Monday, April 30, 2007

Physics expert Rosie O'Donnell sez...

...I do believe it's the first time in history that fire has melted steel - I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved - World Trade Center 7.

One and two got hit by planes, 7 miraculously the first time in history, steel was melted by fire - it is physically impossible," states O'Donnell.

I don't know but to say we don't know and it was imploded in a demolition is beyond ignorant, look at the films get a physics expert here from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school, it defies reason.

Physics Expert Rosie O'Donnel

Vietnam War Myth:
Draft Dodgers Protested Against The War

The fact is they protested because they did not want to be inducted into the military. It is worth noting that when the draft was ended by Congress in 1972, anti-war protests almost ceased entirely. Protests after this period were conducted mostly by the hard-core anti-war movement that had close ties to the North Vietnamese Communist Party. For these people, protesting was a job. They derived their income from donations to the movement so despite the fact that the average American male no longer cared about the war (because he was no longer in danger of having to serve), the anti-war cadre continued to protest.

While protesting against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam made some sense for those who were desperately trying to avoid military service, it is not clear why they displayed Viet Cong flags at their rallies and protest marches. People who today claim they were only expressing their conscience cannot explain why they needed to display the flag of the enemy, and burn the American Flag.

The anti-war movement has been often and erroneously referred to as the "Peace" movement. This is a non-sequitar since despite their rhetoric to the contrary, they never actually called for "peace" per se, only an end to American involvement in the war. They actually did not seem to care very much about the poor Vietnamese peasant that they accused American soldiers of killing. Especially if the North Vietnamese and the VC did the killing. And when Pol Pot went on a killing spree, they uttered not a sound. When the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, they said not a word. When the Soviets invaded Afganistan the did not protest. Why? Ask them.

The Vietnam War lasted for over 10 years. During that period 58,202 Americans lost their lives in an attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the Republic of Vietnam. To put this number in perspective, approximately 56,000 Americans are killed every year by drunk drivers. Yet Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda do not lead violent demonstrations outside the Seagrams building.

Read more "Vietnam War Myths" Here

Viper's Vietnam Veterans Pages has the whole list of MYTHS and FACTS Here

Democratic Party Plan for Victory In Iraq

“How many times have we heard the Dems insist that they support the troops? It’s one of their mantras. If something isn’t ‘for the children’, it’s to ‘support the troops.’ But it’s false, just as their insistence last fall that they wouldn’t cut and run was. All of that pales in comparison to one single fact: Reid and the rest of the Democrats do not condemn defeat. They do not say they would have done better to win, because the words ‘win’ and ‘victory’ never pass their lips. They never propose an idea that might lead to quicker, more decisive victory in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Horn of Africa, or Lebanon, or anywhere else. No. The Democratic pathology is the same now as it was forty years ago... What, then, is the import of what Sen. Reid said? First, Reid and his ilk do not support the troops. When Reid says the war is lost, the troops hear. They understand that they are still risking their lives every day for a war the Democrats are content to lose. There can be no more destructive assault on their morale.” — Jed Babbin

“Conservatives believe that there is evil in this world, that it will intrude into our lives and that we should be ready and willing to fight against it. We also know that evil lurks in every human heart and that we will not always meet the moral standard we claim to believe in. On some points we will fail (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa), on some we shall succeed, and on some we will never be tested. But we will not abandon our belief in that standard, and will resist all attempts to pretend it doesn’t exist. Courage is real and it is good; cowardice is real and it is bad. And that remains true, and I will believe it, even if I prove to be cowardly and not courageous when the time comes.” — Nathanael Blake

Saturday, April 28, 2007

ACLU: State of Denial

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .. establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of_the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity and imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction ..

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ...

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution .

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those .

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common...

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ..

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota
1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator .. can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other .

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties .. establish this Constitution.

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn

Sweden is already a banana republic, perhaps on its way to becoming an Islamic republic.

Sweden was presented during the Cold War as a middle way between capitalism and Communism. When this model of a society collapses – and it will collapse, under the combined forces of Islamic Jihad, the European Union, Multiculturalism and ideological overstretch – it is thus not just the Swedish state that will collapse but the symbol of Sweden, the showcase of an entire ideological world view.

Jihad and the Collapse of the Swedish Model

Friday, April 27, 2007

Scandal...lawsuits: Strange new twist in pet food recalls

After the initial warnings about pet food contamination, I decided to sign up for ALL the FDA Alerts (both human AND animal). I wanted to know first hand and right away what products might be harmful--no accidentally catching the evening news anymore.

