You Must Be Kidding

Thoughts of a Weary Soldier: I'm Tired

2006-07-25T10:35:00.000-07:00

"I'm Tired"

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq to finish my tour.

I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam.

Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.
I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they 'Support the Troops' by wanting them to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.

I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy over night.

I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.

I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.

I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly protesters is beyond shameful.

I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom - Vietnam generation, who have such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks through to victory.

I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives than they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies.

I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the press, but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.

Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation didn't learn from history that there is no substitute for Victory.

Sincerely,
Joe Repya, Lieutenant Colonel,
U. S. Army, 101st Airborne Division

I'm tired of the same things you are, Colonel. But you are not alone. We do support you and our troops AND their mission.

The NAFTA SuperHighway: Thank Clinton, Not Bush

2006-06-15T14:34:00.000-07:00

I received an email forwarded to me this morning from a local "Progressive" organization complaining about how Bush and the Bush Administration have been silent about the NAFTA Superhighway and how the Bush people are giving our country away, how it's all part of his grand plan and why Bush doesn't want to secure the border with Mexico, blah blah blah. I note here that googling "NAFTA Superhighway" reveals that the text of the email is parrotted verbatim on many democratic, liberal, and enviro-org web sites and newspapers.

The text of the email is pretty convincing and, in fact, the "NAFTA SuperHighway" is a real plan to link trade & goods from Mexico (and countries south) with US cities and transportation hubs (road, air, rail) and Canadian highways (not to mention American goods back to those markets as well)... BUT despite the claims that it is Bush's little silent deal, a little research reveals that it was CLINTON's doing... So if you see the stories or get the email, read it and then remember what I found with just a few minutes research (this was my response to each of the 5 layers that the original email had come through):

I don't mind informational emails, but if people are going to forward these things on, let's take the partisanship out of all of this. While I am somewhat dubious about this "super highway", let's get this straight: the legislation, the original design, and the initial funding for the Superhighway WAS SIGNED AND APPROVED IN 1997 BY WILLIAM CLINTON, THEN DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. (1993 to 2001) NOT PRES. BUSH.

Let's start by remembering that the elder Pres. Bush tried (unsuccessfully, I might add) to get NAFTA passed. It was passed and signed into law by -- yup, you guessed it -- William Jefferson Clinton.

Here's what Wikipedia says about NAFTA:

The agreement was initially pursued by free-trade conservative governments in the United States and Canada, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and U.S. President George H. W. Bush. There was considerable opposition on both sides of the border, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after President Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. Vice President Al Gore attempted to build support for the bill by debating the issue with H. Ross Perot on the Larry King Live talk show. Perot was an outspoken critic of NAFTA during his 1992 presidential campaign, claiming that passage would cause a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the United States for Mexico.

After intense political debate and the negotiation of several side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38. Some opposition persists to the present day, primarily directed towards specific clauses within the agreement.

You can read more about NAFTA here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafta#History_of_the_implementation

Now here's a little history of the Superhighway Coalition (from 1997 -- when Clinton was President):

About the NAFTA Superhighway Coalition

On July 23, 1997, The NAFTA Superhighway Coalition was formed. It is a not-for-profit corporation. Its mission is to team Federal and Provincial authorities with private business to promote a National Transportation Policy that will include improvements to Highway 401 and associated corridors for facilitating the movement of people and goods to and from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Coalition is regional in perspective since Highway 401 and associated corridors stretch across numerous regions in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Hence, its scope embraces many communities including Windsor, Sarnia, Chatham, London, Hamilton, Fort Erie, Barrie, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City.

Read more here:

http://www.ambassadorbridge.com/nafta_case.html

And here's a 1998 (that would be while Bill was still Pres.) piece from a business magazine called "Site Selection" that highlights various areas businesses should consider: http://www.conway.com/i35/9802/

Here's a 1996 story (yes, Bill was president then, too) detailing the plans:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/~archive/chiapas95/1996.12/msg00073.html

And how has all the funding for this "SuperHighway" been accomplished? By state-by-state pork projects and funding in every highway appropriations bill passed since 1998 -- promoted and wrangled by the senators and congressmen from Iowa, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana, etc. who all want a piece of the SUPER HIGHWAY pie AND a piece of the road taxes and tolls associated with the increased truck traffic.

Bush Administration promoting this?? Think again.

BUILD THE FENCE! BUILD THE FENCE!!

2006-05-17T09:11:00.000-07:00

So I’m reading the proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 in the Senate (S.2611) and I come across this little ditty in Section 129 “Border Study. And I find myself saying, “You Must Be Kidding!!” over and over again… Haven’t we done enough “studies”? And they have nine months to do these “assessments”???

My apologies to Elvis…
A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark

BUILD THE FENCE! BUILD THE FENCE!

(a) Southern Border Study- The Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall conduct a study on the construction of a system of physical barriers along the southern international land and maritime border of the United States. The study shall include--

(1) an assessment of the necessity of constructing such a system, including the identification of areas of high priority for the construction of such a system determined after consideration of factors including the amount of narcotics trafficking and the number of illegal immigrants apprehended in such areas; YOU WANT TO KNOW IF WE NEED A FENCE AND YOU WANT NUMBERS?? WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THESE PAST FEW MONTHS?

(2) an assessment of the feasibility of constructing such a system; WE ARE “CAN DO” AMERICANS AND YOU WANT TO STUDY WHETHER IT CAN BE DONE? WE PUT MEN ON THE MOON FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE AND YOU WANT TO KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR US TO BUILD A WALL? PUT UP A FENCE??

(3) an assessment of the international, national, and regional environmental impact of such a system, including the impact on zoning, global climate change, ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, and transboundary pollution; TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION? TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION? FROM A FENCE?? IT WILL KEEP THEIR POLLUTION ON THEIR SIDE OF THE FENCE AND OUR POLLUTION ON OUR SIDE… WHAT’S TO STUDY??

(4) an assessment of the necessity for ports of entry along such a system; THEY’LL COME IN AND GO OUT WHERE WE TELL PEOPLE.

(5) an assessment of the impact such a system would have on international trade, commerce, and tourism; WHERE WE’RE PUTTING UP THE FENCE THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL TRADE, COMMERCE OR TOURISM… JUST TRAFFICKING IN PEOPLE AND NARCOTICS… AND PERHAPS TERRORISTS.

(6) an assessment of the effect of such a system on private property rights including issues of eminent domain and riparian rights; CONSIDERING THE LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION AND DANGER THEY EXPERIENCE EVERY DAY, I’M PRETTY SURE THE FINE AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE THREATS OF ILLEGALS AND THEIR HANDLERS COMING ACROSS THE BORDER ONTO THEIR LAND WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE Y’ALL A RIGHT OF WAY...

(7) an estimate of the costs associated with building a barrier system, including costs associated with excavation, construction, and maintenance; OK… FIGURE OUT THE COST AND FUND IT, BOYS AND GIRLS. IT’S STILL CHEAPER THAN DEPORTING THEM ALL AFTER THEY’RE CAUGHT OR PAYING FOR ILLEGALS’ EDUCATIONS, HEALTH CARE, SOCIAL SERVICES, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY…

(8) an assessment of the effect of such a system on Indian reservations and units of the National Park System; IT’S A FENCE FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE!! WILL YOU COMPARE IT TO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND DRUG TRAFFICKING ON THE RESERVATIONS AND PARK SYSTEM? THERE ARE STATE AND NATIONAL PARKS IN ARIZONA THAT HAVE WARNING SIGNS ABOUT “YOU MIGHT BE IN DANGER IN THIS PARK BECAUSE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND OTHERS…”

(9) an assessment of the necessity of constructing such a system after the implementation of provisions of this Act relating to guest workers, visa reform, and interior and worksite enforcement, and the likely effect of such provisions on undocumented immigration and the flow of illegal immigrants across the international border of the United States; YOU THINK WE MIGHT NOT HAVE TO BUILD THE FENCE ONCE WE LEGALIZE 12 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND MAKE PROVISION FOR ALLOWING ANOTHER 80 MILLION IN OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS THAT WE MIGHT NOT NEED A FENCE??? GET REAL, BOYS AND GIRLS!!

(10) an assessment of the impact of such a system on diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico, Central America, and South America, including the likely impact of such a system on existing and potential areas of bilateral and multilateral cooperative enforcement efforts; WHY DO WE CARE?? WHY DO WE CARE THAT THEY DON’T LIKE THE FENCE? WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS… WHY DO WE CARE WHAT THEY THINK? THEY ONLY WANT THE $$$$ THAT ILLEGALS SEND BACK TO THEIR COUNTRIES. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN FRIENDLY RELATIONS... THEY ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THE MONEY.

(11) an assessment of the impact of such a system on the quality of life within border communities in the United States and Mexico, including its impact on noise and light pollution, housing, transportation, security, and environmental health; IT WILL ALL BE BETTER IN THE U.S. LET MEXICO ASSESS THE IMPACTS ON ITS SIDE OF THE BORDER.

(12) an assessment of the likelihood that such a system would lead to increased violations of the human rights, health, safety, or civil rights of individuals in the region near the southern international border of the United States, regardless of the immigration status of such individuals; REGARDLESS OF THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL?? YOU’RE KIDDING, RIGHT? WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND??? YOU ARE ELECTED TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF AMERICANS -- NOT MEXICANS, SALVADORANS, CHILEANS... AMERICANS.

(13) an assessment of the effect such a system would have on violence near the southern international border of the United States; and WE’RE GOING TO ASSESS WHETHER THE FEDERALES ARE GOING TO SHOOT AT AMERICANS BECAUSE WE BUILT A FENCE TO KEEP THEM OUT?? YOU MUST BE KIDDING!! THEY SHOOT AT OUR BORDER PATROLS NOW… AND YOU’RE WORRIED WHETHER IT WILL INSPIRE VIOLENCE FROM THE MEXICANS? IT CERTAINLY WON’T LEAD TO VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF AMERICANS -- AND THEY’RE THE ONLY ONES YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT.

(14) an assessment of the effect of such a system on the vulnerability of the United States to infiltration by terrorists or other agents intending to inflict direct harm on the United States. IT WILL GO A LONG WAY TO KEEP THEM OUT. WHAT KIND OF IDIOT WROTE THAT STATEMENT? WILL THE FENCE BE PERFECT? NOPE. IS IT BETTER THAN WHAT WE’VE GOT NOW?? YOU BET.

BUILD THE FENCE! BUILD THE FENCE! BUILD THE FENCE!

NOTE TO THE US SENATE: HAVE YOU NOT "GOT IT" YET?? WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE ASSESSMENT SAYS. WE DON'T WANT STUDIES. WE WANT A FENCE, A WALL, A MOAT... WE WANT A BARRIER THAT CAN NOT BE CROSSED UNLESS THEY ASK PERMISSION TO COME IN AND WE SAY "WELCOME".

Mexicans: "We Are Not Stupid" Americans: "Yes, You Are."

2006-05-16T09:45:00.000-07:00

From the NY Times article this morning:

"We are not stupid," Jorge Montaño, a former ambassador to the United States, said. "The United States did not send the National Guard to Iraq for logistical purposes. This is a de facto militarization of the border and an unprecedented insult in relations between the two countries."

We don't care how you view this. This is not Pres. Bush doing this -- this is the American People DEMANDING this because we are tired of Mexico having no industry to employ Mexicans, no plan to improve the standard of living for anyone but the already rich, making no effort to control illegal immigration to the US, flaunting a sense of entitlement that it has not earned with respect to American riches AND having one of the worst economies in the western world that forces her people into starvation and a northern immigration -- and an economy that is in danger of going bankrupt if the flow of American dollars earned ILLEGALLY stopped flowing south.

From the same NYT article on poor Vincente trying to calm the poor huddled masses:

The International Monetary Fund estimated that Mexicans in the United States sent $20 billion to Mexico last year, the country's second largest source of foreign income after oil.

So don't be giving me this crap about how these people want citizenship and how Mexico is concerned about the "militarization" of OUR border. We say: WHATEVER IT TAKES. We don't want any more illegal Mexicans here and we don't want the ones we've got! And frankly, 6,000 troops are not enough... it s/b 16,000!! Enough is enough.

If Mexico wanted to be a real "friend" to America, it would do something to control illegal immigration across her borders into our country. Mexico is not a friend to the USA just because it says it is... Mexico is a friend in (her) name only.

Vincente is more worried about how this move IN AMERICA will affect the election of his hand-picked successor (their Pres. only get 1 6 yr term...)

Arturo Sárukhan, another official in Mr. Calderón's campaign, said that Mr. Calderón did not consider the deployment of National Guard troops the equivalent of a militarization. However, he said that Mr. Calderón did not support the deployment.

[...]

"Good fences," Mr. Sárukhan said, "do not always make good neighbors."

Well, no -- you certainly won't like good fences if your cows have been grazing on someone else's land for free... and you get the cow AND the milk...

In this case, GOOD FENCES DO MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

BUILD THE WALL. BUILD THE WALL. BUILD THE WALL. And then defend it.

Who Gives A Shite What mexico Thinks??? SECURE THE BORDER

2006-05-15T09:36:00.000-07:00

Bush's Plan to Seal Border Worries Mexico

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 14 — President Bush's plan to send National Guard troops to patrol the southern border of the United States has raised the concern of his longtime ally President Vicente Fox of Mexico, who called Mr. Bush on Sunday to express his worries.

The NYTimes story HERE

Who gives a sh**t what Vincente Fox wants? Why should we give a sh**t about how HE thinks we should secure OUR borders? Which wouldn't be necessary if Vincente did his job and provided jobs and services to mexicans so they didn't want to come here!! And although I believe the war in Iraq is a just and reasonable war, I would rather hold our troops here and secure our borders if we have to make a choice! Whatever it takes to stop the flow north--- and whatever it takes to get rid of the illegals already here. Vincente, get F****

The only reason Vincente Fox is worried about the illegal immigration problem in the US is because if we stop them at the border and we sent all of the illegals back and they no longer had all those American dollars flowing into Mexico, MEXICO WOULD GO BROKE!!! Vincente: Worry more about the problems you have in Mexico and we'll worry about our borders here.

How To Work (Legally) in Mexico

2006-05-15T08:33:00.000-07:00

The following from a director with SW BELL in Mexico City.

I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3.

It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara's was the same except hers did not permit her to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificates for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from The St. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."

7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth" letter. It was fun to write. All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times.

At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes tocomplete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Laredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.

We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipmentand the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was nevergive a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to holdit against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company's Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.

The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.

Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure and if any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.

The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant.

They never protest at their White House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.

For Taxpayers on this Tax Day

2006-04-17T12:07:00.000-07:00

Subject: Life is good... for some.

Illegal Immigrants' Poem

I cross ocean, poor and broke,
Take bus, see employment folk.

Nice man treat me good in there,
Say I need to see welfare.

Welfare say, "You come no more,
We send cash right to your door."

Welfare checks, they make you wealthy,
Medicaid it keep you healthy!

By and by, I got plenty money,
Thanks to you, American dummy.

Write to friends in motherland,
Tell them 'come fast as you can.

They come in turbans and Ford trucks,
I buy big house with welfare bucks

They come here, we live together,
More welfare checks, it gets better!

Fourteen families, they moving in,
But neighbor's patience wearing thin.

Finally, white guy moves away,
Now I buy his house, and then I say,"

Find more aliens for house to rent.
"And in the yard I put a tent.

Send for family they just trash,
But they, too, draw the welfare cash!

Everything is very good,
And soon we own the neighborhood.

We have hobby it's called breeding,
Welfare pay for baby feeding.

Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?
We get free! We got no bills!

American crazy! He pay all year,
To keep welfare running here.

We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for the white man race

If they no like us, they can scram,
Got lots of room in Pakistan

And if you think this is harsh and untrue, well the 25 year old son of friends lost his construction job in New York in the middle of the winter to an illegal alien who would work for far less, not need benefits nor complain when they didn't get paid overtime for the 50 hr. week... and when he went to welfare in NY they told him that he was a white English-speaking American citizen and he so didn't qualify! I'm not kidding.

Ummm... Mr. President? SAVE AMERICANS FIRST!

2006-04-16T08:55:00.000-07:00

So I'm reading this from the Washington Post this morning (my emphasis in bold):

U.S. Plan For Flu Pandemic Revealed
Multi-Agency Proposal Awaits Bush's Approval
By Ceci Connolly

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page A01

President Bush is expected to approve soon a national pandemic influenza response plan that identifies more than 300 specific tasks for federal agencies...

****

The document is the first attempt to spell out in some detail how the government would detect and respond to an outbreak, and continue functioning through what could be an 18-month crisis, which in a worst-case scenario could kill 1.9 million Americans.

Many critical decisions remain to be made. Administration scientists are debating how much vaccine would be needed to immunize against a new strain of avian influenza, and they are weighing data that may alter their strategy on who should have priority for antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu and Relenza.

The new analysis, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that instead of giving medicine to first responders and health-care workers, as currently planned, it might be wiser to give the drugs to every person with symptoms and others in the same household, one senior administration official said.

The approach offers "some real hope for communities to put a dent in the amount of illness and death, if we go with that strategy," a White House official said.

Each year, about 36,000 Americans die from seasonal influenza. A worldwide outbreak, or pandemic, occurs when a potent new, highly contagious strain of the virus emerges. It is a far greater threat than annual flu because everyone is susceptible, and it would take as much as six months to develop a vaccine. The 1918 pandemic flu, the worst of the 20th century, is estimated to have killed more than 50 million people worldwide.

Alarm has risen because of the emergence of the most dangerous strain to appear in decades -- the H5N1 avian flu. It has primarily struck birds, but about 200 people worldwide have contracted the disease, and half have died. Experts project that the next pandemic -- depending on severity and countermeasures -- could kill 210,000 to 1.9 million Americans.

*****

However, even an effective containment effort would merely postpone the inevitable, said Ellen P. Embrey, deputy assistant secretary for force health preparedness and readiness at the Pentagon. "Unfortunately, we believe the forest fire will burn before we are able to contain it overseas, and it will arrive on our shores in multiple locations," she said.

AND HERE'S THE KICKER:

Homeland Security's Runge has a different concern: "One of the scariest thoughts is, if this country has successfully developed a vaccine within six months of an outbreak or our supply of antivirals is greater, there may be a rush into the United States for those things."

And even if those fears do not materialize, officials have warned that the federal preparations go only so far. Much is left to the states, communities and even individuals.

"Any community that fails to prepare -- with the expectation that the federal government can come to the rescue -- will be tragically wrong," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a speech April 10. The administration is posting information on the Internet at http://www.pandemicflu.gov
.

I want to know what the government plans to do about the hordes of illegals that will cross our borders from the south in the event of a avian flu pandemic?? I want any "plan" to contain measures that will safeguard vaccinations and healthcare for AMERICAN CITIZENS AND LEGAL immigrants to our country.

Given the lack of basic medical care and inoculations against ordinary diseases, the less than hygienic living conditions and standards of care, Mexico and the countries south of it are more likely to have major outbreaks of the bird flu. The masses may be uneducated and illiterate in the traditional sense, but they know that they can not possibly get the care and treatment that they need if they are sick in their own Third World countries and will swarm over the border looking for the free handouts to illegals for which the U.S. government is known in the name of "compassion".

How does the government plan to keep out those that are already sick so that they do not bring the disease HERE? How does the government plan to ensure that hospital services are not overwhelmed by illegals (as they are now?) and that vaccinations and treatment go to Americans and legal residents FIRST?? How do we protect American??

If you think this can't happen, you should do a little research on the state of healthcare in the areas that border Mexico... Hospitals and healthcare centers have been going bankrupt at a rate that is 10 the national average (and 25x the average in some locations). Why? Because illegal immigrants streaming across the border are injured and ill and have no means of paying for their care - but the Feds say that you can not turn them away (or turn them in!!) and the hospitals have to eat (absorb) the cost of the treatment... and IF your hospital can remain in business, the cost of treating 10 million illegals is passed on to those with insurance or a means of paying.

