's 10 years away from nuclear weapons.
Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons. And the danger to us is not just missiles. The danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists."
Even John McCain gets it to some extent, as seen by this exchange with CNN weasel-in -charge Wolf Blitzer:
"I am convinced that if we fail and we have to withdraw, they will follow us home. It will be a base for Al Qaida. And we will be facing greater challenges and greater sacrifices....And when Senator Clinton says this is Mr. Bush's war, that this is President Bush's war..what Senator Clinton doesn't understand that presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't lose wars. Nations lose wars, and nations lose the -- have the consequences of failure.
BLITZER: Senator...
MCCAIN: We must succeed in this conflict.
BLITZER: ... the question was, if General Petraeus says...
(APPLAUSE)
... it's not working so far in September, what do you do then?
MCCAIN: Then you have to examine the options. {...}you withdraw to the borders and watch genocide take place inside Baghdad. You watch the destabilization of Jordan. You see further jeopardy of Israel because of the threats of Hezbollah and Iranian hegemony in the region.
All of the options I could run through with you. My friend, none of them are good. That's why we must succeed and give it a chance to succeed.
BLITZER: All right.
Immigration, of course was in the forefront of topics.
I absolutely loved Duncan Hunter's pithy comment on the fence he wants to build:"If they get across my fence, we sign them up for the Olympics immediately!"
John McCain was forced to admit that the current amnesty legislation `wasn't the bill I would have written' but was, in the end left sputtering ""For us to do nothing is silent and de facto amnesty."
He was hammered on by the rest of the fold. Or as Romney put it after the debate, "Senator McCain and I were able to distinguish ourselves on immigration in a way that will be lasting in people’s minds."
Giuliani also drew major applause when he referred to the proposed amnesty bill as business as usual in the nation's capital: "The problem with this immigration plan is it has no real unifying purpose. It's a typical Washington mess."
"The litmus test you should have for legislation is, is it going to make things better? And when you look at these compromises, it is quite possible it will make things worse. The organizing purpose should be that our immigration laws should allow us to identify everyone who is in this country that comes here from a foreign country.
They should have a tamper-proof I.D. card. It should be in a database that allows you to figure out who they are, why they're here, make sure they're not illegal immigrants coming here for a bad purpose, and then to be able to throw out the ones who are not in that database....On September 11th, when we tried to figure out who was in this country, it took weeks to figure out who were the right people and who weren't, because there isn't such a database. And that is a fatal flaw in this legislation. And wishing it away doesn't make it possible."
The other candidates piled on Bush as well....as a matter of fact, they were even asked a lead in question about how they would employ Bush in their administrations.
"The president ran as a conservative and governed as a liberal," Tom Tancredo said. "That is what has really been the basis, I think, of the distrust that has developed among the Republican base. It's well founded." Tancredo also recalled that White House aide Karl Rove once told him, "Never darken the door of the White House." The congressman said he would tell Bush the same thing.
"We went to Washington to change Washington, and Washington changed us," said former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, once a member of Bush's Cabinet. "If we're going to spend money like as foolishly and as stupidly as the Democrats, the voters are going to vote for the professional spender — the Democrat — not the amateur spender — the Republican."
Probably the nicest thing said about Bush was by Thompson, whom, when asked how he would employ Bush in a future administration said "Well, I certainly wouldn't send him to the United Nations!"
Even John McCain joined in, when talking to Erin Flanagan, who lost her younger brother in Iraq in 2005. "I'm going to give you a little straight talk," McCain told her "This war was very badly mismanaged for a long time, and Americans have made great sacrifices, some of which were unnecessary because of this … mismanagement of this conflict."
That actually provided McCain with one of his few good moments in the debate...having the courage to look this distraught woman in the face, express his empathy and in a sense take accountability for her loss when that was clearly not his responsibility to assume. Certainly no one can ever accuse McCain of lacking courage.
The point of all this is, that what we are seeing is one of the chief attributes of leadership..the ability to analyze what went right, what's going wrong and to propose realistic policy changes tofix what's wrong, rather than simply dealing in platitudes and blame.