Imagine my surprise at the one I just got today:

Blue Buffalo Recalls Can and Biscuit Products Due To Tampering By American Nutrition Inc.

Folks, this is heavy (to use an old hippie term). If this is true (and it sure seems to be -- see FDA Alert below) then how many other products had American Nutrition compromised?

Worse, could OTHER companies be doing this sort of thing too???

Recall -- Firm Press Release

FDA posts press releases and other notices of recalls and market withdrawals from the firms involved as a service to consumers, the media, and other interested parties. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company. This listserv covers mainly Class I (life-threatening) recalls. A complete listing of recalls can be found in the FDA Enforcement Report at:

Blue Buffalo Recalls Can and Biscuit Products Due To Tampering By American Nutrition Inc.
Consumer Inquiries:
Media Inquiries:
David Petrie

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Wilton, Connecticut, April 26, 2007- We at the Blue Buffalo Company have just learned that American Nutrition Inc. (ANI), the manufacturer of all our cans and biscuits, has been adding rice protein concentrate to our can formulas without our knowledge and without our approval. This is product tampering, and it apparently has been going on for some time. The can formulas that we developed, and trusted them to produce, never contained any rice protein concentrate. It appears that only an FDA investigation of ANI's rice protein concentrate supplies forced them to reveal this product tampering to us.

While this activity by ANI is in itself unlawful, the situation is further clouded by the fact that ANI has been receiving rice protein concentrate from Wilber-Ellis, some of which the FDA has determined to be contaminated with melamine.

So while no BLUE or Spa Select canned product has tested positive for the presence of melamine, and there has been no reported illness due to any of our canned products, we simply cannot be sure of what ANI has been including in our formulas. For this reason, we have decided to remove all of our canned and biscuit products from retail distribution. While this may seem to many to be a major over-reaction, as other ANI customers will probably only recall the products that tested positive for melamine, we see this as a matter of integrity.

We founded Blue Buffalo on the principle of providing dogs and cats with the highest quality and most nutritious food, and we will not sell any product that doesn't meet this standard. And under these circumstances, we cannot say that any products manufactured by ANI measure up.

The obvious question is "how could Blue Buffalo not know that ANI was putting rice protein concentrate into our canned food?" The answer is we trusted them. In business and in life, we all trust our partners to deal with us honestly. When we buy produce from our local grocery store, we are trusting growers, shippers and a series of handlers to have delivered a product that is safe and nutritious for our family. If any one of these parties betrays our trust, contaminated products can make their way to our dinner table.

And while we test for known toxins and contaminants, we don't test for protein sources, like rice protein concentrate, especially when we did not formulate our products to contain them.

In the end, this all comes down to an issue of integrity, and ANI has not been honest with us and with the pet parents who buy our products. We will not put any product made by ANI on the shelf, and are temporarily withdrawing an important part of our business in order to be true to our pet parents.

We have already started the process of identifying a can and biscuit manufacturer with whom we can build a partnership based on trust. Once we have accomplished this, BLUE and Spa Select cans and BLUE Health Bars will be reintroduced with the high quality and superior nutrition that our brand stands for and that dogs and cats deserve.

We have informed our retail partners and the FDA about this action and will be cooperating with them to complete this recall quickly. The specific product involved includes all "BLUE" brand can dog foods, all "Spa Select" brand can cat foods and all "BLUE Health Bar" treats.

Consumers who have unused or partially used packages of any of these products should return them to their place of purchase for a complete refund.

All "BLUE" dry natural food for dogs and "Spa Select" dry natural foods for cats are not affected by this recall and are safe for consumption. Should consumers have a specific question, they can call the Company at 1-800-919-2833, Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT, to receive more information.


FDA's Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts Page:

UPDATE - - - - - UPDATE - - - - - UPDATE

Well you know the shit is hitting the fan when this happens--here's an update I received an HOUR later (it's abbreviated):
American Nutrition, Inc. Issues Voluntary Recall

The FDA has urged American Nutrition to issue a voluntary recall of pet foods manufactured using Wilbur-Ellis rice protein. None of these products is sold under an American Nutrition brand, but are sold through other independent companies. No American Nutrition brands or other products they manufacture for other businesses are affected by this recall. [emphasis mine]


April 27, 2007: The U.S. FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) has one of the busiest special operations units on the planet...

Read the rest of it

Don't be afraid that your life will end, be afraid that it will never begin.