From USA Today: The United States' inability to slow illegal immigration from Mexico is fueling a financial crisis in the 24 counties along the 1,951-mile Southwest border, according to a new study. It says the counties are struggling to fund law enforcement, health programs and other necessities because they are spending millions of dollars a year to care for illegal immigrants.

****

U.S. law requires hospitals to treat anyone who needs emergency care, regardless of their ability to pay or immigration status. The UTEP study found that border counties have some of the nation's highest rates for uninsured patients, and that treating illegal immigrants accounts for nearly one-quarter of the uncompensated costs at the counties' hospitals. In Pima County, Ariz., hospitals reported having to absorb $76 million in treatment costs in 2000, about one-third of it from treating illegal immigrants.

Cochise County, Ariz., reported spending tens of thousands of dollars each year to collect trash left at remote campsites by illegal immigrants. County Board of Supervisors Chairman Pat Call estimates that 13% of the solid waste generated in Cochise comes from such sites.

****

About 25% of Cochise's budget paid for health care to uninsured people -- most of them illegal immigrants who went to the county hospital's emergency room, he says.

"The border region has some unique hardships," Call says, citing the UTreportst's analysis of the border counties' relatively high rates of uninsured residents and shortages of doctors and nurses. "The immigration issue, because the feds have not moved fast enough or thoroughly enough to deal with it, just exacerbates the panoply of issues we have here."

And from the Center for Immigration Studies (2002 report): Health Insurance. According to the Census Bureau, since 1989 the population without health insurance has grown by 7.8 million and stood at 41.2 million in 2001. (Figures for 2001 are based on the March 2002 CPS.) This growth has been driven largely by immigration. Immigrants who arrived after 1989 account for 6.9 million or 77 percent of the growth in the uninsured. Moreover, there where nearly 600,000 children born to post-1990 immigrants who lack insurance, meaning that new immigrants and their U.S.-born children accounted for over 95 percent of the growth in the uninsured population. Thus, it is reasonable to say that the nation's health insurance crisis is being caused by our immigration policy.

From the Federation for American Immigration Reform:

High levels of unpaid medical bills for illegal immigrants have forced local health care providers to reduce staffing, increase rates, and cut back services. Dozens of hospitals in the counties along the southwest border have either closed or face bankruptcy because of losses caused by uncompensated care give to illegal immigrants. (Source: Health Insurance Coverage: 2001, U.S. Census Bureau.)

67 percent of counties surveyed by the National Association of Counties cite an increase in immigration as a cause of the rise in uncompensated health care expenses. (Source: Uncompensated Health Care Expenses Report, National Association of Counties, 2002)

Federal law requires emergency rooms to provide treatment to anyone seeking emergency care. In 2000, almost $190 million (about 25 percent) of southwest border hospitals uncompensated costs were for emergency medical treatment for illegal aliens, with another $13 million in ambulance costs. Costs for follow-up care were as high as an additional $100 million. (Source: Medical Emergency: Costs of Uncompensated Care in Southwest Border Counties, U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition, 2002)

As states cut their health care budgets to try to make ends meet, high immigration is causing a massive drain on health care resources and taxpayer funds, says FAIR executive director Dan Stein. Thanks to lack of enforcement of federal immigration laws, state taxpayers are being forced to fund health care services for illegal aliens at a time when they can t fund all their services for the general population.

Yes they know that we have to treat them and can't collect a dime. I could go on and on... Google "illegal immigrant health care statistics" -- brings you 8,310,000 results for this search...

This is the scenario of B-movie horror flicks... but it is our reality now. And our government needs to address THIS issue -- the issue of protecting Americans first and stemming an influx of sick illegal immigrants seeking healthcare in this country.

I say, put up the wall, and man it with armed citizens. If we can't get the wall up before the pandemic begins, I say let the citizens of this country arm themselves and stand at post. It may be our only hope for survival.

Yup... this says it all about our friends on the Left

2006-04-15T08:11:00.000-07:00

The Left, Online and Outraged
Liberal Blogger Finds an Outlet and a Community
By David Finkel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 15, 2006; Page A01
SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. -- In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.
She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats,

oh, there's more to the pitiful story... here

These liberals (just about all of whom are also Democrats despite this nut case's delusions) have this insane tunnel vision... their anger is useless screaming... They want to chop down all the trees because in the Fall they drop leaves. So long as GWB is President, there is no good in the world, all is lost, everything is wrong, oh woe is me... oh woe is me.

They have no alternative plans for anything. They have no message except, "W is still President. I/we hate him." These people really must get over themselves. They need to get a life/lives. It would be humorous if it weren't so sad.

Pandering to Minorities: How to Destroy America

2006-04-12T09:33:00.001-07:00

From an email... have seen this before, but could not be more timely!!! And, yes, according to snopes.com this is not a legend, but a real speech given by Richard (Dick) Lamm in late 2005 or early 2004. You can read an updated and revised speech at that link as well.

Take the time to read this. It ought to scare the pants off you!

A Frightening Analysis

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Davis Hansen* talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: First to destroy America, "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'"

Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

"E. Pluribus Unum" — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate."

"Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength." Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

___________

* Originally misidentified as Victor Hansen Davis

Illegal Immigration Is a Moral Issue (vdh)

2006-04-12T09:29:00.000-07:00

January 24, 2005

Illegal Immigration Is a Moral Issue

by Victor Davis Hanson

Tribune News Services

As President Bush's guest worker proposals slog through Congress, new reports suggest that there may be not 8 million, but almost 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, a population larger than most entire states. $400 billion in taxes—almost the current annual budget deficit —are not collected due to a growing underground cash economy.

Mexico brazenly issued a survival guide for its intrepid citizens on how to cross illegally into the United States. A 2,000 mile border is porous at a time when stealthy terrorists count on such laxity to enter the United States.

The hallowed assimilationist formula has too few overt defenders these days —even though measured, legal immigration, English emersion, multiracialism instead of multiculturalism, and integration have ensured that past legal immigrants from Mexico are among America's finest citizens.

The laissez-faire right still lectures on open borders as if it were a matter of robust lawful immigration—emphasizing global competitiveness that accrues from cheap labor. The minimum wage, not illegality, supposedly is its only problem: if only the self-correcting market could be set free to adjudicate wages, $2 an hour might not tempt any more from rural Mexico.

The therapeutic left will not even talk of "illegal immigration"—taboo nomenclature that supposedly denotes racism. "Undocumented workers" is the politically correct terminology, even though not all aliens are working or simply misplaced their certification.

If employers count on inexpensive industrious laborers in the shadows, chauvinists envision a revolving, but still permanent unassimilated constituency to enhance their own agendas. In response to the tired rhetoric, perhaps it is better to envision illegal immigration from Mexico not as a question of divisive politics, but of collective morality. Is it ethical for the Mexican government to export annually 1 million to 2 million of its unwanted citizens to avoid long-overdue reform —hoping to free itself of dissidents and earn $12 billion in subsidies from its poorest abroad? No wonder Mexico talks of the problem in terms of U.S. imperialism in lieu of its own cynicism.

Is it moral for employers to count on illegal industrious workers, usually without English or education, to undercut the wages of American citizens—as if a laborer remains youthful and hale in perpetuity with no need of social entitlements when disabled or impoverished years later? No wonder employers claim that they are only providing a service to Mexico's poor.

Is it so liberal that governments must pay for those who ignore the law while citizens go without? In California, the money to incarcerate more than 14,000 felonious illegal aliens from Mexico—well over $400 million—would fund the start-up costs of 20 university campuses like the new University of California at Merced, at a time when Americans (including many first-generation Mexican-American citizens) who are eligible for higher education cannot find access or financial support.

Is it so fair to assume that the unemployed in our midst—over 10 percent of the work force in many counties of the American Southwest that are most affected by illegal immigration—cannot find entry-level work? No wonder we insist that no one can discover a citizen to mow the lawn or cook his food—as if 30 years ago our yards were weedy and we did not eat out, as if states without illegal aliens have poor landscaping and empty restaurants. Picking an illegal worker up at the local lumber yard, paying him in cash for a day of digging, and then dumping him on the curb at twilight — "out of sight, out of mind"—is neither liberal nor humane even if done in Santa Cruz or Carmel.

And is it equitable that laws must be sacred for most, but not for some? Do we really want a bureaucratic system near collapse from fraudulent Social Security numbers, off-the-books wages, false names, cars without registration and insurance, even as millions abroad queue up to enter our shores lawfully? Are we to tell waiting Punjabis or Filipinos to certify their education, skills and method of support—even as we ask far less of those who break the law to cross the border from Mexico?

Who, then, is the real moralist? Is it the police officer who stops an illegal alien but cannot call immigration authorities? The contractor who knowingly accepts falsified identification and pays untaxed cash wages? The La Raza ("The Race") activist who promotes ethnic chauvinism for those to whom it will prove most deleterious? Perhaps the grandstanding Mexican consul who faults the United States for his own country's callousness?

Or is it the rest of us, who in fear of being slurred as "racists" or "nativists" often keep silent—just when candor and honesty on all sides are needed now if we are to avoid becoming an amoral apartheid society with a permanent underclass in the shadows?

WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON'T THEY UNDERTAND (PART II)

2006-04-09T14:08:00.000-07:00

From Today's NYTimes

Mr. Morales had worked eight years in the sun-baked fields of Immokalee, Fla., in the southern part of the state, picking tomatoes, evading the authorities, and sending most of his earnings to his mother and daughter in Mexico. The Senate plan would have allowed Mr. Morales, 25, to apply for permanent residency because he has lived here more than five years.

But as tantalizing as the possibility was, Mr. Morales said he never really believed Congress would solve his plight.

"It's a very bad thing because we're working very hard here and there's no support from the government," he said, standing outside a dreary shack where he lives with his wife and three other tomato pickers, all illegal immigrants from Mexico. "We're only working. We're not committing a sin."

OK... the United States government OWES YOU NOTHING. You are not a citizen. You are here ILLEGALLY. You have and are breaking the law. You are a criminal. You are entitled to NOTHING.

WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? Go back to Mexico and get a job. And if they don't have a job for you, complain to YOUR government -- not this government. Jesus H Lord -- some piece of work.

WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON'T THE SENATORS UNDERSTAND?

2006-04-06T23:59:00.000-07:00

The Mexican Solution
Frank Gaffney April 03, 2006

The Congress has received lots of free advice lately from Mexican government officials and illegal aliens waving Mexico's flag in mass demonstrations coast-to-coast. Most of it takes the form of bitter complaints about our actual or prospective treatment of immigrants from that country who have gotten into this one illegally -- or who aspire to do so.

If you think these critics are mad about U.S. immigration policy now, imagine how upset they would be if we adopted an approach far more radical than the bill they rail against which was adopted last year by the House of Representatives -- namely, the way Mexico treats illegal aliens.

In fact, as a just-published paper by the Center for Security Policy's J. Michael Waller points out, under a constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called “racist” and “xenophobic.

For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:

Pursuant to Article 33, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.

Equal Employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”
Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered “indispensable” include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.
Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be “a Mexican citizen by birth.” Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

In accordance with Article 130, immigrants -- even legal ones -- may not become members of the clergy, either.

Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters.”

Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right!

The Mexican constitution states that foreigners -- not just illegal immigrants -- may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”

[***]

Still, we should not allow the hypocrisy of others' treatment of undocumented aliens in their countries to induce us to refrain from taking effective steps to prevent further illegal immigration: by building a fence along our southern border; by enforcing immigration laws in the workplace and elsewhere; and by discouraging more such violations -- with potentially grave national security implications -- by dealing effectively with those who have already broken those laws by coming here without permission.

Read it all here

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I think the US Senate is gutless, spineless and clueless. I liked the US House of Representatives bill the way it was. The Senate managed to gut the bill and make it a legislative attack of diarrhea. The American people (and let’s define this here: citizens of the United States by birth to American citizens or others here LEGALLY -- the ones that vote and pay taxes) want those here ILLEGALLY to get out. Not given a chance to get their citizenship on a fast track. Not pay a fine. They want them to be penalized for breaking the law just like American citizens are punished for breaking the law. Not rewarded with citizenship. The Senators are so damn busy trying to appear reasonable and compasionate and trying to keep their jobs that they have forgotten TO DO THEIR JOBS. They don't represent illegal aliens. They represent AMERICAN CIRIZENS.

Illegal immigrants should leave and then put in applications to come back. Let us check to see if you have a criminal record (then you’re not coming back). Get a guest worker pass and know that if you stay longer than the card permits, you’re out and never coming back. And don’t even suggest to me that somehow you are “entitled” to be in the USA. You’re entitled to “nada”. All you are entitled to is the opportunity to stand in line and ASK PERMISSION to enter the USA and be a visitor or a resident. WE'RE entitled to be here. You're entitled to live in whatever country you are a citizen of. Period. That’s all you’re entitled to.

If they think deporting 11 million illegals is just too monumental a task, tell the illegals that they have to leave voluntarily. If you’re found here after the end of 2006, you’re out and can’t come back. Ever. And I say deport all the illegals in the jails. Let’s see how Vincente will support an extra nearly 12 million people in his country and how he will keep all the criminals in HIS jails. Will businesses be hurt? Oh, probably -- but perhaps then they’ll pay people a living wage and offer benefits to attract workers -- American citizens or guest workers.

And let’s get this straight. I’m not against immigrants. My grandparents were immigrants. I’m only against ILLEGAL immigrants. I’m not against immigrants working in this country. I just want them to be working here LEGALLY. And I don’t care if you came here illegally from Mexico, Russia, Sri Lanka or Canada for that matter. ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL.

I want you to be a part of this country if you come here -- not a separate little “nation”. Learn English. I’m truly tired of my tax dollars being diverted to teach the children of illegal immigrants in Spanish all the way through high school. I say, if you come here legally, your children get 2 years of English lessons and then they’re on their own. If you want to come here to live, you should be required to learn English. You should not be permitted drivers licenses until you can read and write English. If you can’t read English, how the hell can you read the street signs? Or fill out employment applications? Or write a check? And the citizenship exam should be given only in English. This is America. We speak English here.

If you want to parade around waving Mexican or Puerto Rican or some other country’s flag -- the countries you left and never want to go back to -- then go back where you came from. If you want to demonstrate against American policies do it in English for God’s sake. You show your appalling lack of education and sincerity when you scream in a language none of us understands nor wants to. I don’t know Croatian -- my grandparents forbade their children (my parents) from speaking it because they wanted their children to be AMERICANS.

And I know I speak for many because I have spoken to many American citizens and haven't found one -- NOT ONE -- that said, "Oh let the poor illegals stay... we forgive them." Horsehockey. A criminal is a criminal and criminal behavior should not be rewarded with cirtizenship or the children you have while you're here. They are citizens of the country their parents are citizens of. Procreating on American soil should not endow you with rights reserved for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Build the wall. Line it with sharpshooters. Enforce the laws. WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Fake Muslim Outrage and Moral Superiority

2006-02-12T11:41:00.000-07:00

You must -- MUST -- read the ever-brilliant Victor David Hanson's Losing Civilization at National Review Online...

"... the bogus notion of multiculturalism has blinded us to a simple truth: we in the West can live according to our own values and should not allow those radicals who embrace or condone polygamy, gender apartheid, religious intolerance, political autocracy, homosexual persecution, honor killings, female circumcision, and a host of other unmentionables to threaten our citizens within our own countries.

The deluded here might believe that the divide is a moral one, between a supposedly decadent secular West and a pious Middle East, rather than an existential one that is fueled by envy, jealousy, self-pity, and victimization. But to believe the cartoons represent the genuine anguish of an aggrieved puritanical society tainted by Western decadence, one would have to ignore that Turkey is the global nexus for the sex-slave market, that Afghanistan is the world's opium farm, that the Saudi Royals have redefined casino junketeering, and that the repository of Hitlerian imagery is in the West Bank and Iran.

The entire controversy over the cartoons is ludicrous, but often in history the trivial and ludicrous can wake a people up before the significant and tragic follow."

********************

Also read Mindfulness over Martyrdom at OneCosmos. Just a few little tidbits...

This is why liberal victims are always bullies. They don't have legitimate power or knowledge, only illegitimate power and knowledge. The cartoon jihadis are just a bunch of pathetic losers immersed in a pseudo-religion that only deepens and justifies their moral, intellectual, spiritual and economic squalor, but with the complicity of the left and their elite media, pointing this out makes you the aggressor, so that any reaction on the part of the victim is given sanction. The real headline of this farce should be, "Muhammad Implicated in Middle East Failure to Launch: Millions Left Angry, Stupid."

and

There you have it in a nutshell. Just as you would a child, someone has to take the Islamic world by the hand and firmly tell them: "No. We have not offended you. You have chosen to be offended. Your feelings are your responsibility, not ours. You are free to have them, but no one cares about them. And don't you dare act out your infantile rage.

"There is something deeply wrong with people who can only be offended, never shamed. As Mark Steyn points out, if a Muslim wants to be offended by something, why not be "hurt" and "humiliated" by all the evil people who actually call themselves Mohammad? "The leader of the 9/11 plotters? Mohammed Atta. The British Muslim who self-detonated in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif. The gunman who shot up the El Al counter at LAX? Heshamed Mohamed Hedayet. The former U.S. Army sergeant who masterminded the slaughter at the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed. The murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh? Mohammed Bouyeri. The notorious Sydney gang rapist? Mohammed Skaf. The Washington sniper? John Allen Muhammed. If I were a Muslim, I would be deeply offended that the prophet's name is the preferred appellation of so many killers and suicide bombers on every corner of the earth."

The Thieves in Louisiana

2006-02-10T17:35:00.000-07:00

FEMA was giving emergency grants to those in Louisiana that got in line with their hands out the minute the rain stopped. Seems more than 40% of the claims were bogus. So the Democrats are out there saying what a poor job FEMA did controlling the money.

No one of those dimmocrats said a g*ddamn thing about the fr**ng THIEVES in Louisiana that STOLE THE MONEY!!!

Reading this idiot...

2006-02-10T10:02:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Times
Guest columnist
We lost Iraqi hearts and minds long before current occupation
By Bert Sacks

I recently attended an alumni meeting in Seattle of a well-known East Coast college. The president of the college spoke and a hundred alumni came to listen. I used the chance to speak to several of them about something I know well from my nine trips to Iraq: the 12 years of U.N. and U.S. economic sanctions on Iraq, reinstated after the Gulf War in 1991 and ending with this war in 2003.

ok... "the 12 years of U.N and U.S. economic sanctions on Iraq"

F*** idiot. The U.S. is a member of the U.N. We were part of worldwide sanctions on Iraq.

He goes on to

The report continued, "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." (my emphasis added)

< --- >

Here is the most credible children's organization in the world telling us that war and U.N./U.S. economic sanctions had contributed to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.

< --- >

It's often said there was a failure of intelligence leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That is true. The most obvious failure is that so very few Americans knew the U.S. kept to a policy that devastated the civilian population of Iraq for 12 years. Thousands of its most vulnerable — the very young, very old and very sick — died needlessly every month. (again, my emphasis)

This imbecile brushes aside that in the time period covered by the UNICEF report ('91-'98) immediately follows decades of wars started and prosecuted by Saddam Hussein... that during this period, the point of sanctions was to attempt to force the leaders of that country to eliminate weapons programs... and that Hussein used the biological and chemical weapons ON HIS OWN PEOPLE including children.

And that sanctions could have been lifted at any point by Saddam and his government complying with the UN resolutions. The dire plight of the Iraqis were not caused by the United States nor the UN sanctions. It was caused by Saddam Hussein and the tyrants that ruled Iraq.