I'm cautiously optimistic.
As for President Bush, if this trend continues he may not even get into the building at the next GOP convention, let alone speak.
Amnesty for Felons? Si, says the senate!
The proposed immigration legislation gets more and more ridiculous every day, as the senate attempts to hammer out something that can sneak through.
It reminds of a saying that was popular back in my days in the music biz: `You can't polish a turd.'
The latest cave in was over an amendment proposed by Arizona Senator John Cornyn(r-AZ) to bar felons—including those court-ordered to be deported—from the proposed amnesty.
Since there are over 600,000 illegal aliens the courts have already ordered deported that the ICE can't find, it seems eminently reasonable that the senate would at least want to protect the American people and have at least a pretense of enforcement of our laws.
Guess again.
The senate voted down Cornyn's amendment 51-46 against,pretty much along the expected party lines. Instead, they limited it to certain gang members and sex offenders - assuming the ICE ever bothers looking for them in the first place. So that means drug dealers, people deemed security risks, people with infectious diseases, burglers, people convicted of felonies like tax fraud, using fraudulent documents and a host of other felonies and misdemeanors are on track for amnesty.
This travesty was proposed, of course, by Senator Ted Kennedy and supported by Senator John McCain.
McCain was joined in opposing the amendment by the Senate's four Democratic presidential hopefuls, Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and Barack Obama of Illinois.
That should give any interested parties a pretty good idea of how rigorous `enforcement' will be if a Democrat is elected in 2008.
After his defeat, Cornyn said those who voted against the proposal "failed to take an opportunity to help restore public confidence that we're actually serious about passing an immigration law that could actually work."
No-o kidding, Senator.
McCain, of course has other problems, as he was absolutely hammered for his immigration stance by Romney, Hunter and Giuliani last night at the GOP debates..but more on that later.
As for the current nonsense in Washington, I'll say it one more time: WRITE, CALL, E-MAIL AND FAX YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND TELL THEM THAT IF THEY VOTE FOR THIS OBSCENITY,NOT ONLY WILL YOU VOTE AGAINST THEM BUT YOU WILL WORK FOR THEIR OPPONENTS.
DO IT NOW AND DO IT OFTEN.
It reminds of a saying that was popular back in my days in the music biz: `You can't polish a turd.'
The latest cave in was over an amendment proposed by Arizona Senator John Cornyn(r-AZ) to bar felons—including those court-ordered to be deported—from the proposed amnesty.
Since there are over 600,000 illegal aliens the courts have already ordered deported that the ICE can't find, it seems eminently reasonable that the senate would at least want to protect the American people and have at least a pretense of enforcement of our laws.
Guess again.
The senate voted down Cornyn's amendment 51-46 against,pretty much along the expected party lines. Instead, they limited it to certain gang members and sex offenders - assuming the ICE ever bothers looking for them in the first place. So that means drug dealers, people deemed security risks, people with infectious diseases, burglers, people convicted of felonies like tax fraud, using fraudulent documents and a host of other felonies and misdemeanors are on track for amnesty.
This travesty was proposed, of course, by Senator Ted Kennedy and supported by Senator John McCain.
McCain was joined in opposing the amendment by the Senate's four Democratic presidential hopefuls, Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and Barack Obama of Illinois.
That should give any interested parties a pretty good idea of how rigorous `enforcement' will be if a Democrat is elected in 2008.
After his defeat, Cornyn said those who voted against the proposal "failed to take an opportunity to help restore public confidence that we're actually serious about passing an immigration law that could actually work."
No-o kidding, Senator.
McCain, of course has other problems, as he was absolutely hammered for his immigration stance by Romney, Hunter and Giuliani last night at the GOP debates..but more on that later.
As for the current nonsense in Washington, I'll say it one more time: WRITE, CALL, E-MAIL AND FAX YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND TELL THEM THAT IF THEY VOTE FOR THIS OBSCENITY,NOT ONLY WILL YOU VOTE AGAINST THEM BUT YOU WILL WORK FOR THEIR OPPONENTS.
DO IT NOW AND DO IT OFTEN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