Stop waiting.....

>> Until your car or home is paid off...

>> Until you get a new car or home...

>> Until your kids leave the house...

>> Until you go back to school...

>> Until you finish school...

>> Until you clean the house...

>> Until you organize the garage...

>> Until you clean off your desk...

>> Until you lose 10 lbs...

>> Until you gain 10 lbs...

>> Until you get married...

>> Until you have kids...

>> Until the kids go to school...

>> Until you retire...

>> Until summer...

>> Until spring...

>> Until winter...

>> Until fall...

>> Until you die...

The Daffodil Principle

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Statement by Senator Lieberman on Iraq Withdrawal Provision in Supplemental Appropriations Bill

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) today addressed the Iraq withdrawal provision in the supplemental appropriations bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Below is the full text of Senator Lieberman's speech, as prepared for delivery:

"Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq.

Earlier this week the Senate Majority Leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why he believes we must do this—why the bill now before this chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq.

I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.

In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to "transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war—to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations."

I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either.

Al Qaeda's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.

That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.

I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct "targeted counter-terror operations" under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.

But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?

By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike—and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.

This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.

And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq's neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won't, in his words, be "interjecting themselves between warring factions" or "trying to sort friend from foe."

Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?

This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.

In sum, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.

There is another irony here as well.

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.

What is going on here?

What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is "the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007."

Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.

As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date—what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible—a deadline for defeat.

How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises."

But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.

How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?

On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.

This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence
Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."

Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will "reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency."

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops.

By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel'Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. "In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar," he said, "if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos."

This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his life every day to work with us—a man who was described by one Army officer as "the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with... in Anbar [since] 2003."

In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that there is "a large and growing population of millions—who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over."

On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence?

What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces—regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?

Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?

Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.

The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose "tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government."
I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government.

But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them—regardless of how they behave.

We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.

But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.
Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.

It wants to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it. Al Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.

The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a "diplomatic, economic, and political offensive... starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region."

I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.

But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.

Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.

In following General Petraeus' path, there is no guarantee of success—but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.

The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost—but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.

I yield the floor."

Wednesday, April 25, 2007


This smashes Al Gore's "theory" to smithereens!

Watch it here


”D For Defeatism: Party Of Retreat: The Senate’s top Democrat has announced to terrorists a U.S. surrender in Iraq. Considering our new strategy’s documented successes, Harry Reid’s determination to lose is practically treasonous. In a week that saw the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, and a Senate committee subject the attorney general to a modern-day Salem witch trial, the Senate majority leader managed to say something that made headlines: ‘This war is lost,’ the Nevada Democrat told reporters Thursday, ‘and this surge is not accomplishing anything.’ That’s odd. According to the Pentagon, the influx of tens of thousands of troops, accompanied by a new strategy focused on counterinsurgency, and led by a new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, is accomplishing plenty. Over the past six weeks, as the Baghdad security plan has been implemented, attacks on civilians in the city have been cut roughly in half. Civilian casualties are down almost a quarter nationwide, with attacks on civilians off 17%. Only in north-central Iraq did violence grow...Reid has instead given moral support to the terrorists. His ‘leadership’ has been to try to cut off our forces’ war funding. Now he has told the Islamofascists that victory is theirs if they can just keep blowing up U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens a little while longer. In aiding and comforting the enemy in wartime, Reid has betrayed the office he holds, shamed the Nevadans he represents and made the Democratic Party he leads synonymous with surrender. There is one way he can repair the damage he’s done to the nation: step down.“ —Investor’s Business Daily

Tuesday, April 24, 2007


Feature-length documentary plus additional interview material with some of the world’s leading climate scientists.

The definitive response to Al Gore’s

Price: US$ 19.99 / £9.99

To reserve a copy please drop us a line here

For further information please visit:

WARNING: Human food may be tainted like pet food

Last Thursday, the F.D.A. expanded its already large pet food recall after it found more evidence that an industrial chemical called melamine had contaminated the supplies of additional pet food makers, including Royal Canin US and C. J. Foods.

The agency, which has already recalled more than 60 million packages of pet food, is also investigating imports of rice protein from China.

Regulators in California said this week that they had found melamine in rice protein animal feed that was fed to livestock, and the fear is that the chemical could have entered the human food supply chain through hogs.

Laboratory testing in California had detected melamine in urine from hogs at the American Hog Farm in Ceres, Calif. California regulators have alerted anyone who purchased pork from American Hog Farm from April 3 to April 18 to be cautious.