But it's just easier and less scholarly to blame the United States for all the ills of the world. Idiot. and I meant it.

Who elected Kollar-Kotelly to run national security

2006-02-10T08:34:00.000-07:00

From the Wall Street Journal... Opinion Page...

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

President Kollar-Kotelly

Who elected her to run national security?

Friday, February 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

We'd like to thank the Washington Post for publishing a story yesterday that so quickly proved our editorial point of the same day about the folly of putting judges in control of national security decisions. That's what we call service.

The front-page story reported that on rare occasion the Bush Administration has used information from the NSA's warrantless foreign-linked wiretaps to seek domestic wiretapping authority from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This was said to have upset chief FISA judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and the tenor of the story is that this is one more example of how the warrantless wiretaps are an abuse of power. But the better question is, Who elected Ms. Kollar-Kotelly?

The story's real news is that Judge Kollar-Kotelly, and her predecessor, Judge Royce Lamberth, took it upon themselves to erect a new "wall" concerning how intelligence is to be used to protect America. They decided that pertinent information gleaned from a warrantless wiretap should never be used later to justify a domestic warrant. But why not? If a tip gathered from an email from Pakistan leads to suspicion about an American-based contact, what's wrong with using that news to get a legal warrant to track that suspect in the U.S.? It might even prevent a domestic attack.

In any event, why is an unelected judge such as Ms. Kollar-Kotelly making these decisions? Under the Constitution, those calls ought to be made by the President, who swears to defend the U.S. and can be held accountable by the voters if he fails. Under the current FISA court process, Judge Kollar-Kotelly answers essentially to no one.

GOP Senator Arlen Specter is saying he wants to write legislation putting even more power in the hands of FISA judges. This isn't merely unconstitutional. As the Post story shows, in a world of WMD and fast-moving transnational terrorists, it's dangerous.

Spoiling for a Fight

2006-02-09T08:35:00.000-07:00

Had a comment from a reader who said:

Anonymous said...
The cartoons are not the problem...they are a symptom of the problem. The problem is that both sides are spoiling for a fight. Bread

So I responded.. and thought I'd share my little rant...

I think only one side is spoiling for a fight. I think that many of these countries in the Arab/Muslim world (Palestine, Syria, Lebanon,...) are afraid to "move on" in the world -- to establish stable governments, to have secular meaning in their societies and for their countries. They wish the world to identify them with their religion and not about their people.

Many muslim countries' principle identities are wrapped up in violence -- a history of violence, actual violence, the threat of violence... Violence against themselves, amongst themselves, against others. It is who they are but it could be just who they were.

There is an entire segment of muslim society (the jihadists) that wants nothing but to remain ensconced in that womb of violence... To have the CONTROL of the masses through fear and retribution. For these nations to come out, stand on their own two feet, each to become a nation among many nations -- to have a cohesive people each with a national (not religious) identity, independent economies, trade, representative governments, WITHOUT violence -- is a prospect that is daunting to these countries amesh in hundreds and thousands of years of infighting, blaming others and developing conspiracy theories. They seem to the rest of the world (and to some within their own borders) to be incapable (or perhaps afraid) to be responsible for their own destinies... For when you are responsible for your choices and the results, you cannot no longer whine, complain, stomp your feet, shake your finger, or blame anyone but yourself for your lot in life. That is a prospect it appears many are still unwilling to undertake.

No... only one side seems spoiling for the fight.

Such Hypocrisy from The Muslims...

2006-02-08T23:05:00.000-07:00

From Neal Boortz website:

“Muslim outrage huh. OK … let’s do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children’s school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.

Let’s go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.”

The muslims are so "outraged" at a picture of Muhammed with a bomb in his turbin and they riot, murder, burn buildings, etc. yet there is no outrage when Muslims strap real bombs to their chests and kill in the name of Mohammed???

these "outraged"muslims are giving the rest of the world the view of Islam that has become the norm... is the truth being revealed? if the rest of the muslim world doesn't stand and speak against all the violence, we will have nothing else to believe except that Islam is in fact a backward, hate-filled, violent cult.

Islam does not prohibit images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion

2006-02-08T17:37:00.000-07:00

We will never surrender Free Speech to muslim "insensitivities". Period. Riot, burn, murder, protest all you wish. You only further dirty the name of islam. You lie. You lie. You lie. They are cartoons. Get over it.

from the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page

CULTURE CLASH

Bonfire of the Pieties

Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion.

BY AMIR TAHERI

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

"The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly--though not exclusively--in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.

But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut.

The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.

There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:

A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).

Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind.

There has been other imagery: the Janissaries--the elite of the Ottoman army--carried a medallion stamped with the prophet's head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God.

Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers.

The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.

Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.

Mr. Taheri is the author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).

2005-12-15T11:24:00.000-07:00

THEY CAN'T PAY OUR SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES ENOUGH FOR ME... (and teachers). Because you can never have enough security or enough knowledge! (I am neither a soldier nor a teacher.)

The Battle Over Benefits
Stars and Stripes By Leo Shane III December 12, 2005

WASHINGTON - Arguments over torture regulations and an Iraq exit date have stalled the Defense Authorization Bill in Congress for months, but the bill also contains dozens of military benefit issues that must be settled before the final draft can be passed.

The $441 billion-plus bill outlining fiscal 2006 military spending has language reauthorizing a host of bonuses, pay increases and specialty pay adds and dozens of other items likely to have an impact on troops’ paychecks. Congress already has approved a 3.1 percent pay raise for military personnel in January, but the fate of other benefits is still up in the air.

Negotiators will scramble this week to finalize a compromise bill before the end of the year. Leaders from both chambers have said they expect a vote by the end of the week, when Congress’ Christmas break is set to begin.

Here’s a look at some of the issues under consideration.

Military Pay
Hardship duty pay
Now: The pay is given based on rank to compensate servicemembers living in foreign countries with a much lower standard of living. The maximum troops can receive is $300 a month.

House proposal: Raises the monthly cap from $300 to $750.

Senate proposal: No change.

Savings incentives
Now: Servicemembers can put aside a portion of their paychecks through the Thrift Savings Plan, but receive no government match for their contributions.

House proposal: No change in the Thrift Savings Plan.
Senate proposal: Create a pilot program to provide a savings match for troops who put aside money in the TSP, up to 5 percent of their paychecks.

Foreign language pay
Now: Troops proficient in foreign languages can receive up to $300 a month as an incentive to keep their language skills current.
House: Changes proficiency pay from a monthly stipend to an annual bonus of up to $12,000.
Senate: Same change.

Bonuses
Active duty re-enlistment
Now: Troops with less than 16 years in can re-up for multi-year tours with either of the services and receive up to $60,000.
House: Raises maximum from $60,000 to $90,000 for troops with less than 20 years experience.
Senate: Raises the maximum from $60,000 to $75,000 for some sailors with between 10 and 14 years experience.

Reserve enlistment
Now: Troops with prior military service can receive up to $8,000 for a multi-year commitment to the reserves.
House: Creates a new $15,000 for troops with less than 20 years experience who agree to a three-year stint in the reserves.
Senate: No changes.

Transfer bonuses
Now: Sailors and airmen can transfer to the Army without boot camp through the “Blue to Green” program, and bonuses are available for certain specialties.
House proposal: No new bonuses.
Senate proposal: Creates a new $2,500 bonus for all troops in the “Blue to Green” program.

Health Care
Tricare for reservists
Now: Reservists receive Tricare benefits after 30 days on active duty and can pay for some Tricare benefits for a limited time after their mission is finished.
House proposal: Extends enrollment in Tricare Reserve Select to drilling reservists.
Senate proposal: Extends Tricare Reserve Select to all reservists, regardless of duty status.

Tricare for military children
Now: Children of troops killed on active duty receive a month of Tricare coverage.
House proposal: No change in coverage.
Senate proposal: Children of troops killed while on active duty would receive Tricare coverage until they turn 21.

Death and Injury
Death payouts
Now: Families of troops killed in combat zones receive a $100,000 payout under temporary Legislation approved last spring.
House proposal: Permanently raise the death gratuity to $100,000, but limit it to only troops killed in combat.
Senate proposal: Permanently raise the gratuity to $100,000, but make it apply to all troops killed on active duty.

Pay for injured troops
Now: Wounded troops receive $225 in imminent danger pay, given for service in a combat zone, for the first three months of their hospital stay.
House proposal: Create a new $430 monthly payout for injured troops while they recuperate.
Senate proposal: Allow troops to receive their $225-per-month imminent danger pay as long as they are recovering in a hospital.

OK, WaPo -- What Part Didn't You Understand?

2005-12-15T11:03:00.000-07:00

They just seem so incredulous... that Bush says we will STAY THE COURSE... I have actually LISTENED when he said so... but apparently the WaPo seems to be surprised that he said it all again!!

Repetitious, Yes, But They Didn't Cut And Run
Washington Post - Free Registration Required
December 15, 2005

Lawmakers, diplomats and assorted military types settled into their seats in the Ronald Reagan Building yesterday to watch President Bush's fourth speech on Iraq in a fortnight. A snap poll was conducted in the press section: Would the feature presentation be a new film, a remake with updated effects, or just a rerun? In the end, everybody agreed: They had seen this movie before. For the 22nd time in a speech as president, Bush said we would not "cut and run" in Iraq. For the 28th time, he said Iraq was "the central front" in the war on terrorism. And, for the 100th time, Bush promised that "we will prevail" against the terrorists.

ARE YOU LISTENING NOW????

When Nurses No Longer Serve the Patients

2005-10-27T19:12:00.000-07:00

In California, nurses got a measure passed in the State legislature there that obstenibly was in the interests of the patients -- and nurse/patient care ratios... In Emergency Rooms in California, nurses may only care for 4 patients at a time -- regardless of the level of care required for the patients -- for instance, if a nurse is caring for 4 patients with sore throats, that nurse may refuse a physician's request to assist him immediately with a cardiac arrest, stroke patient, etc. -- and it is the physician's responsibility to find another nurse who has an opening on her dance card... The standard of reasonable nurse/patient care is 6/1 -- with 2 critical care... And these are the nurses making TWICE the average wage of nurses nationwide. I'm all for returning the nurse/patient care ratio to something near normal (AND paying them a decent wage!!)-- but not at the expense of the patients they refuse to care for based on numbers alone.

Protesters March Outside Women's Conference
LONG BEACH - Dozens of protesters marched outside the Women's Conference hosted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California first lady Maria Shriver, blasting the governor's Nov. 8 ballot initiatives.

The protesters, organized by the California Nurses Association union, carried signs opposing Proposition 75, a measure that would require members' approval before union dues can be spent on political campaigns.

But the protesting nurses said they were still irritated by comments Schwarzenegger made during last year's "Governor and First Lady's Conference on Women and Families."

When protesting nurses disrupted Schwarzenegger's appearance at last year's event, the governor referred to them as a "special interest" group and noted, "I'm always kicking their butts. That's why they don't like me."
//
The comment is now being repeated regularly on union-sponsored television ads opposing governor-backed ballot measures.

Deborah Burger, president of the CNA, said the comment still generates outrage among nurses.
"Nurses were really furious when he did that, because they work so hard to provide safe patient care, and for him to dismiss us as an angry mob or special interest group really alienated a lot of nurses," Burger said in a broadcast report.

Officials from the governor's campaign were not available for immediate comment.

Shriver told ABC7, however, that protesters are part of the political process.

"I think whenever you're in the thick of political life, there are a lot of people who don't like what you're doing, particularly if you're trying to bring about change," Shriver said.

But Shriver also said the women at the conference were there for non- political reasons.

"I respect their opinion, but there's 11,000 people in here who want to be inspired, who want to know how they can get involved and get enlisted in this state," Shriver said.

Conference attendee Dawn Hill told Channel 9, "It's their right to be here, but I also think there are a lot of people who have come here for a different reason."

OMG! Look What the WaPo Said!!!

2005-10-27T10:24:00.000-07:00

Washington Post Opinion

Loss in Iraq
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A26

"EACH LOSS of life is heartbreaking," President Bush said Tuesday, as the 2,000th death of an American soldier in Iraq was recorded. That is surely one thing about which everyone in an increasingly bitter and polarized debate regarding the war can agree. The sacrifice of American lives, and the debilitating injuries suffered by thousands of others, have devastated families and wounded the nation. That the totals are relatively small compared with those of previous U.S. wars, or the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died, does not change that.

What does matter is what has come from those sacrifices. The most brutal and dangerous dictator in the modern history of the Middle East was deposed, and last week he was put on trial before an Iraqi court. Millions of Iraqis he oppressed continue to be grateful for their liberation; unlike most Americans, they still believe that the invasion was worth the cost. Despite the continuing insurgency, more than 60 percent of registered voters turned out this month for a constitutional referendum, and slates are forming for a parliamentary vote in December that could be the most inclusive, competitive and meaningful election ever held in the Arab world.

That the war remains broadly unpopular among Americans, and is routinely and glibly described as a catastrophe by administration critics, shows that these achievements are cloaked by the continuing bloodshed. The horrific nature of car bomb and suicide attacks on U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians has compounded the effect of the loss of life. So have the failure to find weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that originally appeared to justify the costs and risks of an invasion -- and the seeming intractability of the insurgency, which has survived countless military offensives, killings or arrests of top leaders, and changes of tactics. The political gains, though real, have been undermined in recent months by the sectarian and ethnic polarization of Iraqis and the apparent effort by a number of Shiite and Kurdish political leaders to carry out a de facto partition of the country under the guise of "federalism." That agenda, and the Bush administration's weak response to it, threatens to tip Iraq into a full-scale civil war, with U.S. troops caught in the middle.

There are no easy solutions to these problems, nor is there a quick way to end American losses. In fact, one of the greatest dangers of Iraq is that domestic disenchantment with the mission will lead to a premature withdrawal of U.S. troops, a step that would greatly increase the carnage and hand a major victory to this country's foremost enemy, the Islamic extremist movement headed by al Qaeda. Mr. Bush could have avoided much of that disillusionment had he been more honest with the country from the beginning about the likely costs of the war. Yet even now he refuses to speak candidly about the conflict; he describes it as if it were exclusively a battle between U.S.-backed democrats and foreign terrorists, rather than a complex political and military struggle among Iraqis. He did say on Tuesday that "this war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve." As U.S. servicemen continue to give their lives, the president must explain more clearly and more honestly why that is so -- and why it is necessary.

ummm, that's President with a capital "P" boys... and I'm not exactly sure where the WaPo editors and "opinion" people have been these last few years... but I distinctly recall the President telling us bluntly and clearly that this would be a long and costly war... this war on terror... that the goal was to identify, root out and destroy al-Queda and those that stand with them... I WAS LISTENING. Why weren't they??

IRAQ IS THE BATTLEFIELD

2005-10-26T21:56:00.000-07:00

Weekly Column - October 24, 2005
Iraq is the Battlefield

By U.S. Senator Jon Kyl

“Ayman al Zawahiri and George W. Bush don’t agree on much,” the Wall Street Journal noted in a recent editorial. “But al Qaeda’s No. 2 leader and the U.S. President are in accord on one thing: Iraq is the central battlefield.”

People of good faith will argue for a long time about the wisdom of invading Iraq in 2003. Given Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression and support for international terrorism, I believe he had to be removed, and that it was better to do so before international sanctions had deteriorated to the point that he was able to substantially re-arm. But either way, now that we are deeply committed, it is critical that we see the mission through to completion - that is, the establishment of a stable, representative Iraqi government that provides for its own security and poses no threat to its neighbors.

An extraordinary letter Zawahiri wrote to Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi - intercepted and recently released - makes abundantly clear that al Qaeda views Iraq as only an initial battle to be won. “The goal,” describes the Journal, “is a fundamentalist Islamic regime that begins in Iraq, extends into the neighboring secular nations of the region, assaults Israel and moves on from there. Just because the U.S. might decide to pull out of Iraq hardly means that al Qaeda will stop trying to kill Americans.”

Fortunately, thanks to the dogged efforts of U.S. troops and our allies, Zawahiri is hardly operating from a position of strength. Thought to be in hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, he complains in the letter of relentless pursuit, laments the capture of high-level al Qaeda leaders, and asks Zarqawi to send him $100,000.

Even so, Zawahiri’s fanatical dedication to the destruction of the United States and the freedom and democracy we represent is shared by thousands of violent Islamist fundamentalists around the world. Many have slipped into Iraq to join the insurgency; others - along with millions of poor and disaffected around the world who are vulnerable to the attractions of extremism - are surely watching what happens there.

In the face of this reality, those who would have us withdraw prematurely from Iraq face the burden of explaining how such a move would not play directly into the hands of America’s mortal enemies, who seek not only our defeat but our annihilation. Even pressure for a strict timetable for withdrawal demoralizes the nascent Iraqi government and people, and encourages insurgents clinging to the notion that they can simply wait us out. Terrorists are only emboldened by their tactical victories; their strikes against the U.S. in Beirut, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, East Africa, and the U.S.S. Cole culminated in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The consequences of quitting Iraq short of victory would be cataclysmic. Set aside the fact that it would almost certainly fall into civil war, with terrible bloodletting and the creation of significant new terrorist havens, like Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. As bad as our defeat in Vietnam was, no one seriously considered the Viet Cong a direct threat to the American homeland. The terrorists now fighting our troops in Iraq are different: They would like nothing better than to move their operations back to the United States itself. Again, this is not a matter of speculation - it’s already happened.

A terrorist victory in Iraq would embolden violent political extremists everywhere. The failure of democracy would extinguish hopes throughout the region and set back progress around the world. If the American public loses the stomach for this fight, it will validate the terrorists’ strategy - most famously articulated by Osama bin Laden, who called us a “weak horse” - and encourage more attacks.

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you,” Leon Trotsky famously observed on the eve of the Russian Revolution. Terrorists are going to fight us whether we fight them or not. Better to accommodate them.

Sen. Kyl serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees and chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

An Iraqi View Of Iraq... and the U.S. Involvement There

2005-10-26T17:01:00.000-07:00

You Must Read this Piece over at The Mudville Gazette... and be sure to follow the link in Greyhawk's post to the original Washingtonpost.com article written by the President of the Kurdish state in Iraqand read it all...

For Those That Need a Refresher on WMD and Iraq (PRE-war

2005-10-25T18:40:00.000-07:00

From the Big Daddy (and Momma) of Milbloggers, the Greyhawks from The Mudville Gazette

Weaving of Much Deception
Greyhawk

Robert Kagan writing in The Washington Post reminds us of some pre-war headlines on Iraq and WMD. His list includes:

"Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July)
"U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan" (August)
"Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported." (September)
"Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say" (November)
"Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February)
"Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February)

From these one could make a compelling argument that the media willingly aided and abetted the Bush White House in building a case for invasion. But there's one problem, as Kagan notes. The headlines above all appeared between 1998 and 2000 - before Bush had even secured the Republican nomination.

As we've noted previously (see this examination of a rather obvious example from PBS) the current narrative of Iraq as post-9/11, WMD fear-fueled machination of the Bush administration is actually a post-invasion construct of a media heavily reliant on a public perceived as short on memory or low on attention span.

Personally I don't think the public is so easily deceived, by the media or any administration, though perhaps a small percentage of that public who are willing to believe is all it takes to keep media types satisfied - with their circulation figures and their mercurial editorial positions.

Read it all via Mudville...

MSM Defeatist Coverage of Iraq War

2005-10-17T11:08:00.000-07:00

From the Media Research Center

TV’s Bad News Brigade

ABC, CBS and NBC’s Defeatist Coverage of the War in Iraq

Full Text PDF Version
Executive Summary

Ever since the United States and an international coalition toppled Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in the spring of 2003, the Iraq war has dominated network newscasts. Since then, there’s been a lot of undeniably bad news, as terrorists have launched a savage campaign to thwart efforts to establish democracy in a major Arab state. But are network reporters giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation, as some critics charge? Are the positive accomplishments of U.S. soldiers and Iraq’s new democratic leaders being lost in a news agenda dominated by assassinations, car bombings and casualty reports?