“If the melamine level is high, it must have been added intentionally.” Liu Laiting, a professor of animal sciences at the Henan University of Technology.

Read the whole thing

Monday, April 23, 2007

Message from a grunt on the front lines of Ramadi "for that douche harry reid"

...these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or atleast the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say “hey thats not nice” again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.
Read it all

Friday, April 20, 2007

Was Cho taught to hate?

Yes, I know. Tens of thousands of ordinary college students are lonely, full of rage, lost and frustrated. A few percent are psychotically disturbed, and some of them can kill. Our big factory colleges are alienating. Take millions of adolescents, and at any time there are bound to be quite a few confused and seething souls walking loose. Just visit downtown in any American or European city, and you can see all the lost and disturbed living in their private hells. And no, that doesn't excuse executing thirty-two innocents.

Still, I wonder --- was Cho taught to hate? Whatever he learned in his classes --- did it enable him to rage at his host country, to hate the students he envied so murderously? Was he subtly encouraged to aggrandize himself by destroying others? Was his pathology enabled by the PC university? Or to ask the question differently --- was Cho ever taught to respect others, to admire the good things about his host country, and to discipline himself to build a positive life?

And that answer is readily available on the websites of Cho's English Department at Virginia Tech. This is a wonder world of PC weirdness. English studies at VT are a post-modern Disney World in which nihilism, moral and sexual boundary breaking, and fantasies of Marxist revolutionary violence are celebrated. They show up in a lot of faculty writing. Not by all the faculty, but probably by more than half.

Just check out their websites.

I wonder if Cho took the senior seminar by Professor Knapp, on "The self-justifying criminal in literature." Because he certainly learned to be a self-justifying criminal. Or whether he sat in courses with Nikki Giovanni, using her famous self-glorifying book, "The Prosaic Soul of Nikki Giovanni (2003)" . Maybe he read Professor Bernice Hausman's "Changing Sex: Transsexualism, technology, and the idea of gender" --- just the thing for a disoriented young male suffering from massive culture shock on the hypersexual American campus. And even more gender-bending from Professor Paul Heilker, who wrote "Textual Androgyny, the Rhetoric of the Essay, and the Politics of Identity in Composition (or The Struggle to Be a Girly-Man in a World of Gladiator Pumpitude)." Or the Lesbian love stories of Professor Matthew Vollmer. Yup, that's just what this student needs. These trophy "art works" are all advertised on the English Department faculty websites.

Or maybe Cho was assigned Professor Lisa Norris' prize-winning book, Toy Guns, featured on her web site. The book reviewers wrote
  • "All ten stories in this disturbing collection revolve around Americans' passionate devotion to guns, gun-toting, sexually-tinged violence, and the womanly pursuit of power and dignity." [....]

  • "In each wrenching story, we see an America out of control, in love with war...."

I don't know any Americans who are in love with war, but that is the picture Cho got from his teachers. Having spent the last 14 years as a resident alien in the school system, he could know nothing else.

And then there is the big Marxist website from Professor Brizee, all in fiery red against pitch black, showing old, mass-murder-inspiring Karl flanked by two raised fists. It celebrates revolutionary violence and hate for capitalist America (which is paying for Cho's education). "Critical Social Theory" --- the euphemism for PoMo (Post Modern) Marxism --- is a big part of English teaching at VT. The Marxist page links prominently to the British Socialist Worker's Party, which is currently leading the charge for Islamic fascism through such creatures as George Galloway.

And, talking about Islamist ideas, there is Professor Carter-Tod, who wrote a report about "Treatment of Arab American, Muslums and Seiks (sic) Post 911," for the US Civil Rights Commission. The racial grievance industry is alive and growing at VT.

Post-modernism, with its hatred for reason, is another big theme at the VT English Department. Professor James Collier boasts about his book, Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies, But "the end of knowledge" is the beginning of ignorance.

And of course there is the "diversity" crowd, diversity being a very well-funded program at ole' guilt-tripping VT. There's Professor Carlos Evia, who describes himself as " director de la Comisión de Igualdad y Diversidad en Virginia Tech." Or in English, "I am also chair of the Virginia Tech Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity." There's "research" in "Feminist science fiction" and "The comic strip" from Professor Susan C. Allender-Hagedorn. Scratching racial and gender wounds until they bleed is a big preoccupation at VT. What's a kid from South Korea to think?