The answer to both questions is: Yes.

This conclusion is based on a Media Research Center study of broadcast network news coverage of the Iraq war so far this year. MRC analysts reviewed all 1,388 Iraq stories broadcast on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News from January 1 through September 30. (In 2006, the MRC will release a similar analysis of cable news coverage of Iraq.) Among the key findings:

■ Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).

■ News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

■ Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

■ Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife — than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

■ It’s not as if there was no “good news” to report. NBC’s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad’s business district, ABC showcased the coalition’s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded “Death Street,” and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV’s Iraq news.

It is probably predictable that journalists would emphasize bad news, but network TV’s profoundly pessimistic coverage has shortchanged the accomplishments of both the U.S. military and Iraq’s new leaders and has certainly contributed to the public’s growing discontent with the war. Just as it would be wrong for reporters to conceal any bad news, it is wrong for journalists to downplay the good news that is being made in Iraq. Reporters have the responsibility to fully inform citizens about progress that is being made amid great sacrifice, and they are not doing so.

heh.

We Don't Want to Settle in Iraq...

2005-10-17T09:35:00.000-07:00

From Time Magazine's "Professor of Death"

"He said, 'Widen your network; go around the country and find others who will fight,'" al-Tamimi says. "He said that we had to attack the Americans from different angles so they would not be able to settle in Iraq." He made contact with insurgent groups in the Sunni triangle and around Baghdad. He also helped set up Jaish Mohammed (Army of Mohammed), a group of Baathists and ex-military men.

Read the article if you want definitive proof that this "insurgency" isn't about religion -- it's about Ba'athists wanting control... And for this man, I have news for you -- your country is a sh*thole and Americans don't want to "settle" there. They want to put your ass in jail or kill you (makes no difference to them) and go home.

More From Reverend Patterson

2005-10-17T08:49:00.000-07:00

No matter what you do, no matter how nice you try to be, no matter how genuinely you try to have a dialogue, no matter how much money you give, evil will never cease to be evil. Liberals, black and white, will attack conservative white Republicans as racists regardless. Ask Bill Bennett.

Or ask President Bush. He's invested more government money in black America than Bill Clinton. He's put more black Americans in prominent leadership positions than Bill Clinton. He's been a fine moral example, unlike Bill Clinton. It doesn't matter. Evil people love Bill Clinton because he is one of them. Those who oppose President Bush hate him because he's good. They will forever oppose him for this reason. Just recently, Congressman Charles Rangel called President Bush the modern-day "Bull" Connor.

Do you think Charles Rangel and those like him will let you off the hook, whether you tell the truth or not? Guess again.

When all is said and done, you're left with two options:

Tell black America the truth. Accept that it won't always be met pleasantly, but that you're standing for what's right, you are exposing lies, helping truth gain ground, and inspiring others to do the same. Or,

Stay silent. Let evil do what it wants. It will strike, of course, despite your silence. Only this way it goes unopposed, gains ground, and the good lose heart.
Is there really a choice?

Here's the full article...

Moral Poverty Cost Blacks in New Orleans

2005-10-16T22:53:00.000-07:00

Moral Poverty Cost Blacks in New Orleans
By the Rev. Jesse Lee Patterson
Posted: September 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005WorldNetDaily.com

Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:
What would you do?
What would you do if you were black?

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.

To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.

For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, then you'll probably wait for the government to save you.

This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.

No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results.

Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.

Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform legally and practically fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."

One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now the photo showing 200 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?

Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out.

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.

President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.

All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty not their material poverty that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America ." If you'd rather order by phone, call WND's toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).

******************************

Before you start jumping to racist conclusions, Rev. Patterson is black.

You Are Not "Special" ...

2005-10-16T09:18:00.000-07:00

except to your God -- just as we all are. You deserve no more protections or standing in the community than anyone else. You are only a minority in the bedroom. You have a sexual proclivity different than the majority of people, but that does not make you wittier, smarter or entitled to special attention or favors. Sit down. Shut up. And act like those of us who don't give a sh*t what you do behind closed doors. Don't ask, don't tell, don't care. I'm just tired of your whining already.

Gays Protest Rejection Of Speaker at Gathering
By Eric M. Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, October 16, 2005; Page A16

Gay and lesbian leaders led a protest of the Millions More Movement yesterday after they accused event leaders of reneging on a pledge to allow a national gay leader to address the crowd.

Black gay and lesbian leaders had planned a separate "unity rally" to celebrate the inclusion of Keith Boykin, president of the National Black Justice Coalition, as a speaker at the march. But after Boykin said he was turned away from the podium yesterday morning, the rally at Freedom Plaza turned into an angry protest that decried what demonstrators called a double-cross by the Rev. Willie F. Wilson, the Washington minister who is the march's national executive director.

No electricity in Baghdad...

2005-10-14T16:04:00.000-07:00

From CNN...

- Iraq's electricity ministry says attack by insurgents causes major blackout in Baghdad on eve of referendum.

I hope the general Iraqi populace gets tired of the terrorists soon... I know for sure I am... and what's with the asshats at CNN and this "insurgent" sh*t still? Anyone who blows up and purposely destroys the infrastructure of a country with the intent of disrupting elections and referendums called and held by the validly-elected government for the purpose of unseating that government for an UNelected government of their choosing are TERRORISTS. Imbeciles. And they wonder why no one believes CNN and no one in their right mind trusts the MSM...

I'm Not Sure George Carlin Said It...

2005-10-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

Someone sent this to me and attributed it to George Carlin... I'm not sure Carlin said it since his politics are usually so far left, but if he said it -- good on you, George! If not, thanks to whomever wrote it -- this is right on the money as far as I'm concerned.

Been sitting here with my ass in a wad, wanting to speak out about the bullshit going on in New Orleans. For the people of New Orleans...

First we would like to say we're sorry for your loss. With that said, let's go through a few hurricane rules: (Unlike an earthquake, we know it's coming)

#1. A mandatory evacuation means just that... Get the hell out. Don't blame the Government after they tell you to go. If they hadn't said anything, I can see the argument. They said get out... if you didn't, it's your fault, not theirs. (We don't want to hear it, even if you don't have a car, you can get out.)

#2. If there is an emergency, stock up on water and nonperishables. If you didn't do this, it's not the Government's fault you're starving.

#2a. If you run out of food and water, find a store that has some. Remember, shoes, TVs, DVDs and CDs are not edible. Leave them alone.

#2b. If the local store has been looted of food or water, leave your neighbor's TV and stereo alone. (See #2a) They worked hard to get their stuff. Just because they were smart enough to leave during a mandatory evacuation, doesn't give you the right to take their stuff... it's theirs, not yours.

#3. If someone comes in to help you, don't shoot at them and then complain no one is helping you. I'm not getting shot to help save some dumbass who didn't leave when told to do so.

#4. If you are in your house that is completely under water, your belongings are probably too far gone for anyone to want them. If someone does want them, let them have them and hopefully they'll die in the filth. Just leave! (It's New Orleans, find a voodoo warrior and put a curse on them.)

#5. My tax money should not pay to rebuild a 2 million dollar house, a sports stadium or a floating casino. Also, my tax money shouldn't go to rebuild a city that is under sea level. You wouldn't build your house on quicksand would you? You want to live below sea level, do your country some good and join the Navy.

#6. Regardless of what the Poverty Pimps Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton want you to believe, the US Government didn't create the Hurricane as a way to eradicate the black people of New Orleans. Neither did Russia as a way to destroy America. The US Government didn't cause global warming that caused the hurricane; we've been coming out of an ice age for over a million years.

#7. The government isn't responsible for giving you anything. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but you gotta work for what you want. McDonalds and Wal-Mart are always hiring, get a damn job and stop spooning off the people who are actually working for a living. President Kennedy said it best... "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Thank you for allowing me to rant.

Don't Honor America or Americans at the World Trade Center Memorial (We Might Offend Non-Americans!)

2005-08-21T09:28:00.000-07:00

The International Freedom Center proposed for the site of the attack on America at the World Trade Center is being counseled to "not put America first" as it might offend people in other countries... an American monument on American soil about people murdered because they shared American values should not feature America or Americans? Pure Bull$heeet from those that would DISHONOR those Americans!

From the New York Daily News Editorial:

Making a mockery of Ground Zero
The International Freedom Center, which proposes to run a museum at Ground Zero, announced in April that it has "drawn inspiration and received some important practical advice" from a group of so-called museums of conscience around the world.

The IFC's organizers have also cited plans to host exhibitions by members of the International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience as a reason why the Freedom Center would be a perfect fit for the hallowed ground where 2,749 people were murdered. To which we can only say that IFC leaders Tom Bernstein and Richard Tofel must be nuts. The advice the coalition gave them is neither inspirational nor practical. It is pure anti-American hogwash.

The coalition's wisdom, as spelled out in its 2004 annual report, begins by expressing concern about how religious Muslims would view the Freedom Center and climaxes by offering Bernstein, Tofel & Co. an offensive prescription: "Don't put America first." The coalition also worries that "the average Bangladeshi" feels "his/her human rights have been violated by the U.S." Come again? Exhibits on what amounts to a mass grave of slaughtered Americans will be decided by what the average Bangladeshi feels? Not bloody likely.

Consider this, too: "The Freedom Center is a caricature of the typical American response to everything (telling every story from an American viewpoint)." Exactly what viewpoint is an American museum on American soil marking an American tragedy supposed to express? Oh, right. Bangladeshi.

The New York Firefighters Union has withdrawn its support from the International Freedom Center and a large majority of the families of those murdered on 9/11 also are fighting the construction of the International Freedom Center at the WTC site, along with tens of thousands of Americans.

From Another insult to America's heritage at Freedom Center in the New York Daily News:

The firefighters union already has demanded the Freedom Center be booted from Ground Zero, and state officials have given it until Sept. 23 to satisfy the objections of family members.

Located in nine countries on five continents, the coalition museums chronicle apartheid in South Africa, slavery in Senegal, torture in Argentina, racism in the South and internment of Japanese-Americans in California, along with other historical horrors.

"No one in the civilized world would ever defend what happened on 9/11," said Sarwar Ali, the coalition's chairman and a trustee of the Liberation War Museum in Bangladesh.

"But what happened after 9/11 - with restrictions placed on human rights and the cycle of revenge and the allegations of human rights abuses in prisons - must also be explored," Ali said in a call from London.

IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO, PLEASE GO TO THE TAKEBACKTHEMEMORIAL.ORG SITE AND SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP THIS INSULT TO NOT ONLY THOSE THAT WERE MURDERED THAT DAY, BUT TO THEIR FAMILIES AND TO THOSE AMERICANS THAT HONOR THEM!

There is also a Take Back the Memorial Rally at the WTC site on September 10, 2005. If you are in the area or looking for a way to honor the fallen, please attend.

Stuff You Should Read

2005-08-19T09:26:00.000-07:00

Ollie North: Enabling Danger

For all those that want to sit around and take swipes at the President about 9/11, Ollie North has some interesting info on what Clinton's people knew BEFORE 3,000 Americans were murdered and how they hid that (or tried to) from the 9/11 Commission...

Enabling Danger (What Clinton's people knew about al Quaeda (What Clinton's People Knew About Al Queda and Didn't Tell Us)

**********************

But also be sure to read Joe Galloway's latest piece on how Congress must share some of the blame for the screw ups in the War in Iraq...

Joe Galloway: Congress' War Mistakes

*************************

WHY WE NEED TO STAY IN IRAQ

And for those who keep insisting that there is no progress towards a democratic-like state in Iraq AND keep insisting that they are "insurgents", you should take a look at this piece... Sunni Leaders Attacked In Iraq

The terrorist organization al Qaeda sole aim is to disrupt the adoption of a Constitution and to prevent democracy from taking hold...

In Samarra this month, imams instructed worshipers at Friday prayers to register to vote. A few days later, armed men turned up at the town bazaar passing out leaflets signed by al Qaeda in Iraq that read: "Every faithful should follow the Koran and his prophet and not to follow the infidels and their supporters who are writing the constitution." When police tried to stop them, the gunmen opened fire, killing two officers.

And the Iraqis (sounding more like patriots every day -- even the Sunnis!) are telling alQ that they won't be denied their voices in the formation of a new government and country -- because they feel they need to do it FOR THEIR CHILDREN...

In more than a dozen Ramadi mosques, Zarqawi's followers recently posted signs declaring their intent to "strike the referendum centers," calling them "centers of blasphemy" and "a legitimate target for the fire of the holy warriors."

At Thursday's meeting in Ramadi, the provincial capital, Sunni clerics, tribal leaders and politicians gathered to develop a strategy for encouraging participation and securing polling centers.

Asked about the threats by insurgents, one attendee, Mahdi Salih, a former major general in Hussein's army, said people would not be scared away from the polls.

"We are going to risk our lives for the sake of our children if the Zarqawi group insists on its position," he said.

Shame! Shame! on those that would have us abandon them in what could be the Iraqis finest hour!!

***************

And if you require more proof that these are TERRORISTS .. Khaleej Times Online (and Putin -- Russia and certain powerful Russion individuals made money off the deal when Saddam and the Sunnis were in power -- is an a$$ if he thinks we don't see through his little ploy...)

Shattering the capital’s relative calm of recent weeks, at least 43 people were killed Wednesday when three car bombs ripped through a central Baghdad bus station and a nearby hospital.

Baghdad said the bombings were aimed at triggering a civil war.

“The bombs exploded in a Shiite dominated area of Baghdad, and the message that they (rebels) wanted to send was that the government is incapable of protecting you (Shiites) from them,” government spokesman Leith Kubba said.

“Such a criminal act will definitely arouse passion among Shiites -- they (insurgents) want the Shiites to attack the Sunnis and that will serve the insurgents’ purpose. They want to trigger sectarian crisis.”

Why Would Anyone Want to be in the US Military??

2005-08-19T08:58:00.000-07:00

I am 110% in support of our military people. They are, for the most part, selfless, honorable, dedicated people -- the finest citizens (and non-citizen residents) of our country! But they endure long separations from their families, are in harm's way often for some people who don't get it, live in many places in substandard housing, paid poverty-level wages... and they don't even have all the rights of the civilian population!! Why would anyone want to be in the US military? (But thank you to those that do.) And regardless of how you feel about abortion, the point of this post is that it is a right denied them just because they decided to VOLUNTEER to defend our asses here at home.

Armed Forces Medical Plan Limits Abortions
Associated Press August 19, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that U.S. armed forces medical benefits should cover abortion costs only when a mother's life is at risk, a decision that the judges acknowledged was "callous and unfeeling."

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of a Navy sailor's wife whose fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had an abortion five months into her pregnancy, but coverage for the procedure was denied.

She filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure. The government argued that refusing to cover such services "furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life."

In Thursday's 3-0 ruling, judges said they were not judging the "wisdom, fairness or logic" of congressional legislation that limited abortions under military medical plans.

Here's what a sailor wrote in response to this story: "All I can advise my fellow service members to do is write your Congresspersons and Senators. For those of you who have judges appointed by your Governors, write all of the lead state offices, protesting the ruling. It's a travesty that the well-being of active duty members and their families are being degraded in such a manner. Above all, use your votes! Be responsible for your opinions at election time. Vote out the political cronies and opponents of the military way of life."

Morons!

2005-08-16T10:10:00.000-07:00

Iraqis Fail To Meet Constitution Deadline

Note to Washington Post: No, they EXTENDED the deadline. If you ever wanted a clearer example of bias in a headline... it should have read

Iraqis Use Parliamentary Power to Extend Constitution Deadline

Need a Little Help There, Vincente??

2005-08-01T10:24:00.000-07:00

I say Vincente should ask the US for a few of our finest marines or soldiers and go in and exterminate these cockroaches... and if he is unable or unwilling and these Mexican mercenaries continue to kill US enforcement agents ON U.S. SOIL, I say we move in, take over that area of Mexico until we restore civil order!! One more reason to enforce the laws we have. I saw recently that the U.S. has begun running ads on the US/Mexican border television and radio stations telling Mexicans that "it is very dangerous to cross the border illegally -- so hot, and the smugglers will take your money and leave you in the desert to die"... How 'bout we just tell them that if we see them we're going to shoot their a$$e$ and kill them ourselves?? Now don't you suppose THAT might keep them on their side of the fence??

Mexican mercenaries expand base into U.S.
By Jerry Seper

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

August 1, 2005

A renegade band of Mexican military deserters, offering $50,000 bounties for the assassination of U.S. law-enforcement officers, has expanded its base of operations into the United States to protect loads of cocaine and marijuana being brought into America by Mexican smugglers, authorities said.

The deserters, known as the "Zetas," trained in the United States as an elite force of anti-drug commandos, but have since signed on as mercenaries for Mexican narcotics traffickers and have recruited an army of followers, many of whom are believed to be operating in Texas, Arizona, California and Florida.

Working mainly for the Gulf Cartel, one of Mexico's most dangerous drug-trafficking organizations, as many as 200 Zeta members are thought to be involved, including former Mexican federal, state and local police. They are suspected in more than 90 deaths of rival gang members and others, including police officers, in the past two years in a violent drug war to control U.S. smuggling routes.

The organization's hub, law-enforcement authorities said, is Nuevo Laredo, a border city of 300,000 across from Laredo, Texas. It is the most active port-of-entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, with more than 6,000 trucks crossing daily into Texas, carrying about 40 percent of Mexico's total exports.

Authorities said the Zetas control the city despite efforts by Mexican President Vicente Fox to restore order. He sent hundreds of Mexican troops and federal agents to the city in March to set up highway checkpoints and conduct raids on suspected Zeta locations.

Despite the presence of law enforcement, more than 100 killings have occurred in the city since Jan. 1, including that of former Police Chief Alejandro Dominguez, 52, gunned down June 8, just seven hours after he was sworn in. The city's new chief, Omar Pimentel, 37, escaped death during a drive-by shooting on his first day, although one of his bodyguards was killed.

Authorities said the Zetas operate over a wide area of the U.S.-Mexico border and are suspected in at least three drug-related slayings in the Dallas area. They said as many as 10 Zeta members are operating inside Texas as Gulf Cartel assassins, seeking to protect nearly $10 million in DAILY drug transactions.

In March, the Justice Department said the Zetas were involved "in multiple assaults and are believed to have hired criminal gangs" in the Dallas area for contract killings. The department said the organization was spreading from Texas to California and Florida and was establishing drug-trafficking routes it was willing to protect "at any cost."

Just last month, the department issued a new warning to law-enforcement authorities in Arizona and California, urging them to be on the lookout for Zeta members. An intelligence bulletin said a search for new drug-smuggling routes in the two states by the organization could bring new violence to the areas.

The number of assaults on U.S. Border Patrol agents along the 260 miles of U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona known as the Tucson sector has increased dramatically this year, including a May 30 shooting near Nogales, Ariz., in which two agents were seriously wounded during an ambush a mile north of the border.

Their assailants were dressed in black commando-type clothing, used high-powered weapons and hand-held radios to point out the agents' location, and withdrew from the area using military-style cover and concealment tactics to escape back into Mexico.

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada in Nogales said his investigators found commando clothing, food, water and other "sophisticated equipment" at the ambush site.

Since Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, there have been 196 assaults on Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector, including 24 shootings. During the same period last year, 92 assaults were reported, with five shootings. The sector is the busiest alien- and drug-trafficking corridor in the country.

U.S. intelligence officials have described the Zetas as an expanding gang of mercenaries with intimate knowledge of Mexican drug-trafficking methods and routes. Strategic Forecasting Inc., a security consulting firm that often works with the State and Defense departments, said in a recent report the Zetas had maintained "connections to the Mexican law-enforcement establishment" to gain unfettered access throughout the southern border.