The question I have is: Are university faculty doing their jobs? At one time college teachers were understood to have a parental role. Take a look at the hiring and promotion criteria for English at VT, and you see what their current values are. Acting in loco parentis, with the care, protectiveness, and alertness for trouble among young people is the last thing on their minds. They are there to do "research," to act like fake revolutionaries, and to stir up young people to go out and revolt against society. Well, somebody just did.

I'm sorry but VT English doesn't look like a place that gives lost and angry adolescents the essential boundaries for civilized behavior. In fact, in this perversely disorienting PoMo world, the very words "civilized behavior" are ridiculed --- at least until somebody starts to shoot students, and then it's too late. A young culture-shocked adolescent can expect no firm guidance here. But we know that already.

What's the English Department's official frontpage reaction to the murder of thirty-two students just a few days ago? Here it is.
"We do not understand this tragedy 

We know we did nothing to deserve it

But neither does a child in Africa 

Dying of AIDS

Neither does the baby elephant watching his community 

Be devastated for ivory 

... Neither does the Mexican child looking 

For fresh water

... Neither does the Appalachian infant killed 

By a boulder 


Because the land was destabilized"

In other words: We didn't do nuthin.' It ain't our fault. It's greedy capitalism's fault. We don't teach civilized behavior, the value of reason, the cultural foundations of Western thought. We teach adolescent rage, because that's how we make a living. We do narcissistic "research" in Marxist analysis of American brutal capitalism. We're good people. See how much we care about AIDS in Africa. Don't blame us. We ain't responsible.

April 20, 2007
James Lewis
James Lewis blogs at



“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic...” —Justice Joseph Story


Are gun-free nations or “zones” safer?

Gun-free nations are safer—at least for folks like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot and Saddam, all of whom disarmed their detractors before slaughtering them by the tens of millions.

History records the consequences of disarming people, both in terms of protection, in their person and property, from tyrannical governments and from criminals. Regarding the latter, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Thomas Jefferson understood that maxim. In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

The same can be said of so-called “gun-free zones” in America, as on the campus of Virginia Tech.

“Virginia Tech has a very sound policy”

In 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law just up the road from Virginia Tech, a Nigerian student, who had flunked out, returned to campus, murdered three people and wounded three others. Fortunately, his killing spree was interrupted by two students who had retrieved handguns from their vehicles and held the murderer at gunpoint until police arrived.

This intervention was not unprecedented.

In 1997, an assistant principal in Pearl, Mississippi, retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a murderer. A few days later, a copycat assault in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, ended after a nearby merchant wielding a shotgun forced the attacker to surrender. Off campus, it is estimated conservatively that gun owners use their weapons defensively more than 1.3 million times each year.

With that as a backdrop, last spring Virginia Tech admonished a student for having a handgun on campus—never mind that the student had a state-issued concealed-carry permit.

That admonishment was a motivating factor behind a proposed bill before the Virginia legislature to prevent academic institutions from enacting “rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed-handgun permit... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun.”

The legislation died in committee, prompting Tech’s associate vice president, Larry Hincker, to praise the General Assembly in a Roanoke (Virginia) Times op-ed: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus. We believe guns don’t belong in the classroom. In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."

A month later, there was a murder near Tech’s campus, prompting a lockdown.

In response, Tech grad student Bradford Wiles penned an op-ed in the campus paper calling on the school to allow those with concealed-carry permits to carry guns on campus should they choose.

Larry Hincker emerged again, protesting, “[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles. Surely, [the editors] scratched their heads saying, ‘I can’t believe he really wants to say that.’ Guns don’t belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.”

Congratulations Mr. Hinkler. Your “sound policy” created a “safe campus” for only one student—Cho Seung-Hui—who was able to slaughter 32 people without interruption.

A theatrical performance

Unlike most psychopathic killers, Korean native Cho Seung-Hui produced the equivalent of theatrical trailers and stills advertising his murderous intentions and motives and sent them to NBC on the day of his rampage. The video outlined his intense hatred for his fellow students, and the still photos looked like promotional shots from almost any violent video game, rap CD or Hollywood release.

The violent images were consistent with a report filed by one of Cho’s teachers, Lucinda Roy, who noted violent themes in Cho’s writing projects. Unfortunately, she was told there were too many legal hurdles to open an investigation. Another professor, Nikki Giovanni, had him removed from her class because his behavior was so threatening.

In 2005, Cho was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment ordered by a County District Court Judge, who certified in the order that Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others” and ordered him to receive outpatient treatment. The psychologist who evaluated Cho reported that “his affect is flat and mood is depressed,” but “his insight and judgment are normal.” Apparently not.

In an act of stupefyingly poor judgment, NBC chose to release Cho’s murderous manifesto, raising immediate and serious questions about copycat killers. “Showing the video is a social catastrophe,” protests forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner. “I promise you the disaffected will watch him the way they watched ‘Natural Born Killers.’ I know. I examine these people. I’ve examined mass shooters who have told me they’ve watched it 20 times. You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message.”

The prospect of getting through the end of this school year without a copycat incident is diminishing.

“Gun Violence”?

In the words of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD, “Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.)

Suggesting that mass murder is a “gun problem” ignores the real problem—murderous pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School.)

If guns cause homicides, then one may, by logical extension, draw the following conclusions about causal factors for the top U.S. mortality groups: golden arches cause heart disease, cigarette lighters cause cancer, sex causes abortions, steering wheels cause car accidents, toxic-warning labels cause poisonings, ladders cause falls and bottles cause deaths associated with alcohol abuse.

Of course, by way of this liberal blameshifting logic, one may also conclude that commercial jets and truck bombs cause buildings to collapse, 90210 causes 9/11 conspiracy theories, freedom causes tyranny, beards cause terrorism, SUVs cause global warming, White House interns cause infidelity, saying “no” causes rape, chains cause slavery, matches cause arson, cameras cause pornography, sporks cause obesity, marriage causes divorce, crowbars cause burglary, credit cards cause bankruptcy, elections cause corruption, 24-hour news-cycle talkingheads cause ignorance, ad nauseam...

Murder statistics in perspective

According to the most recent annual statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 11,500 homicides committed by perpetrators using guns. There were 17,000 deaths committed by perpetrators using vehicles after consuming alcohol. Your chances of being killed by a drunk driver are much higher than being killed by a perp with a gun.

In the last decade, there were almost 180,000 (that’s 180 thousand) people killed in car wrecks where alcohol abuse was a key factor. In the same ten-year period, there were 110 students (including those at VA Tech) murdered on campus by psychopaths.

Perhaps the Brady Campaign and Democrats in Congress should set their sights on federal legislation mandating a five-day waiting period before purchasing alcohol. After all, many of the perpetrators who used guns instead of cars to commit homicide were also abusing alcohol.

Fact is, if we exclude gang-bangers and crack heads, the probability of being murdered in the U.S. is more in line with the oft-cited lower murder rates in Western Europe—but let’s not separate the wheat from the chaff.

The solution to the “gun problem” is “gun control”

In the wake of any mass homicide by a psychopathic killer, Second Amendment opponents are the first responders, and predictably, endeavor to convert the blood of innocents into political capital for gun confiscation.

Typical of the confiscators’ rhetoric was this comment from Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke: “It is well known how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country. [After many school] killings, we’ve done nothing as a country to end gun violence in our schools and communities. If anything, we’ve made it easier to access powerful weapons.”

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy carried the Democrats’ banner: “The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders [had] stood up to the gun lobby.”

Of course, the media set the tone. The New York Times issued numerous “gun problem” headlines like “Gun Rampage is Nation’s Worst” and “Epidemic of Gun Violence.” The editors insisted, “What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons...”

Despite the Leftmedia’s trumpeting of the Virginia Tech massacre as the “bloodiest student attack in history,” the most lethal attack on a school occurred on 18 May 1927, when Andrew Kehoe, a Bath, Michigan, school-board member, murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students—with a bomb.

Of note, The Times also endeavored to capitalize on the carnage—paying for positions with search engines to make sure its stories were high on the results list for info on the Virginia Tech “gun violence.”

Conversely, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Robert Levy recently noted: “Many politicians have exploited a few recent tragedies to promote their anti-gun agenda. But gun controls haven’t worked and more controls won’t help. In fact, many of the recommended regulations will make matters worse by stripping law-abiding citizens of their most effective means of self-defense. Violence in America is due not to the availability of guns but to social pathologies—illegitimacy, dysfunctional schools and drug and alcohol abuse. Historically, more gun laws have gone hand in hand with an explosion of violent crime.”

Forty states now issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens—but the liberal press is unrelenting in its effort to undermine such policy.

It was just last month, in fact, that I chastised the Roanoke Times for publishing a database of concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia, in effect creating a “Do Not Call List” for criminals.