Many of the Zeta leaders belonged to an elite anti-drug paratroop and intelligence battalion known as the Special Air Mobile Force Group, who deserted in 1991 and aligned themselves with drug traffickers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050801-122047-2623r.htm

Thank you and God bless you, Senator Frist!

2005-07-30T08:30:00.000-07:00

I don't know why people who are anti-Choice can not get it through their heads that "life begins at conception" is a RELIGIOUS tenet -- not scientific or medical -- and that not everyone practices that (or any) religion or believes that tenet... But anti-choice (and most of those are also anti-birth control -- go figure?) and think the rest of the world must believe and do as they do... And, if, in fact, this is a religious issue, then it is between a person and their God (if they believe). So I say, thank you and God bless you, Senator Frist!

Frist Breaks With Bush On Stem Cell Research
By Ceci Connolly

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, July 30, 2005; Page A01

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced yesterday that he now supports legislation to lift President Bush's restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, a shift that infuriated religious conservatives and turned a spotlight back on the White House.

Frist, a physician, said during a lengthy Senate floor speech that he no longer thinks Bush's policy sufficiently enables scientists to pursue the "truly magnificent, truly remarkable properties" of stem cells taken from days-old human embryos.

In the face of a presidential veto threat, the Tennessee Republican with White House aspirations of his own said he will support House-passed legislation to repeal the Bush restrictions and allow research on stem cells donated by couples who have completed in vitro fertilization and no longer need their remaining frozen embryos. He hopes to schedule a Senate vote in September, though he acknowledged widespread disagreement on how to proceed with a debate that could involve up to eight competing bills.

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Frist said, as other senators flocked to the chamber to hear his speech.

Former first lady Nancy Reagan, some colleagues and Tennessee voters active in the patient advocacy movement hailed Frist for what some called a "courageous" and "principled" stand. At the same time, conservative activists accused him of flip-flopping and betraying his antiabortion beliefs.

Both sides said Frist's announcement is likely to win over some undecided lawmakers and might prompt Bush to reconsider his position.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who has been among the most active supporters of stem cell research, said a veto is no longer a certainty.

"I personally think this ought to convince the president this research should go forward," he said in an interview. As Bush reviews the issue, Hatch said, "he will, like many others, say, 'What's wrong with helping the living?' "

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush stood by his threat.

"The president's made his position clear," McClellan said. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."

Scientists, patient groups and a wide majority of Americans embrace the research because of the potential the cells hold for morphing into any type of cell or tissue in the human body. Early work suggests that the regrown cells could enable patients with cancer, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and spinal cord injuries to be treated with their own natural materials.

Because embryonic stem cells can "renew and replicate themselves infinitely," they are "uniquely necessary for potentially treating [other] diseases," Frist said.

Can I Get an "AMEN!!" ??

2005-07-29T14:40:00.000-07:00

I've always been a bit suspicious of Condi... but she's talking my language here... Go, Condi, Go!!

Rice Urges World to Stop Making Excuses for Terrorists

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2005 – The U. S. secretary of state wants people to stop making excuses for terrorists.

In an interview aired July 28 on PBS's "Jim Lehrer NewsHour," Condoleezza Rice fairly bristled at the suggestion that the United States was creating terrorists with its policies. "When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists and saying that somebody is making them do it?" Rice said.

Rice said terrorists are simply evil people who want to kill. They are attempting to implicate the 1. 5 billion Muslims worldwide in their schemes. "They want to kill in the name of a perverted ideology that really is not Islam, but they somehow want to claim that mantle to say that this is about some kind of grievance," she said. "This isn't about some kind of grievance. This is an effort to destroy, rather than to build. "

Rice pointed out that terrorists struck the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, with no provocation. "We weren't in Iraq. We weren't even in Afghanistan on Sept. 11," she said.

American servicemembers have died protecting the rights of Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo. Terrorists have embraced the ideology of violent extremism by their own choice. "No one is making them do it," Rice said. "They're doing it because they want to create chaos and to undermine our way to life. "

The secretary said terrorists have attacked innocents all over the world. "They've attacked in Morocco and in Bali and in Egypt and in London and in Madrid," she said. "And until everybody in the world calls it by name - the evil that it is - (and) stops making excuses for them, then I think we're going to have a problem. "

She said she hopes that after the recent bombings in England and Egypt and the suicide bombing that killed children getting candy from American soldiers in Baghdad "that people will call this by name and stop making excuses for these people. "

This Was (Is) Not A Problem for Me...

2005-07-29T13:29:00.000-07:00

ok, if the General lied -- that causes me a problem... but the use of dogs at AG?? not a problem for me... wearing women's underwear? not a problem... Do I wish they hadn't done it... sure (but mostly because it makes the military look bad)... but do I think it was torture? Nope. If it saved one life -- Iraqi, American, British (even French or Spanish), I am way ok with embarrassing or scaring the bejesus out of 'em any way we need to -- anything short of physical torture. Really. This seems to only be a problem to those that make their living off these stories -- like the media and bleeding hearts that need publicity to make their existence meaningful...

The Truth About Abu Ghraib
Friday, July 29, 2005; Page A22

The Washington Post (Editorial)

FOR 15 MONTHS now the Bush administration has insisted that the horrific photographs of abuse from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were the result of freelance behavior by low-level personnel and had nothing to do with its policies. In this the White House has been enthusiastically supported by the Army brass, which has conducted investigations documenting hundreds of cases of prisoner mistreatment in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but denies that any of its senior officers are culpable. For some time these implacable positions have been glaringly at odds with the known facts. In the past few days, those facts have grown harder to ignore.

The latest evidence has emerged from hearings at Fort Meade about two of those low-level Abu Ghraib guards who are charged with using dogs to terrorize Iraqi detainees. On Wednesday, the former warden of Abu Ghraib, Maj. David DiNenna, testified that the use of dogs for interrogation was recommended by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison who was dispatched by the Pentagon to Abu Ghraib in August 2003 to review the handling and interrogation of prisoners. On Tuesday, a military interrogator testified that he had been trained in using dogs by a team sent to Iraq by Gen. Miller.

In statements to investigators and in sworn testimony to Congress last year, Gen. Miller denied that he recommended the use of dogs for interrogation, or that they had been used at Guantanamo. "No methods contrary to the Geneva Convention were presented at any time by the assistance team that I took to [Iraq]," he said under oath on May 19, 2004. Yet Army investigators reported to Congress this month that, under Gen. Miller's supervision at Guantanamo, an al Qaeda suspect named Mohamed Qahtani was threatened with snarling dogs, forced to wear women's underwear on his head and led by a leash attached to his chains -- the very abuse documented in the Abu Ghraib photographs.

The court evidence strongly suggests that Gen. Miller lied about his actions, and it merits further investigation by prosecutors and Congress. But the Guantanamo commander was not acting on his own: The interrogation of Mr. Qahtani, investigators found, was carried out under rules approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002. After strong protests from military lawyers, the Rumsfeld standards -- which explicitly allowed nudity, the use of dogs and shackling -- were revised in April 2003. Yet the same practices were later adopted at Abu Ghraib, at least in part at the direct instigation of Gen. Miller. "We understood," Maj. DiNenna testified, "that [Gen. Miller] was sent over by the secretary of defense."

The White House and Pentagon have gotten away with their stonewalling largely because of Republican control of Congress. When the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted, GOP leaders such as Sen. John W. Warner (Va.) loudly vowed to get to the bottom of the matter -- but once the bottom started to come into view late last year, Mr. Warner's demands for accountability ceased. Mr. Rumsfeld and other senior officials have never been the subject of an independent investigation. A recommendation by the latest Army probe that Gen. Miller be reprimanded for his role in the Qahtani interrogation was rejected by Gen. Bantz Craddock of Southern Command.

The only good news in this shameful story is that a group of Republican senators, though resisting justified Democratic demands for an independent investigation, are attempting to reform the policy of abuse to which the administration still adheres. Six GOP senators led by John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) have backed an amendment to the defense operations bill that would exclude exceptional interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and ban the use of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment for all prisoners held by the United States. The administration contends that detainees held abroad may be subject to such abuse. Attempts by the White House and Mr. Warner to block or gut the legislation failed, and on Tuesday the GOP leadership pulled the defense bill from the floor rather than allow a vote. The administration probably will spend the next month trying to quell this rebellion of conscience and good sense. The nation would be better served if President Bush instead accepted, at last, the truth about Abu Ghraib.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801745.html

YES! YES! YES! They Got 'Em!

2005-07-29T12:32:00.000-07:00

oh, yeah... Scotland Yard you are awesome!!

Police: All 7/21 London Suspects in Custody
Friday, July 29, 2005

LONDON — All four men suspected of involvement in the July 21 attacks on London's transit system were believed to be in police custody Friday after a rapid-fire series of dramatic events that spanned the continent.

Two of the suspects were picked up in a west London apartment complex following raids by heavily armed police that sent residents scurrying out of their homes and away from the scene.

"The men in the premises were asked to surrender but failed to do so. As a result, in order to minimize potential risk to the public and to the police officers, specialist tactics were used," said Peter Clarke, head of London's Metropolitan Police (search) counter-terrorism unit.

One of the men identified himself as Muktar Said Ibrahim (search), 27, who allegedly tried to blow himself up on a double-decker bus in east London. The other man said his name was Ramsi Mohammed (search), who is believed to have been responsible for the attempted bombing near Oval Tube station.

He was pictured running from the Oval Street subway station wearing a "New York" sweatshirt.

Italian police in Rome arrested Osman Hussain (search), a naturalized British citizen from Somalia, as part of an ongoing investigation in the bombings, said Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu. Hussain, who reportedly fled London and stopped in Milan and Bologna en route to the Italian capital, was "the fourth attacker," he said.

Hussain is suspected of targeting a subway train near the Shepherd's Bush station. He was shown on closed-circuit TV footage wearing a backpack in the Westbourne Park station. Clarke said that British authorities would seek to have him extradited from Rome.

With those arrests, as well as that of Yasin Hassan Omar (search) on Wednesday in the city of Birmingham, authorities believe they have captured all four men whose photos they released following last week's botched bombings, a police official said.

Clarke apologized and thanked Londoners for bearing with the raids, and warned that there would be "more very visible police activity. I cannot set out where and when this might be, but I would emphasize the need for the continuing support and understanding of the public as these operations continue."

How Do You Say "Umpire Was Right" in Spanish?

2005-07-29T12:11:00.000-07:00

I see nothing wrong with the umpire's instruction... and I'm a bit baffled by the "we're all human and humans make mistakes" statement... I don't think it was a mistake. If you're 14 and you LIVE IN AN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRY and you "speak very little English" -- THAT seems to be the problem... and the coach leaving the game demorlaized the team -- not the ban on Spanish... whaa whaa whaa... get a grip...

Ump's language ban incites protest
Little Leaguers told to stop speaking Spanish on field
Posted: Friday July 29, 2005 1:21PM; Updated: Friday July 29, 2005 1:21PM

METHUEN, Mass. (AP) -- Coaches on a Little League team filed a protest with the league after an umpire ordered the players to stop speaking Spanish during a state tournament game this week.

Coaches said the order demoralized the Methuen players and cost the team the game.

"This never should have happened," coach Chris Mosher told the Eagle-Tribune newspaper. "These are 14-year-old kids who should not have to deal with any of this, especially in Little League baseball."

National Little League spokesman Lance Van Auken said there's no rule against players speaking Spanish or any other language on the field. But he said it's too late to reverse the decision or the outcome of the game.

"It appears the umpire was concerned that the coach or manager may have been using a language other than English ... to communicate potentially 'illegal' instructions to his players," Van Auken said in an e-mail to The Associated Press Friday. "The umpire simply overstepped his authority, and there was no malicious intent."

Mosher said the incident happened Tuesday night during a Junior Little League game against Seekonk in Lakeville.

Methuen was winning 3-1 when assistant coach Domingo Infante instructed the pitcher in Spanish to try to pick off a runner at second base. After the unsuccessful attempt, the umpire called time-out and spoke with a Little League official who was at the game. The unidentified umpire then decreed that only English could be spoken.

"All I could hear was, 'We cannot allow this,"' Mosher said. "At this point I was baffled why we could only speak English."

Mosher said he challenged the ruling, but the Little League official said it would stand. Infante then left the game in protest, which Mosher said demoralized his pitcher and catcher, who speak little English. Methuen lost the game 10-6, though the team remains alive in the tournament.

Van Auken said the loss can't be reversed because a formal protest must be filed during the game. He told the Eagle-Tribune the umpire won't be punished.

"You're talking about human beings," Auken said. "Human beings do make mistakes."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/more/07/29/ll.spanish.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

"Insurgency" Ends After 35 Years...

2005-07-29T10:05:00.000-07:00

What I find so stunning here is that Teddy boy thinks this might have a chance AFTER 35 FRIGGIN' YEARS of terrorist activity... but now this Irish Catholic is jumping up and down about pulling US troops out of Iraq after 2 YEARS -- and calling it a quamgmire??? It might be laughable if Teddy weren't such a sad story...

IRA Says It Will Abandon Violence
Shift Follows Decades Of N. Ireland Conflict
By Glenn Frankel

Washington Post Foreign Service

Friday, July 29, 2005; Page A01

LONDON, July 28 -- The Irish Republican Army formally declared an end Thursday to its three-decade-long armed struggle against British rule in Northern Ireland and pledged to pursue its aims of a united Ireland through "exclusively peaceful means."

British and Irish leaders said they hoped the statement, brokered in negotiations between the IRA's political representatives and officials in London and Dublin, would revive the province's stagnant peace process and bring a final end to sectarian violence known as "the Troubles" that has killed more than 3,600 Catholics and Protestants since 1969.

[snip]

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a longtime supporter of the province's Catholic community, said in a statement that he hopes the declaration means "we're finally nearing the end of this very long process to take guns and criminality out of politics in Northern Ireland once and for all." [emphasis added]

[snip]

But beyond those problems, analysts say the IRA and the republican movement's leaders -- Adams and his deputy, Martin McGuinness -- became aware that in the world after Sept. 11, 2001, they could no longer sustain a paramilitary movement whose bombings and assassinations had terrorized civilians as well as soldiers. [I hope it doesn't take 35 years for Islamic terrorists to get this same message...]

My Kinda Judge... and Another That Should Be Ashamed

2005-07-28T21:02:00.000-07:00

Cleric Sentenced in Terror Conspiracy
Yemeni gets 75 years for attempt to fund al Qaeda, Hamas
Thursday, July 28, 2005; Posted: 7:18 p.m. EDT (23:18 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A federal judge Thursday sentenced a Yemeni Muslim cleric who once called himself Osama bin Laden's spiritual adviser to the maximum 75 years for conspiring to support al Qaeda and Hamas.

Sheik Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, 57, was convicted in March of attempting to funnel millions of dollars to Palestinian-backed Hamas and to al Qaeda, the radical Islamic group behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist group that the U.S. State Department labels a terrorist organization.

U.S. District Judge Sterling Johnson also fined al-Moayad $1.2 million for his role in attempting to fund terrorist organizations, said Bob Nardoza, a spokesman in the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York.

"This defendant is truly beloved in Yemen by millions of people for a lifetime of charitable work on behalf of poor people," said Al-Moayad's lawyer during the trial, Bill Goodman.

"This sentence will be seen in Yemen and throughout the Arab world as evidence of American hatred of Muslims and not as evidence of American justice."

U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, based in Brooklyn, called al-Moayad a "master terrorist financier" and said he "richly deserves the maximum sentence imposed."

"Those who finance terrorist attacks, and rejoice in the murder of innocent victims, are no different from those who plant the bombs or carry the backpacks," Mauskopf said news release. "Money is the lifeblood of terrorism."

After a five-week trial in Brooklyn and five days of deliberations, a jury found al-Moayad guilty of conspiring to provide material support and resources to the foreign terrorist organizations.

A Yemeni assistant, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, 31, also was convicted of terrorism conspiracy. Zayed is scheduled to be sentenced September 1.

Zayed and al-Moayad were arrested two years ago in a sting operation that culminated in Germany and were extradited to the United States.

They were on trial in Brooklyn because they had been charged with raising money at a mosque there.

The government's case relied largely on secretly videotaped conversations between the defendants and a pair of undercover FBI informants at a Frankfurt, Germany, hotel in 2003.
One of the informants, Mohamed Alanssi, testified al-Moayad boasted about giving money, weapons and recruits to al Qaeda leader bin Laden.

Alanssi said al-Moayad told him he personally delivered $20 million to bin Laden before 9/11 and $3.5 million to Hamas.

Surveillance tapes played in court showed al-Moayad and the informants discussing funneling $2.5 million into the fight against America's "Zionist government."

Al-Moayad denied he gave any money to bin Laden and said their relationship was one that dated to the years when bin Laden was battling Soviet forces in Afghanistan, a cause they shared with the United States.

Al-Moayad contended the money was raised for charities in Yemen, where he is an influential religious and political leader.

CNN's Jonathan Wald and Chris Kokenes contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/28/sheikh.sentence/index.html

**************************************************

Unlike this a$$hut in Seattle who should be made to visit the graves of every person that died on 9/11 and the grave of every soldier killed by the bastard terrorists... and without a lecture about the Constitution... only US citizens are entitled to the protection of the Constitution and not to those that would murder us all...

Judge Gets in Swipe at Bush Administration
By GENE JOHNSON

The Associated Press

Thursday, July 28, 2005; 9:40 AM

SEATTLE -- The sentence itself was fairly straightforward: An Algerian man received 22 years for plotting to bomb the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium. It was what the judge said in imposing the term that raised eyebrows.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour said the successful prosecution of Ahmed Ressam should serve not only as a warning to terrorists, but as a statement to the Bush administration about its terrorism-fighting tactics.

Algerian Ahmed Ressam is seen in this undated police handout photo. Ressam, convicted of plotting to blow up the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium, was sentenced Wednesday, July 27, 2005, to 22 years in prison. (AP Photo/CP,Police Handout via Le Journal de Montreal, File) (AP)

"We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant or deny the defendant the right to counsel," he said Wednesday. "The message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart."

He added that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have made Americans realize they are vulnerable to terrorism and that some believe "this threat renders our Constitution obsolete ... If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won."

Critics of the Bush administration _ mostly human-rights groups and Democrats _ have long accused the U.S. government of unjustly detaining terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, as well as a small number of American citizens who have been designated enemy combatants.

U.S. Attorney John McKay said he agreed with the judge's comments that U.S. courts are equipped to handle terrorism cases. He would not comment on the judge's criticism of military tribunals and the handling of enemy combatants.

The comments were only the latest surprise in a terrorism case that began on the eve of the millennium when Ressam was arrested as he drove off a ferry from British Columbia with 124 pounds of bomb-making materials. Prosecutors said he had attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and was intent on bombing Los Angeles International Airport.

Facing up to 130 years in prison after being convicted of terrorist conspiracy and explosives charges in 2001, Ressam began cooperating with authorities in hopes of winning a reduced sentence. He told investigators from several countries about the operation of terrorist camps and disclosed the identities of potential terrorists, the use of safe houses and other details.

Ressam's information was given to anti-terrorism field agents around the world _ in one case, helping to prevent the mishandling and potential detonation of the shoe bomb that Richard Reid attempted to blow up aboard an American Airlines flight in 2001.

Coughenour has called the information Ressam provided "startlingly helpful."

"It is a flat fact that law enforcement, the public and public safety have benefited in countless ways" from Ressam's cooperation, defense lawyer Thomas Hillier said.

However, prosecutors said Ressam put their cases against his alleged millennium bombing co-conspirators in jeopardy when he stopped cooperating with the government in 2003, citing the stress of solitary confinement.