Quote of the week

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.” —Ronald Reagan in 1983, after surviving the 1981 assassination attempt of the deranged John Hinckley. (Read a defense of gun ownership penned by then-Governor Reagan in 1975)

Open query

“Why is the Virginia Tech murderer always referred to as the ‘gunman’ and not the ‘murderer’? Had he stabbed a dozen students to death, would he be the ‘knifeman’?” —Dennis Prager

On cross-examination

“There’s no polite way or time to say it: American colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments and designated ‘safe spaces’ to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions—while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions (textbook case: Columbia University’s anti-Minuteman Project protesters). Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning [sic] stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense.” —Michelle Malkin

This week’s ‘Non-Compos Mentis’ award:

“The evidence is [the victims] were not Christian. God does not do that to His servants.” —Shirley Phelps-Roper, wife of “God Hates Fags” founder Fred Phelps, on their “church” plans to picket the funerals of the victims at Virginia Tech because they deserved to die

Let’s look at some of the victims: Lauren McCain, 20, had two heroes, Jesus Christ and her brother; Austin Cloyd, 18, spent summers on mission trips to Appalachia to help the poor; and most heroic was Liviu Librescu, 76, a Holocaust survivor from Romania—he was murdered, ironically, on Holocaust Memorial Day, while blocking the door to his classroom to protect his students.

It is beyond reprehensible to do what the folks at Westboro Baptist are claiming to do in God’s Name.

PATRIOTPOST.US - 07-16 Digest

The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US) is protected speech pursuant to the "inalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Multiculturism. Relativism. Socialism.

The PC Funnies

"This has NOTHING to do with Islam!!!"

Dear Readers:

Here is a comment on my previous post...thought you'd like to know so you can judge for yourself:

Towelie has left a new comment on your post "Was Cho Seung-Hui (Virginia Tech shooter) a Muslim...":

This has NOTHING to do with Islam!!!


Posted by Towelie to lgstarr at 3:44 PM

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Was Cho Seung-Hui (Virginia Tech shooter) a Muslim?

He died with the words "Ismail Ax" scrawled in red ink on one of his arms!

Wired's "Threat Level" blog UPDATE:

The Smoking Gun has unearthed a one-act play Cho submitted to a contest last year.

Reader Gabe points to this Flickr photo of a South Korean man who, according to the caption, uses the name Ismail "because his (real) name is very hard to pronounce, especially for Indonesian people. His real name is Cho Seung Hoo ....... or is it Jo Sung Ho? " The photo is dated July 17th, 2006. The author apparently writes more about this Ismail in this blog post, which needs translation.

BoingBoing has a long thread exploring some theories about "Ismail Ax." A growing consensus has it that the phrase is an oblique reference to Islamic theological history -- though so far nobody's described Cho as Muslim.

Xavier expands on the theory, and ties it to Cho's play
Here is the violent one-act play that caused the killer's English teacher concern:

Virginia Killer's Violent Writings

Al Gore's Plan to Wipe Out the Heretics of Global Warming

Plus, Why the Spring Freeze Is Bush's Fault!

Monday, April 16, 2007

Families with children, low-income families, & small businesses all will be hit with hundreds if not thousands of dollars in increased taxes...

...if the DEMOCRATS win the White House in 2008!!!


“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry... has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who... have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” —Thomas Jefferson


“The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success, but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful.” —Calvin Coolidge


“Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So we cut the people’s tax rates and the people produced more than ever before.” ++ “Are you entitled to the fruits of your own labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?” ++ “The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.” ++ “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” ++ “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.” —Ronald Reagan


“Liberals are at it again. Just three months into their majority, Democrats are once again proposing the biggest tax increase in history... If it is passed, [the Democrats’ 2008 proposed] budget will impose the largest tax increase in history on American taxpayers—totaling nearly $400 billion over five years. Families with children, low-income families, and small businesses all would be hit with hundreds if not thousands of dollars in increased taxes. Just what taxes will be raised? Here are some of the specifics of the liberal proposal: The 10% Tax Bracket Will Become 15%: More than five million families and individuals who previously owed no taxes will become subject to taxation. Marriage Penalty Relief Will Be Eliminated: 23 million Americans will owe an average of $466 in additional taxes in 2011. The Child Tax Credit Will Be Cut in Half: 31 million Americans will pay an average of $859 more in taxes in 2011... You’re a family of four earning $60,000 a year: Your income-tax bill will rise 61% in 2011, from $3,030 to $4,893... You’re an elderly couple earning $40,000 a year: Your taxes will go up by 156% in 2011, from $583 to $1,489... You’re a woman: You could be one of the 83 million American women who could see their taxes rise by an average of $2,068... You’re married: You could be one of the 48 million married couples who will pay an average of $2,899 more under the liberal tax increase... You have kids: 42 million families with children will pay an average of $2,181 more in taxes.” —Newt Gingrich