Prosecutors insist that without his testimony they will have to drop charges against Abu Doha and Samir Ait Mohamed. Both men are awaiting extradition to the United States _ Doha in Britain, Mohamed in Canada. McKay said that aside from immigration violations, he did not know what charges officials in Europe or Canada might pursue against them.

"It means that two other individuals who we believe to be dangerous will not be prosecuted in this country," said McKay, who was seeking a 35-year sentence for Ressam.

During the hearing, Coughenour unexpectedly called Andy Hamilton, a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Ressam at trial, from the courtroom gallery to give a sentencing recommendation.

After noting that Ressam's sentence would be "perhaps the most important sentence this court has ever had," Hamilton told the judge that Ressam's reluctance to cooperate further should weigh heavily.

"You can't be a cooperator and a terrorist," he said. "When he stopped cooperating, he went back to being what he was."

Ressam did not speak in court, but provided a short written statement in which he thanked the judge, renounced violence of any kind and apologized for his actions, Hillier said.

With credit for time served and three years off for good behavior, Ressam could be out of prison in 14 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072800184.html

Controlling the Border and Reforming Our Immigration System

2005-07-28T20:24:00.000-07:00

From the desk of Senator Jon Kyle... my kinda guy

Weekly Column - July 25, 2005
Controlling the Border and Reforming Our Immigration System by Restoring Respect for the Rule of Law

By U.S. Senator Jon Kyl

Last week, along with my colleague John Cornyn of Texas, I introduced comprehensive legislation designed to secure America’s borders and deal with the fact that more than 10 million people are living illegally in the United States.

A lot of people ask me: “Why should we believe this will be any different than other ill-fated immigration ‘reforms’?” It is a question that should be asked of any proposal that claims to resolve these issues. The primary reason I believe our bill represents a genuine solution is that it contains tough, overlapping new measures to enforce the law at our borders as well as in the interior and at the workplace, and also provides the resources to implement them. Those include:

10,000 new Border Patrol Agents;
10,000 new workplace enforcement investigators;
1,250 new Customs and Border Protection officers;
$5 billion over five years for accompanying technology and infrastructure to stop illegal border crossings;
1,000 new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigators to combat smuggling;
1,000 new DHS fraud investigators;
1,000 new trial attorneys to litigate immigration cases; and
10,000 new detention beds.

The bill also provides employers, for the first time, a highly reliable and mandatory system for verifying workplace eligibility, and creates a temporary worker program to meet the needs of America’s economy, both of which are critical components of a workable system.

The time is ripe for real immigration reform. Even members of Congress from non-border states, who long ignored illegal immigration as “not their problem,” have come to appreciate that the current situation is unacceptable. Americans recognize that a porous border has resulted in exploitation of the vulnerable and a pervasive sense of lawlessness, and now poses a serious threat to our national security as well, as increasing numbers of nationals from countries with ties to terrorism are slipping across the border.

Sen. Cornyn and I represent two states that account for approximately 85 percent of the nation’s southern border, and we chair the key subcommittees on these issues. (He leads the subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and I lead the subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security.) In preparing this bill, we conducted a thorough review of the nation’s immigration laws, and held seven separate hearings on various aspects of the issue. We found a desperate need to reduce backlogs for legitimate visa applications, improve the tracking of visitors who overstay their visas, and streamline the overall deportation process so no one who should be removed is allowed to slip into the general population. We also found, to our astonishment, that large numbers of non-Mexicans apprehended at the border are released into our society, even if their identities cannot be established, simply for lack of space to detain them.

All of these issues and more are addressed in our bill. Every illegal immigrant now in the United States would be required to come forward and undergo background checks and health screening. They would then be allowed to work and travel legally, but would be required to return to their homelands within five years. There are incentives for doing so earlier: after returning home, those wishing to re-enter the United States legally as part of our new temporary worker program would have the opportunity to do so (in situations where the American workforce is insufficient to meet demand). The earlier that current illegal aliens comply with the new rules, the quicker they will be able to come back to the United States, and the longer they would be able to stay as legitimate temporary workers. Those who continue to evade the law, however, will eventually find they can’t because of the new system of tamper-proof documentation and eligibility verification. Once caught, they’ll be removed - ineligible to even enter the United States for 10 years.

By requiring those who seek permanent residency and citizenship to return home and apply from their own countries, our bill avoids amnesty. As a nation, we have made that mistake and learned from it.

We don’t claim our bill is perfect, and we’re ready to listen to other ideas. But there is a growing consensus in Washington that this problem needs to be dealt with, and we believe the sooner the better.

*************************************************

Sen. Kyl serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees and chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

To communicate with Sen. Kyle, please visit the “Contact” section of his web site at: http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.

English as the Official Language of USA Legislation

2005-07-28T12:46:00.000-07:00

Let's hope this passes -- becuase it would about g*ddamn time...

English-only advocates see barriers to bill easing up
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Sunday, June 19, 2005;

Posted: 12:35 a.m. EDT (04:35 GMT)

(CNN) -- It's official in Zimbabwe and Belize, but not in the United States. This country is a notable exception to the 51 nations in which English is an official language. But a new bill in Congress aims to change that.

The English Language Unity Act of 2005 is only the latest of many attempts to make English the official language of the United States. The bill's sponsor, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, also tried to get the bill past the 108th Congress, but it stalled in the House of Representatives.

A similar bill passed the House in 1996 but expired when the Senate failed to act on it. Previous versions have passed the Senate but died in the House. Overall, Congress has been dismissing official-English legislation for more than two decades.

But supporters say they think the current climate in Washington is promising for passage of this bill.

"Certainly, the discussion about immigration and assimilation is reaching a high point, as it did in the 1980s. So we're hoping that we [can] start to talk about what it means to be an American again," said Rob Toonkel, director of communications at U.S. English Inc., an organization that seeks to legislate English as the country's official language.

The bill's opponents, however, say it's unnecessary and may even have negative consequences.

Gabriela Lemus, director of policy and legislation at the League of United Latin American Citizens, said it's a given that "in order to make it in this country, you have to speak English."
Lemus said the bill has little chance to gain support in Congress, as any party embracing the issue would risk alienating the Hispanic community in the United States.

But surveys show that the public would support the legislation. A 2004 Zogby poll released by U.S. English found that more than four out of five Americans favor making English the official language.

Proponents have been successful at the state level. Beginning with Louisiana in 1812, 27 states have adopted some form of official-English law.

Despite having the smallest percentage of foreign-language speakers in the country, West Virginia nearly became the 28th state to approve English-only legislation. West Virginia's Legislature passed the bill, but Gov. Joe Manchin vetoed it last weekend because of a technical flaw in the drafting of the bill.

The Arizona Legislature is evaluating another such bill. If passed by the state Senate, the measure would go to voters in 2006. Arizona passed English-only legislation in the late 1980s, but the state's Supreme Court found it violated the First Amendment.

Toonkel said that bill, which was drafted without U.S. English's backing, tried to limit communications in other languages. But U.S. English is confident the current federal bill will not present any constitutional conflicts, he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/18/official.english/index.html

2005-07-28T09:32:00.000-07:00

It has been four years since Islamic extremists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon... 1-1/2 years since the Madrid train bombing, weeks since the London bombing, a week since the Egyptian bombing... years since the attacks on the USS Cole, the embassies, American Marines, and the slaughter of Iraqi innocents continues -- and now -- FINALLY -- AT LAST -- EUREKA.. some American Islamic clerics are going to issue a fatwa against terrorism is the name of Islam!! WHOOHOO??

It may only be from those American Muslims (does the rest of the Islamic world even consider them Muslims?) but are they so afraid of al Queda and bin Laden's followers that they tremble and fear to actually name him?? The Spanish Muslim Council named him in their fatwa, although the British Muslims did not... It may be a wimpy limp handshake, but it's the gesture that counts, heh? If the Muslims REALLY want to be taken seriously, they need to name the bin Laden and al Zarquawi and put some teeth into it... Lord knows the British and Spanish fatwas haven't had any impact on the murderers who use Islam as their EXCUSE to murder... but perhaps the growing body of fatwas will deter those that would use it as their REASON to murder. Now it must be taught in every mosque, Muslim parents must teach it in their homes and it must now be taught in their schools! These can not just be words to appease the "infidels" -- it must be lived and taught and learned.

Now is the time for the entire ARAB Muslim community to speak out loudly and clearly in one voice -- Sunni, Shiaa, et al. -- that terrorism will mean an end to Islam, not its salvation. And if Islam has a process for stripping radical and hate-filled clerics from their standing then this should be undertaken, as well, or these fatwas will be just hollow words...

U.S. Muslim Scholars To Forbid Terrorism
By Caryle Murphy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 28, 2005; Page A11

An organization of top American Muslim religious scholars plans to issue a formal ruling today condemning terrorism and forbidding Muslims to cooperate with anyone involved in a terrorist act, according to officials of two leading Islamic organizations.

The one-page ruling, or fatwa, will be issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Islamic law for the Muslim community. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an advocacy group, said the ruling does not represent a new position on terrorism.

Rather, Hooper said, "it is another way to drive home the point that the American Muslim community rejects terrorism and extremism."

Although Muslim leaders and political organizations have repeatedly denounced religious extremism, Hooper added, "any time any Muslim goes on a talk show or on television, the first question is, 'Why haven't Muslims condemned terrorism?' "

Louay Safi of the Islamic Society of North America noted that there is an important difference between a fatwa and previous statements from the Muslim community. The fatwa "is not a political statement. It's a legal or religious opinion by a recognized religious authority in the United States," said Safi, whose group is based in Indianapolis.

The fatwa, to be released at a news conference in Washington, was prompted by the condemnation of terrorism in a similar ruling from the Muslim Council of Britain after the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, Hooper said.

Safi, who heads the society's Leadership Development Center, said yesterday that "the statement prohibits Muslims from giving any support to terrorist groups who have carried out attacks against unarmed civilians. Groups like al Qaeda have misused and abused Islam to fit their own radical and criminal agenda, and I feel the statement is an important step to repudiating such groups."

Although the fatwa is important, Safi added, "there is a need to become more proactive in addressing the issue of terrorism by American Muslims."

The British fatwa did not name al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and neither does the ruling to be issued today. But a March 11 fatwa from the Spanish Muslim Council on the first anniversary of the Madrid train attacks received widespread publicity because of its harsh denunciation of bin Laden by name.

John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University, said naming bin Laden and al Qaeda is not a major issue. "I think that it is very important for both Muslim and non-Muslim leaders to go beyond the fixation on Osama bin Laden," he said. "The important thing is to condemn violent extremism done in the name of Islam."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072702082.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

Attention Gulf War I Veterans!!

2005-07-27T12:25:00.000-07:00

DoD to Notify Gulf War Vets on Latest Chem Agents Study
By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 27, 2005 – The Defense Department is again sending letters to thousands of Gulf War veterans exposed to low levels of chemical agents contained in munitions destroyed at a weapons depot in Khamisiyah, Iraq, in March 1991.

A study released this week by the Institute of Medicine here concluded that veterans possibly exposed in that area appear to have a higher risk for brain cancer death than veterans who were not exposed. However, the study's authors said more research is needed to confirm their findings.

This letter is the third DoD is sending to update Gulf War veterans possibly exposed. Letters also were sent in 1997 and 2000 to inform veterans about developments.

Dr. Michael E. Kilpatrick, DoD's deputy director for deployment health support, said the purpose of the latest letters is to notify veterans whose units were in the possible hazard areas about the study and to remind them of medical services the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs can provide.

He said the letters won't recommend that veterans take any specific action, but will inform them on what to do if they feel affected. "If they feel fine, they don't need to do anything," he said. "We don't want them to get highly concerned about this study. It is a preliminary finding, and we will continue to investigate to better understand what this may or may not mean for their health. "

Kilpatrick noted this is the first study saying there is a possibility of a long-term health effect. "We do not have 'cause and effect' relationship at this point," he said. "But we do want the veterans to know that this data is there, and we want them to know from us that we are committed continuing the investigation to follow-up, because we are concerned about their health. "

The Defense Department first prompted the study in 1997 after it was learned that rockets and other munitions destroyed at Khamisiyah in 1991 contained nerve agents sarin and cyclosarin. During the study, Kilpatrick said, IOM researchers compared the causes of death in a group of 100,487 possibly exposed U. S. Army Gulf War veterans with those among 224,980 Army Gulf War veterans who were not exposed to nerve agents released during the demolitions.

He said the study found no difference in overall mortality or all cancer mortality.

Still, the study showed that exposed veterans were about twice as likely to have died from brain cancer as unexposed veterans, corresponding to roughly 12 excess deaths due to brain cancer among the 100,487 exposed veterans over a nine-year period.

Kilpatrick said that finding has puzzled researchers, because neither sarin nor cyclosarin is a known carcinogen. "Neither has been shown to cause cancer," he said. "It's too early to speculate as to what could cause the brain cancer among those in the study. "

He noted that medical science has tied only one factor to brain cancer. "When you take a look at the causes of brain cancer, the only one that is really recognized is exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation," he said. "That doesn't mix with what our Gulf War veterans were exposed to in the Gulf War. "

He also pointed out that the length of time between the possible exposure and illness among the exposed Gulf War veterans is much less than is usual for development of brain cancer. "This period is generally 15 to 20 years for brain cancer. This study has only evaluated the first nine years after this possible exposure," he said.

Kilpatrick said a lot more research needs to be done before any conclusion can be drawn on whether chemical agents at the site can be linked to brain cancer among Gulf War veterans. He said he emphasized that the notifications are part of the Defense Department's commitment to keeping veterans informed about health issues related to their deployment.

"The message is that we care about our veterans' health, and we are continuing to investigate to try and understand what the long-term health effects are," he said. "We are working closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs to understand this issue, and as we get more information, we will continue to share it with those concerned. "

Kilpatrick said one comforting aspect of the study is that the overall death rate from diseases, injuries and other causes for Gulf War veterans was similar between those whose units may have been exposed and those whose units were not.

"This study overall shows that the death rate of those in the Gulf is no different for military personnel," he said. "We have done other studies looking at death rate of those in the Gulf to those who didn't deploy, and it is the same in every aspect. So that is very comforting.

Related Site:DoD Deployment Health Support

News Archive

NOTE: View the original version of this web page on DefenseLINK, the official website of the U. S. Department of Defense.

Visit the Defense Department's Web site "America Supports You" at http://www.americasupportsyou.mil, that spotlights what Americans are doing in support of U.S. military men and women serving at home and abroad.

Visit the Defense Department's Web site for the latest news and information about America's response to the war against terrorism: "Defend America" at http://www.DefendAmerica.mil.

The Truth Hurts Don't It?

2005-07-26T12:08:00.000-07:00

Well, this is rich... Committee on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) calls itself "an Islamic civil rights organization"... Civil rights? Civil Rights? In Islam? Who has civil rights? They just can't take the criticism... or The Truth Hurts Don't It?

Time for the Muslim community to stand and be counted -- stand and UNIVERSALLY decry those that sully the name of Islam (if in fact that is what they believe.) Actions currently speak louder than (no) words... and the silence of the Islamic community is deafening. Issue fatwahs against the terrorists. Call for the closure of the fundamentalist schools. There is nothing more hate-filled than the killing innocent civilians around the world and standing mute while it happens.

Muslims Call Comments by WMAL Host 'Hate-Filled'
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, July 26, 2005; Page C01

A local radio talk show host touched off complaints from an Islamic civil rights organization yesterday after repeatedly describing Islam on the air as "a terrorist organization" that is "at war with America."

The organization, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), asked the station to take disciplinary action against Michael Graham, who hosts WMAL-AM's late-morning call-in program.

A station executive, Randall Bloomquist, said yesterday that Graham's comments were "amped up" but justified within the context of the program. He said the station, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., had no plans to reprimand Graham.

The show host touched off the flap during a discussion of the Muslim community's response to recent acts of terrorism. Graham suggested the fault lies with Muslims generally because religious leaders and followers haven't done enough to condemn and root out extreme elements. "The problem is not extremism," Graham said, according to both CAIR and the station. "The problem is Islam." He also said, "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."

CAIR denounced the comments yesterday as "hate-filled" and "Islamophobic" and asked its members to contact the station's advertisers to express their dismay.

"It's amazing," said Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's communications director. "I talked with Mr. Bloomquist and asked him if he would reprimand someone who used the n-word on the air. He said yes. I asked him if he would reprimand someone who read [approvingly] from the [anti-Semitic] 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' He said yes. So I asked him if he would do the same if someone had called Islam a terroristic organization. Well, he said, it's all about context, but he never quite explained it to me."

Added Hooper, "The First Amendment allows people to be idiots and bigots. All you can do is embarrass people and have them defend their reputation. If WMAL doesn't feel embarrassed and doesn't want to defend its reputation in the face of anti-Muslim bigotry, then there's not much we can do about it."

Graham, who broadcasts locally, is one of several conservative hosts heard on WMAL (630). The station's daily lineup includes the syndicated Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity programs.

After rising slightly during the months preceding the presidential election last year, WMAL's audience ratings have fallen precipitously. Exact ratings for Graham's 9-11:45 a.m. time slot are unavailable, but WMAL's morning programming, which includes part of Graham's program, are off 25 percent since last year. The station overall has lost 41 percent of its core 25-to-54-year-old audience in the past 12 months, dropping from 158,200 individual listeners per week to 116,600.

Graham declined to comment when contacted yesterday, saying, "I'm saving all my comments for my show. You'll just have to listen." But in his weekly column, which will appear on WMAL's Web site today, he repeats the statement that "Islam is a terror organization" and makes the following analogy:

"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 Scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder --and the scoutmasters responded by saying 'Could be' -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.

"Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not."

Bloomquist said his station had received more than 100 e-mails protesting Graham's comments, many of them, he said, apparently generated by CAIR's e-mails to its members. He went on to defend Graham, saying, "Remember that this is talk radio. We don't do the dainty minuet of the newspaper editorial page. It's not 'Washington Week in Review.' It depends on pungent statements to drive it. Michael is rattling the cage. It's designed to start and further a conversation, and it has certainly done that."

Graham made waves earlier this year when he scuffled with Montgomery County police after he tried to attend an event for illegal immigrants while wearing a T-shirt that read "INS (I Need Border Security)." He also recently led a rally in front of The Washington Post's building in the District seeking the dismissal of Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who wrote a story that inaccurately reported on alleged abuses of the Koran in the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (Newsweek is owned by The Washington Post Co.).

Graham has also clashed with CAIR in the past. The group last year cited him in a campaign called "Hate Hurts America" for what CAIR described as implicitly advocating violence against Muslims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501649.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

Jane Fonda is at it Again

2005-07-24T23:19:00.000-07:00

This woman cavorted with the enemy of the United States... this woman denounced her country while standing in the country of her enemies... this woman sat upon an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down her countrymen involved in a war... And frankly, Jane, we don't give a shit what a washed up old actress has to say... and Mr. Powell, trust me when I say that you do not speak for all the Vietnam vets and can not accept Jane's "apology". She has never apologized for her treasonous actions in the 70's nor has she ever expressed remorse... F**ck off, Jane -- and shut the f*ck up.

Actress Fonda Plans to Speak Out on Iraq

SANTA FE (July 24) - Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.

APJane Fonda expects to start her anti-war bus tour in March. "I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," she said.

Fonda said her anti-war tour in March will use a bus that runs on "vegetable oil." She will be joined by families of Iraq war veterans and her daughter.

They plan to return to the Santa Fe area where she was promoting her book, "My Life So Far" on Saturday.

Prompted by a question from the audience, Fonda said war veterans that she's met on a cross-country book tour have encouraged her to break her silence on the Iraq war.

"I've decided I'm coming out," she said.

Hundreds of people in the audience cheered loudly when Fonda announced her intentions to join the anti-Iraq war movement.

"I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," she said. "I carry a lot of baggage from that."

Fonda incited controversy in July 1972 when she was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of the country to drum up support to end the war. She has repeatedly said she did not mean any harm by the photos. Earlier this year, a Vietnam veteran spat in her face at a signing.

But, except for one booing audience member, the reception was friendly in Santa Fe. More than 500 copies of her book were sold.

Charles Powell, a member of Albuquerque's Veterans for Peace, said he believes Fonda's actions in Vietnam should be forgiven.

"We accept her apology and feel that she should be treated like a human being," Powell said.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/movies/article.adp?id=20050724203309990001

Congress Overstepping It's Bounds (AGAIN)

2005-07-23T09:20:00.000-07:00

Can you believe McCain and Graham are talking about getting Congress to "buy in to Guantanamo"?? McCain needs to butt out here as does Graham... they are WAY over their bounds here... It was humiliating treatment, John... not dehumanizing or degrading. It wasn't torture, John. YOU of all people should understand "torture". The Amerian public is NOT -- I repeat -- is NOT upset at the treatment of detainees at either Guantanamo OR Abu Ghraib... NOT IN THE LEAST. If the information we obtain will save one American, Iraqi, British, Eqyptian, Danish, and even French, German or Spanish life -- go for it. But embarrassment IS NOT torture. Let the military run the military. BUTT OUT.

White House Aims to Block Legislation on Detainees
By Josh White and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, July 23, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.

Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

Neither Cheney's office nor the lawmakers would say exactly what was discussed at the meeting, citing a routine pledge of confidentiality. But Cheney has long been the administration's chief defender of presidential prerogatives, and at the meeting he reiterated opposition to congressional intervention on the topic of detainee interrogations, according to a source privy to what happened.

The White House, in a further indication of its strong feelings, bluntly warned in a statement sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday that President Bush's advisers would urge him to veto the $442 billion defense bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."

The threat was a veiled reference to legislation drafted by McCain and being circulated among at least 10 Republican senators, Senate aides said. No effort has been made by McCain to cultivate Democratic support, although his aides predict he could get it easily. John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman, said that the senator has been working with McCain and Graham on detainee legislation and that "the matter continues to be studied."

A spokeswoman for McCain, Andrea Jones, said yesterday that McCain plans to introduce the legislation next week. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has criticized the way detainees have been treated by U.S. forces and is said by aides to want to cut off further abuse by requiring that the military adhere to its own interrogation rules in all cases.

One McCain amendment would set uniform standards for interrogating anyone detained by the Defense Department and would limit interrogation techniques to those listed in the Army field manual on interrogation, now being revised. Any changes to procedures would require the defense secretary to appear before Congress.

It would further require that all foreign nationals in the custody or effective control of the U.S. military must be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross -- a provision specifically meant to block the holding of "ghost detainees" in Iraq, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The provision would not apply to detainees in CIA custody at nonmilitary facilities.

Military investigations into the abuse in 2003 of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad disclosed that dozens were held without being registered at numerous prisons; the administration has said it needed to do so to conduct interrogations in isolation and to hide the identity of prisoners from other terrorists.

Another McCain amendment prohibits the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. This provision, modeled after wording in the U.N. Convention Against Torture -- which the United States has already ratified -- is meant to overturn an administration position that the convention does not apply to foreigners outside the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201727.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

Basic Math, Bias and the Iraqi Body Count

2005-07-20T09:46:00.000-07:00

Almost 25,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the two years since the invasion... more than 1/3 by American forces... So basic math tells us that 2/3 WERE KILLED BY SOMEONE ELSE! And note, according to the report, "American fire" accounted for the 1/3 deaths... (While I wasn't there, I'm pretty sure the Aussies, Brits and other Coalition soldiers would be distressed to know that every bullet and missle they fired missed.)

And IBC agrees that most of the deaths attributed to COALITION forces occurred DURING THE WAR... but the "crime wave" after the war accounted for almost 36% (8,935) of the 25,000 deaths... but deaths at the hands of "insurrgents" and "terrorists" accounted for 9.5% (2,353) and 11.0% (2,731), respectively. And isn't it interesting that their study of media reports (like they're so unbiased) can differentiate the 9.5% were deaths caused by attacks directly on Coalition forces -- as if those deaths were somehow excusable and should be differentiated as those killed in attacks that can not somehow be attributed to the Americans/Coalition forces?

What is this "crime wave" of which they speak? Could it be that these mystery categories are because the unbiased "group" cannot bring themselves to say that terrorists caused 5,084 (21%) of the deaths or that 15,595 deaths were NOT caused by the Coalition/Americans but at the hands of Muslims (whether criminals or terrorists) since the War -- nearly DOUBLE the number of deaths caused by Coalition soldiers DURING THE WAR?

And, can IBC be unbiased and believable when they -- and apparently only they -- can differentiate between "insurgents" and these mysterious "unknown agents"? (Perhaps they could not spell terrorist? It's T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S.) Could it be perhaps that IBC counts those murdered because they worked for or somehow "showed support" for Coalition forces as murdered by "insurgents" and those children and others who were murdered simply going about their business must have been killed by terrorists? Hmmmmm...

And if IBC is really going to COUNT IRAQI BODIES, are they planning to publish a report of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of bodies found in Saddam's graves?? Will they? Hmmm?

From the NY Times...
Civilian Toll in Iraq Is Placed at Nearly 25,000

By HASSAN M. FATTAH
Published: July 20, 2005
LONDON, July 19 - Almost 25,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the two years since the United States-led invasion of the country, more than a third by American forces, according to a report released Tuesday that is sure to stir debate.

The report, by a London-based group called Iraq Body Count, is a statistical tally of civilian deaths reported in the news media. In all, the researchers counted 24,865 civilians killed since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, almost half of them in Baghdad alone, with another large segment in Falluja.

There is no definitive account of how many civilians have died in Iraq, and the issue has long been contentious. Antiwar campaigners contend that the Bush administration and the Pentagon have deliberately avoided body counts so as to play down the toll the occupation has taken on Iraqis, while supporters of the war question the accuracy of the counts.

< =====>

According to the new report, American fire accounted for the greatest loss of life in Iraq, about 9,270 civilians, or 37.3 percent of the total. There are no estimates by the American government of civilian deaths at the hands of the American military. Most of those fatalities came during the war, the report stated. The crime wave that has overcome Iraq since the Saddam Hussein government fell was the second leading cause of death, accounting for almost 35.9 percent of the deaths, or 8,935, the report said.

In comparison, insurgent attacks specifically against American-led multinational forces caused only 9.5 percent of the deaths, or 2,353, while attacks by terrorists, whom the authors call "unknown agents," amounted to 11.0 percent of the civilian dead, or 2,731, the report said. It is not clear how the report differentiated between insurgents and terrorists. Iraq Body Count's calculations show the death toll from such violence continuing to rise.

More... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/international/middleeast/20casualties.html?

I Have a Chinese Friend

2005-07-20T09:26:00.000-07:00

I have a Chinese friend who told me, "If you knew the Chinese, you'd know that nothing that they do is not strategic or long-term. And nothing is 'just a business deal'." So, Unocal is just a business deal, huh?

Pentagon: China's Military Strengthening
Associated Press July 20, 2005

WASHINGTON - China cannot be certain that its military, while steadily strengthening, is capable of conquering Taiwan, the Pentagon said Tuesday in a new report on Chinese military power and strategy.

Over the longer term, however, an increasingly modern Chinese military could pose a threat to U.S. and other forces in the Asia-Pacific region, it said.

"Some of China's military planners are surveying the strategic landscape beyond Taiwan," the report said.

Among a number of such developments, it noted improvements in Chinese intercontinental-range missiles "capable of striking targets across the globe, including the United States." Air and naval force improvements also appear to be geared for operations beyond the geography around Taiwan, it added.

Fueled by a booming economy and foreign arms purchases, China's military is developing new capabilities in line with Beijing's strategy of deterring Taiwan from declaring its independence and countering a potential U.S. military intervention, according to the 45-page report, an annual assessment required by Congress.

The short-term focus of China's military is preparing for potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait, the report said. China claims Taiwan as part of its territory and has threatened to invade if the self-governing island declares formal independence or resists Beijing's insistence on negotiating a reunification. The United States, which is Taiwan's main arms supplier, has cautioned both countries not to force a change in the status quo.

More... http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_china_072005,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

************************************

Update: and this later in the day

China Investing in Information Warfare Technology, Doctrine

By Kathleen T. Rhem

American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 20, 2005 – China appears to be taking a page from U. S. doctrine and working to improve its information warfare capabilities, according to a comprehensive DoD report on Chinese military power released July 19.

In 2004, China introduced a new term in the country's military doctrine: "local wars under conditions of informationalization. "

In DoD's 2005 report to Congress on China's military power, defense officials explain this term refers to the People's Liberation Army's "emphasis on information technology as a force multiplier. "

A senior defense official, speaking on background, said the Chinese watch advances in U. S. doctrine carefully. "Every time we're involved in a campaign, there's a spate of articles (in China) analyzing it," the official said. "Sometimes they put themselves in the shoes of our opponent; sometimes they try to see, 'What can we emulate that the Americans have done?'"

The official said the Chinese military clearly has a long way to go in C4ISR -- command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance -- but they're clearly doing research and development into such capabilities.

China is also using advances in C4ISR to project military power farther from its own borders. Over the long term, the report states, China's advances in these areas "could enable Beijing to identify, target, and track foreign military activities deep into the western Pacific and provide, potentially, hemispheric coverage. "

China introduced the term "local wars under conditions of informationalization" in its December 2004 Defense White Paper to describe the type of war the PLA must be prepared to fight and win.

U. S. defense officials are still working to understand the implications of the new concept. But the July 19 DoD report on China power states the term appears to sum up "China's experiences and assessments of the implications of the revolution in military affairs -- primarily the impact of information technology and knowledge-based warfare on the battlefield. "

Through studying U. S. and other allied operations in the past decade, the PLA is beginning to understand the importance of joint development in C4ISR capabilities. The report states that such ambitions can be traced to lessons learned from U. S. and allied operations since the Persian Gulf War. Still, China is working to overcome an overall lack of joint operations and operational experience in general.

China's 2004 White Paper shows that Chinese officials understand they're on the short end of an expanding technology gap, according to the U. S. defense report. China's leaders, including President Hu Jintao, have ordered the PLA to pursue "leap ahead" technologies and "informationalized" capabilities to increase weapons' mobility, firepower and precision, the U. S. report states.

The report quotes from a May 2003 article by PLA Deputy Chief of the General Staff Xiong Guangkai, stating that the PLA should push forward "military reform with Chinese characteristics. "

"We should study and draw on the experiences and lessons of various countries in making military changes, including all the local wars fought under high-tech conditions," Xiong reportedly wrote, "but we should not mechanically copy other countries' patterns of military changes. "

Of Imams and al Sadr

2005-07-18T19:56:00.000-07:00

From GulfNews.com (http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/RegionNF.asp?ArticleID=173174) via John in Carolina (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com) the Grand Imam of Egypt's Al Azhar Mosque -- the most prestigious Sunni mosque -- called on Iraqis to unite against terrorism...

Published: 16/7/2005, 07:08 (UAE)

Al Azhar imam urges Iraqis to fight terrorists

APCairo: The grand imam of Egypt's Al Azhar Mosque, the Sunni world's most prestigious seat of learning, called on the people of Iraq to unite to rid the country of terrorists and urged other countries to help.

"The Iraqis, men, women, children and elderly people should unite and work solidly together to chase those evil terrorists everywhere until Iraq's land is purged of their filth and viciousness," Mohammad Saeed Tantawi said in a statement on Thursday.

"All other countries and individuals should extend help to Iraq to enable its people to exterminate those wantons and despots," Tantawi said.

The statement included 10 items explaining "the pillars of Islam" that deal with religious, ideological and political issues supporting Tantawi's ideas, with excerpts from the Holy Quran to support his points.

Islam does not differentiate between people, whatever their origin, Tantawi argued, in what is one of the strongest condemnations of the violence plaguing Iraq since the end of the US-led invasion in May 2003.

Tantawi's influence however, is limited, since he is appointed to his position by the government and is seen to espouse its policies and attitudes on a wide range of issues.

"Chasing these criminals determinedly and steadily until finishing them off is a duty of everyone, be it a ruler or anybody else and anyone who shelters them is considered partner to their crimes," Tantawi said.

The grand imam said the most heinous crimes committed by those "corrupt on earth ... is the killing of innocent people, kidnapping honest people and then killing them in a savage way."
He strongly condemned Wednesday's killing of 27 people, including 18 children and teenagers by a suicide bomber in Iraq and said "this massacre was carried out by a vicious criminal from those terrorists whose corruption has spread everywhere."

Tantawi also mentioned last week's kidnapping and killing of Egypt's top envoy to Iraq by the Al Qaida terrorist organisation saying "those sinners charged him [the envoy] with false accusations then killed him in a way that only God know how ugly, mean and low it was."

**************************************

And then from the same GulfNews.com tells us that this clown

says that the "resistance" is legitimite... Since when is the MURDER of children and the attempted murder of their parents... and the murder of 90 innocents waiting to purchase fuel -- "resistance". By what stretch of the imagination? It is the logic of mad men and irrational zealots...

Cleric says Iraq resistance is legitimate
Agencies London:
In his first ever interview with Western media, radical cleric, Moqtada Sadr told the BBC that armed resistance in Iraq was ‘legitimate’.

"Resistance is legitimate at all levels be it religious, intellectual and so on," Sadr said to the BBC programme Newsnight, "the first person who would acknowledge this is the so-called American President Bush who said 'if my country is occupied, I will fight'."

In the interview which will be screened on Monday night, he did ask for the Iraqis to show restraint.

And he said he would not interfere with the democratic process, saying "Whoever wants to take part, let him do so".

"So I call upon other parties like the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police to exercise self-restraint with Iraqi people and not be provoked into them or the occupying forces as this isn't in the interest of Iraq," he said.

"I also call on the Iraqi people to exercise restraint and not get enmeshed in the plans of the West or plans of the occupation that wants to provoke them."

"I personally shall not interfere. I say that our constitution is the Quran and the Sunnah and I refuse any political role while the occupation is present." he said, in reference to a new Iraqi constitution which will be unveiled on 15 August.

(http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/RegionNF.asp?ArticleID=173547)

His father would be so ashamed...

**************************************

Checking my site meter and I find that 1.1% of visitors to this site were from Chinese language entry sites... So welcome!

ICE ICE Baby... and other stuff

2005-07-18T10:17:00.000-07:00

Saw this in the morning newsgroup... Sounds like a good idea to me!

'ICE' Cell Phone Plan Would Help Rescuers
Idea to Designate Next of Kin in Electronic Address Book Is Gaining Popularity
By Sam Coates

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, July 18, 2005; Page A06

To its owner, the cell phone is an indispensable lifeline at times of crisis, reuniting loved ones separated by unforeseen events at the touch of a button. But for members of the emergency services making life-and-death decisions, the cell poses a conundrum: Which of the numbers stored in its electronic address book should they call to reach a casualty's next of kin?

Now a simple initiative, conceived by a paramedic in Britain, has gained momentum on both sides of the Atlantic to try to solve this problem. Cell users are being urged to put the acronym ICE -- "in case of emergency" -- before the names of the people they want to designate as next of kin in their cell address book, creating entries such as "ICE -- Dad" or "ICE -- Alison."

At least two police forces in the United States are considering the idea, according to the initiative's British-based promoters, who say there has been a flurry of interest since the recent bombings in London.

Paramedics, police and firefighters often waste valuable time trying to figure out which name in a cell phone to call when disaster strikes, according to current and retired members of the emergency services, who said they must look through wallets for clues, or scroll through cell address books and guess. Many people identify their spouse by name in their cell, making them indistinguishable from other entries.

"Sometimes dialing the number for 'Mum' or 'Dad' might not be appropriate, particularly if they are elderly, suffer from ill health or Alzheimer's," said Matthew Ware, a spokesman for the East Anglian Ambulance service, which is promoting the ICE initiative. "This would give paramedics a way of getting hold of the appropriate person in a few seconds."

The idea was conceived by Bob Brotchie, a clinical team leader for the ambulance service, after years of trying to reach relatives of people he was treating. He began the ICE initiative in April, but it gained momentum only after the bombings in London, when information about the plan spread by e-mail. Ware said the East Anglian Ambulance service received 500 inquiries in six days, from South Africa, Canada, Israel, Germany, and several organizations in the United States, including a security company from Utah working on the London bombings, police departments in Florida and Texas, and a company in Ohio.

Lt. Robert Stimpson, acting police chief of Madison, Conn., was one of those who contacted Ware. "I think it's a great idea. . . . It's so simple I can't believe that other people haven't thought of it before. Not only does it help emergency workers identify a responsible party when they come upon an unconscious person, it also helps identify the owners of lost cell phones," he said in a telephone interview.

Several next-of-kin contact systems were set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, such as the nonprofit National Next of Kin Registry established in January 2004 that shares information provided to state agencies in the event of an emergency. The registry was set up by Mark Cerney, a disabled Marine who noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that in 2003, 900,000 emergency room patients could not provide contact information because they were incapacitated.

Ware said that although there are such databases, some charge as much as $200 a year to register. The ICE initiative is available free to the 192 million cell users in the United States.
Kathleen Montgomery, deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said she did not have any comment on the matter because it was not the department's idea. Instead, she recommended that citizens look at the department's emergency preparedness site, Ready.Gov. The site recommends that next-of-kin details and other emergency information be kept on a "family contingency plan" sheet that can be downloaded from the site.

The site offers wallet-size cards that can be distributed to family members with space for details about next of kin and additional information such as neighborhood meeting places, out-of-town contacts and other important telephone numbers.

Erin McGee, spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, which represents the wireless industry, said her members welcome the ICE initiative. "I think it has the potential to catch on. From what I've read, it seems to be already spreading beyond Britain."

Clark L. Staten, a senior analyst for the Emergency Response and Research Institute, a Chicago-based consultancy and think tank for the emergency services and military, said he thinks it sounds like a good idea, but could have a couple of pitfalls.

"There may be some privacy concerns: firstly, that the next of kin or the address or phone number could be accessed by someone other than a member of the emergency service," he said. "Secondarily, the information could become out of date, and the designated next-of-kin number is disconnected or you change your next of kin altogether. The worst -- you don't want them to call the ex."

*******************************************

Via Wayne's World 2005 (http://waynesworld2005.blogspot.com/)... Anybody listening?

Safer Military Vehicles Goal for Louisiana Manufacturer

December 20, 2004 -- Atlanta sales rep Jay Maddox hopes the holiday focus on goodwill will help him find the right connection to make military vehicles safer and provide low-cost housing for refugees.“

A serendipitous conversation with my sister-in-law introduced me to Pro Set, Inc., a Louisiana manufacturer of pure polyurea,” explains Maddox. “The original product, manufactured by Texaco about 20 years ago, was rigid with few applications. Our chemist and CEO, Tom Leaverton spent three additional years perfecting a more elasticized version, which has since been applied to such high profile projects as the roof of a Pentagon building.”

Leaverton adds, “After I finalized the formula, even I have been surprised by the versatility of the product. Recently, a United Nations delegate asked us to develop inexpensive refugee housing. We used the improved polyurea to design a strong, waterproof shelter to house 6-8 people for less than $700 each. We could manufacture these units all day long to be shipped all over the world, if only we could get the word out to the right folks.”

One person who helps preach the good news is former professional football legend and Leaverton’s longtime friend, Ernie “Big Cat” Ladd, now the company’s marketing director.

“Pro Set is a lot like the AFL in its early years,“ Ladd explains. “Despite its life-and-death struggle against the well-financed NFL, the quality of the AFL ultimately prevailed. They proved that quality-in produces quality-out. Not so long ago, hardly anybody ever heard of Pro-Set or polyurea. Now, architects and engineers are writing our products into their specifications as preferred applications to stop corrosion, prevent leaks, eliminate odors and reduce cooling costs.”

Mike Roberts, Director of Sales, says security concerns have helped to create even more new markets for pure polyurea coatings.

“Since 9-11, all federal buildings require a 250-foot buffer zone,” he explains. “Apply a 1/8” coating of our products as a bomb-proofing agent to the inside and outside walls reduces the buffer requirement to 125 feet. In some cases, federal agencies which may have been forced to relocate because they couldn’t maintain an adequate buffer in their current location can now stay where they are, saving taxpayers thousands of dollars.”

Pro Set officials are also touting the product as an effective, low-cost add-on to improve the safety of military vehicles in Iraq.

“This is the time of year everybody likes to feel good about what they’re doing,” Maddox concludes. “We want to help save lives by applying Poly Pro to the interior of our military vehicles. We’re also working with federal building operators to comply with FEMA regulations to reduce energy costs 30 percent by 2010. We apply a reflective coating, which meets energy conservation requirements and virtually pays for itself in lower cooling costs. Besides that, from the air, it looks like snow. That ought to make Santa happy!”

http://www.prnewsnow.com/Main/PR%20News%20Releases/Machinery/Safer%2BMilitary%2BVehicles%2BGoal%2Bfor%2BLouisiana%2BManufacturer

First They Murdered the Children -- Now They Want to Murder the Parents

2005-07-17T20:04:00.000-07:00

What is wrong with these sick perverted bastards? And why aren't the Iraqi people rising up in anger??? Why do I not believe these depraved twisted people will stop the killing even after the Americans are gone?? This can be no work in God's name -- only the devil breeds such wanton destruction of people who want nothing more than to be left to grieve their murdered children! I say again -- religion is their EXCUSE to murder -- not the reason.

This from American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 17, 2005

Elsewhere in Baghdad, on July 16, Iraqi police reportedly prevented a suicide bomber from killing scores of Iraqis during a funeral for children killed in a July 13 car-bomb attack in eastern Baghdad. The Iraqi police were providing security at the funeral and noticed that a suspicious adult male was approaching the funeral procession, officials said.

The Iraqi police stopped the man, searched him, and discovered he was wearing a suicide vest. A team of explosives experts safely removed the vest before the terrorist could detonate it. No one was injured in the failed attack, officials said.

"The Iraqi police showed incredible bravery," said Col. Joseph DiSalvo, commander of U. S. forces in Rusafa, which is in eastern Baghdad. "They noticed a suicide bomber, and they subdued him before he could detonate his ball-bearing-filled vest."

DiSalvo said the terrorist suicide bomber was high on drugs and is being treated for a potential overdose. He is being detained and eventually will be turned over to the Iraqi justice system.

"This is an incredibly heinous crime," DiSalvo added. "The bomber, who is from Libya, came here to kill the grieving parents of the children who were killed (July 13). I cannot imagine a worse crime."

An Iraqi citizen who attended the funeral reportedly praised the Iraqi police, whom, he observed, "stopped this terrorist before he could do his evil deed."

"The terrorist is obviously a very confused and evil man who has aligned himself with the most evil and Godless men on this earth," the citizen said. "I thank God for the Iraqi police."

No Respect for the Living... or the Dead

2005-07-17T10:30:00.000-07:00

If the attack on children did not convince you that the terrorists do not act in the name of God (by whatever name you call Him), then this surely must convince you of the godlessness of those people:

Terrorists Use Corpses as Bait in Baghdad Car-Bomb Attack

By Maj. Russell Goemaere, USA

Special to American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, July 17, 2005 – In what military officials are calling "a new level of barbarity," terrorists tortured and killed two innocent Iraqi civilians and laid their bodies in the road as bait for curious Iraqi civilians and investigating Iraqi security forces before detonating a car bomb at 8 a. m. this morning.

The attack, in the New Baghdad district of the capital, killed one Iraqi police officer, along with the terrorist who drove the vehicle. Five civilians and three other Iraqi police officers were wounded.

The bodies were discovered lying in the middle of the road. When Iraqi security forces and a crowd of civilians gathered near the scene, a terrorist drove his car bomb into the group and detonated it.

"The (Iraqi security forces) will not be intimidated by this type of action. We will continue to take the fight to the Godless terrorists," one Iraqi police officer said.

Iraqi forces secured the scene, and all casualties were quickly evacuated to a local hospital. The incident is under investigation, officials said.

The previous day, Iraqi security forces stopped a suicide bomber before he could detonate his suicide vest at the funeral for young victims of the July 13 car bombing, which claimed the lives of two dozen Iraqi children. The terrorist is now in custody at an undisclosed location.

"The terrorists are offering nothing for the future of Iraq. They offer only death to innocent Iraqi people. The people are with us, they support the (police) and the Iraqi army," the police officer said.

GO, LANCE! GO!

2005-07-16T21:49:00.000-07:00

1:51 advantage Armstrong through Stage 14...
http://www.olntv.com/tdf/standings/standings.php?ss=standings&t=ITG&e=9999

and such a cute couple.....

Update 11:00PM from a sister and DBIL traveling in Spain (they ran with the bulls last week) and apparently took an unscheduled side trip to France: WE WENT TO THE TOUR DE FRANCE TODAY AND WE WERE SO CLOSE TO LANCE ON THE RIDE WE COULD HAVE REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED HIM!!!! We waited on the side of the road at the beginning of his climb to the peak and it was so awesome I almost started to cry!!! What a day!! (Go Lance Go!)

BAD, BAD THINGS

2005-07-16T19:04:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to the Swanky Conservative (http://www.swankyconservative.com/2005/07/12/the-mindset-of-islamists) via Andi's World (http://andisworld.typepad.com for this tidbit from Andrew Sullivan on the voice of the jihadist (discussing the murderer of Theo van Gogh):

Can anyone seriously believe that not invading Iraq would have changed the mindset of this fanatic? Or leaving Afghanistan alone? What we're learning, especially from the home-grown bombings in London, is that our fundamental enemy is a medievalist theological fascism, buried in the recesses of a legitimate religious faith. It would be nice if we could talk these people out of it, or hand them concessions to buy them off, or hug them till they saw the joys of the New Age. Until then, we have to bring them to justice - on the battlefield or court-room. And the people who are most able to bring them to justice are Western Muslims; and the democratically-inclined Muslims in Iraq.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_07_10_dish_archive.html#112118246215007231

**********************************************

Do You Know Who Your Neighbors Are? (Sex offenders among us!)

Search for registered offenders on this site by zip code... http://www.criminalcheck.com

FOX NEWS REPORTS: U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, is trying to push a bill through Congress that would help keep better track of convicted sex offenders. The Child Predator Act of 2005 would, among other things, require states to specify that a convicted predator must report a change of address within 10 days after the change of address takes effect. The law would also require that offenders notify schools, public housing and at least two media outlets of their whereabouts. Penalties for not complying with the law could mean up to two years in prison or hefty fines, according to the legislation.

Read the full story at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151409,00.html

**********************************

You just can't make this stuff up...

Police: Coach Told Player to Injure Disabled Teammate, 8
Friday, July 15, 2005
PITTSBURGH — A youth baseball coach paid one of his players to hurt an 8-year-old mentally disabled teammate so the boy wouldn't be able to play in a game, state police said Friday.
Mark R. Downs Jr., 27, of Dunbar, offered one of his players $25 to hit the boy in the head with a baseball, police said. Witnesses told police Downs didn't want the boy to play in the T-ball game because of his disability.
The solicited player hit the boy in the head and in the groin with a baseball just before a game, and the disabled boy didn't play, police said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162680,00.html

***********************************

There are just too many good one-liners for this, so I won't try... but, hey, Hil? Don't you have more important things to do in the Senate?

Clinton seeks video game sex scene probe
Friday, July 15, 2005; Posted: 11:02 p.m. EDT (03:02 GMT)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton pressed Thursday for a government investigation into how simulated sex cropped up in a modified version of the blockbuster criminal adventure video game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/senate.videogame.reut/index.html

Media Bias Day by Day

2005-07-15T17:20:00.000-07:00

Day by Day by Chris Muir

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis (http://www.buzzmachine.com) has been having a running "dialogue" about St. Paul Pioneer Press editorialist Mark Yost's criticism of media coverage of the Iraq war (and covered today by Grayhawk at Mudville Gazette http://www.mudvillegazette.com "Don't Hate"). So read the stories and THEN the above cartoon will make sense to you... Picked it up at Rant Me A River (http://rantmeariver.blogspot.com) For the record, I'm with Yost.

Not a Big Fan of the NYTimes...

2005-07-15T13:47:00.000-07:00

but I read it because only ignorant people don't consider both sides...and form a reasoned opinion for themselves. I'm not sure I agree with John Deutch completely, but I think he raises some valid points that should be considered... Deutch was deputy secretary of defense from 1994 to 1995 and director of central intelligence from 1995 to 1996, and is currently a professor of chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Time to Pull Out. And Not Just From Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15deutch.html?

*****************************************

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/) on the story of the "Houston Rapper Fired As Baggage Screener" ... a very scarey story...

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/music/wire/sns-ap-music-terror-rapper,0,4711083,print.story?coll=sns-ap-music-headlines

*****************************

Raise The Flag, Michael Yon and Lance...

2005-07-14T22:53:00.000-07:00

A little corny (ok, a lot corny) but cute nonetheless...

Click here: Raise the Flag - animated Flash ecard by Jacquie Lawson

*************************************************

You have probably seen one of Michael Yon's most famous photographs: that of an American Soldier cradling and nuzzling a young Iraqi girl mortally wounded by a terrorist's IED in Iraq.

But if you have not had the pleasure of reading Michael Yon's written testimonials of his wanderings in Iraq, you don't know what you're missing. His series of articles from Inside Iraq are a MUST READ if you are interested in a bird's eye view of the war from the soldier's perspective and life in many parts of Iraq (not just Baghdad) from an independent journalist (a real journalist -- pulls no punches and tells the truth -- good or bad, with no agenda for the left or right). You will not be disappointed... you may be shocked, appalled, gratified, mesmerized... but not disappointed. http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

***************************************

For those like me that admire Lance Armstrong (for any one of a myriad of reasons. check out his interview at Stage 8 of the Tour de France... copy and paste the link (sorry for the long link, but this whole HTML stuff drives me nuts at times...)

mms://dayport.wmod.llnwd.net/fc/a258/e1/v1/0040/08300020050709_003209p0003410p0.wmv

****************************************

Please stop by and leave Carren and Chuck your best wishes... He's a US Army soldier seriously wounded in Iraq but on the mend at Walter Reed... oh, and don't forget Chuck's mom, Alice who is also at Chuck's side taking care of him along with wife Carren... So when your Momma says that no matter how old you get, you'll always be her "baby" -- you best believe her! http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/

Taking Chance

2005-07-14T00:09:00.000-07:00

It's a long and serious story but it will be worth your time... be prepared with tissue... a real Kleenex alert. The account of the death and burial of an American Hero... Chance Phelps.

http://www.beatlestribute.com/How_To_Prepare_For_Deployment_To_Iraq_.htm

You'll have to scroll down past the very funny (but half-serious) "How to prepare for Deployment to Iraq" and another small piece "Warning Warning" (but if you haven't seen a camel spider yet... )

Then you will get to "Taking Chance". The screen automatically scrolls -- but if it's scrolling too fast, click on the screen and roll it backwards... and there's some patriotic music that runs for a few minutes -- just turn your speakers down if it annoys you... but don't miss "Taking Chance".

http://www.beatlestribute.com/How_To_Prepare_For_Deployment_To_Iraq_.htm

A Ride in an F-14 Tomcat

2005-07-13T20:11:00.000-07:00

One of the funniest accounts of a flight I have ever read (frankly, the piece is just plain funny). At MY ARMY LIFE... and other things.

In an article Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated recounts his experience when given the opportunity to fly in a F-14 Tomcat.... which starts,

"Now this message is for America's most famous athletes: Someday you may be invited to fly in the back-seat of one of your country's most powerful fighter jets. Many of you already have ... John Elway, John Stockton, Tiger Woods to name a few. If you get this opportunity, let me urge you, with the greatest sincerity...

Move to Guam.

Change your name.

Fake your own death!

Whatever you do ...

Do Not Go!!!"

Funy funny funny....

http://myarmylifeandtimes.blogspot.com/2005/07/take-ride.html

CNN YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED

2005-07-13T14:43:00.000-07:00

I just finished listening to a piece on CNN about the MURDER of children in Baghdad this morning... Although they opened the piece by saying that the children were clearly targeted, in listening to the reporter at the close, you would have thought it was some accident... and they insist on continuing to call these murderers "insurgents"? Insurging against whom? Children???

Get REAL, CNN.

*********************************************

And they followed that with a report on the hearing earlier today of the "abuse" of prisoners at Gitmo... A little humiliation is good for the soul of murderers and terrorists. And I was rather surprised (pleasantly) to see that CNN actually gave some attention to the US Senators who are NOT outraged by the descriptions of prisoners who had to wear a thong on their head. I was once again not amused by Sen. Ted who worried what this would mean for any Americans that might be captured by the terrorists. Just a reminder Ted that at least the prisoners at Gitmo HAD HEADS to wear a thong on...

****************************************

and finally, and although I avoid watching CNN at all, I might be watching their "Iraq Progress Report" on Sunday night to see if there is any balance to it at all... but I'm not optimistic...

The Marine Corps Version of an Apology

2005-07-13T13:29:00.000-07:00

I don't know whether Chuck Pitman, Lt. Gen., US Marine Corps (Ret.) acually wrote this (I kind of hope he did), but it feels like the Marines I know.... I did try to check this out at Snopes.com but they are still researching it

(http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pitman.asp)

It has been published in quite a number of places (just Google the General's name). Judging by the comments and responses on a number of those sites it is driving the anti-war people absolutely over the edge!!! But I like it so I spread this freely. Semper Fi, indeed!!

A Letter of Apology from Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired

"For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will harbor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.

I humbly offer my opinion here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.

I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.

I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society, like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other non-combatant civilians are legitimate targets.

I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church -- one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc...etc!

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized viallage in Africa.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.

We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like--so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong! Sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured, we were trying to kill those same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?

Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burned among a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait!

You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins!

Chuck Pitman, Lt. Gen., US Marine Corps (Ret.)
Semper Fi

Time to Hit the Suicide Factories

2005-07-13T10:24:00.000-07:00

I'm going to start with a piece that made sense to me... although I'm sure someone out there will be more than happy to tell me why we should be protecting the poor misdirected youth of the radical religions or why we just can't possibly restrain or restrict what the radical and violent-preaching clerics say...

According to the Benador Associates web site, they are a public relations firm specializing in Middle East issues... you can read more at http://www.benadorassociates.com/about.php

according to this piece, Amir Taheri, is an Iranian author and journalist, and a member of Benador Associates.

TIME TO HIT THE SUICIDE FACTORIES

by Amir Taheri New York Post July 8, 2005

July 8, 2005 -- 'WE have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid." This was how an Islamist group, using the al Qaeda brandname, announced its responsibility for the terror attacks that claimed nearly 40 lives in London yesterday.

Although the exact circumstances of the raid on London remain murky, one thing is certain: This was a suicide operation aimed at killing as many civilians as possible. That the raid came as the G-8 summit opened in Scotland is certainly significant, as is the fact that it was the first day of the Arabic lunar month of Jamadul al-Akhir, Prophet Muhammad's favorite season for organizing raids against the "infidel."

What do we do about people who are prepared to court certain death in exchange for killing others? The question has been asked by the Israelis for years and by the Americans since 9/11. It is now the turn of the British to ponder it.

The first thing to do is not to get impressed by the fact that an individual who has been brainwashed out of his or her humanity is ready to die in order to kill others. The only reasonable way to treat such individuals is as a new form of weaponry. And, like all other weapons that impress when first introduced, these suicide-killers will continue to terrorize and fascinate until we find an antidote.

Cyrus the Great used camels as a weapon when he conquered Babylon. Hannibal used elephants for his raid on Rome. The Islamist terror leaders who wish to conquer the world and convert entire mankind to their brand of "true Islam" have gone one better by using the human body as a weapon.

But like all others, this weapon is designed by some people, financed by investors, manufactured somewhere and deployed by leaders who can be identified and destroyed. These human weapons are designed and shaped by a constant flow of anti-Western propaganda from Arab satellite TV, the so-called Islamic associations and countless madarassahs (Islamic schools) -RD>and mosques throughout the world, including in London itself.

Go to any mosque in the West (let alone in the Islamic countries) on any Friday and you are sure to hear a litany of woes about how the "cross-worshippers" have allied themselves with the "plotting Jews" in order to destroy Islam, which, as God's final message, is the only true faith.

You will hear how the West is mired in corruption, its womenfolk exposing their midriff in public and its governments sanctioning gay and lesbian marriages. You will also hear how "the Crusaders" have invaded Muslim lands and are trying to impose their democratic system on Afghanistan and Iraq.

Such a discourse might leave most Muslims indifferent or even annoyed. But it is enough for it to seduce even 1 percent of the world's Muslims — that is to say a cool 13 million people — for everyone to be in trouble.

The deadly propaganda is reinforced by other means. The future terrorist is comforted by the fact that his or her fellow Muslims in the West use their bodies as an advertising space for their beliefs. In many Western cities, this comes in the form of al Qaeda-style beards and long shirts (qamis) for men and jet-black hijab (headgear) for women. (Not long ago, I saw a baby girl in a carriage wearing that prop of visual terrorism.)

The would-be suicide terrorist is also likely to be impressed by the self-styled Islamic theologians coolly debating the issue of whom to kill and how. Any viewer of Al-Jazeera, the satellite channel owned by the emir of Qatar, has seen its chief Islamist guru Yussuf al-Qaradawi insist that Islam allows the murder of unborn Israeli babies because they may grow up and join the army. In a recent visit to Mecca, I witnessed another self-styled guru, Sheik Safar al-Hawali, informing visitors to his home that it was "licit" to kill innocent Muslim women and children in Iraq if that led to "the defeat of the Crusaders and their apostate Muslim allies."
The would-be suicide-killer is also comforted by the sense of guilt manifested by many in the West. He has seen do-gooders from the United States in the streets of Arab Jerusalem apologizing to astounded Muslim passersby for "the Crusades" — which happened long before the United States came into being.

He may also note that he is treated with something bordering on deference by much of the Western media, which has banned the use of the word "terrorist" altogether, using, instead, such terms as "militants" or " resistance fighters."

And then there was the successful ghazva (raid) on Madrid last year, when the Islamists succeeded in changing the government of a major Western democracy with a single attack.

If the suicide-terrorists were weapons made of metal, the victims would certainly try to bomb places where they were made. But because these weapons are of human flesh, the assumption is that they can't be traced back to any specific locality. It is as if we were dealing with ethereal beings existing beyond the limits of reality.

The London attack was not the work only of the few individuals who carried it out. It was the bitter fruit of a faith that has been hijacked by a minority of extremists while the majority of its adepts watch with a mixture of awe and ill-concealed pride. The real fight against this enemy of humanity will start only when the so-called "silent majority" in Islam speaks out against these murderers and those who brainwash, train, finance and deploy them.

And if you want to read "WHY THEY DID IT" by the same author, go to http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/16672

If You Read Enough

2005-07-12T13:46:00.000-07:00

If you read a lot as I do, you routinely come across really incredible statements from people -- some truly thought-provoking, and others that lead you to re-read it because you just can't believe any intelligent (even of average intelligence) could say such preposterous things. And you come across items that are just plain interesting.

So I have decided to start this blog to put up those things that make me pause or cause me to speak out loud at my pc (or newspaper or book) or even some things that make me laugh out loud. Sometimes these things are just too good not to share...