“[One] ruse is the Democratic-media chorus that the Bush tax cuts must be repealed because they’ve left the Treasury high and dry...[T]ax receipts did plunge earlier this decade from their late-1990s heights, reaching a trough in fiscal 2004 of 16.3% of GDP. The economy was still recovering from the collapse of business investment and the stock market bubble, and no doubt the lower Bush rates played a role in reducing revenue for a time. But the lower rates also provided a spur to incentives that led to a rebound in investment, stock prices and ultimately in economic growth, individual incomes and corporate profits. This produced, in turn, a very sharp rebound in federal tax receipts—to 17.6% of GDP in fiscal 2005 and 18.4% in 2006. The Congressional Budget Office—now run by Democrats—predicts it will reach 18.6% in fiscal 2007. This is slightly above the 40-year historical average of 18.3%... Despite the Bush tax cuts—or we should say because of them—federal revenues are above where they’ve been for most of the last half century. The government is far from starved for cash. What Democrats really don’t want you to know is what will happen to receipts after 2010 if the tax cuts expire... A tax increase of that magnitude could well lead to a recession and a plunge in receipts...[T]he tax increase fuse has now been lit. Do nothing and taxes will rise as much as they have at any one time since World War II. Democrats have made the decision to obscure this burning fuse, and the press corps is ignoring it. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the country has to play along.” —The Wall Street Journal


“Liberals and journalists are fond of telling us that raising taxes is the only way out of scary budget deficits that will be handed down to our children and grandchildren. But Americans don’t buy that argument. In a February 2007 PSRA/Pew Research Center poll, people were asked what they thought was the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit. Only 9 percent said tax increases were the best way. A combined 69 percent said they’d rather see government reduce spending. They probably noticed the amazing economic growth this country has seen since the tax cuts went into effect...Americans support tax reform—if only legislators would be honest about their tax reform plans... Americans may not know what all those politicians are talking about—who does?—but they know the tax code is crazy and that they should get to keep more of their own money. A majority are familiar with at least one ‘reform’ proposition. More than half the respondents in a March 2007 Harris/Tax Foundation poll said they’d prefer a flat-rate tax or a national sales tax (like the FairTax) over the current graduated income tax system. I agree with those people who think all the doubletalk about ‘reform’ is too confusing. Besides, whenever the Democrats talk about taxes, they are talking about raising them. Americans don’t want higher taxes. What we need is a simple system where everyone can plainly see—and choose for themselves—how much tax they are paying. The only plan that even comes close to achieving that is the FairTax. Well, I don’t think we should talk about tax reform any more. No more tax reform; it’s time for replacement.” —Herman Cain


“[A]s a first step toward real tax reform, I would like to show, in very simple terms, how individual income taxes could painlessly be eliminated: reduce federal spending to the level it was at the beginning of the previous administration...[T]he total revenue of the federal government during its most recently completely fiscal year was $2.406 trillion and... individual income taxes collected during this period were $1.043 trillion. This means that if you subtract the income taxes collected from total revenue you end up with $1.363 trillion for the federal government to spend. That is just a little less than the government spent during the fiscal year in which [Bill] Clinton began his first term. Are income taxes evil? Yes. Should they be eliminated? Yes. Would it be a terrible thing if the federal government still spent over $1 trillion? Yes. But it is a start. It is real tax reform. With no income tax, there will be no capital gains tax, no withholding tax, no EITC welfare program, and no refundable child credit welfare program... All of this, of course, depends on Congress. Although it is true that the president submits a budget to Congress, it is Congress that ultimately decides on the amount of federal spending. It is only because we have a monstrous welfare/warfare state that the government ‘needs’ to collect an income tax. The beginning of Clinton’s presidency was not that long ago. The income tax can be abolished. It can be done quickly; it can be done painlessly—and it can be done for the benefit of the American taxpayer instead of the federal leviathan. Now that is real tax reform.” —Laurence Vance


“Americans are natural procrastinators when it comes to unpleasant tasks, so it should be no surprise that surveys show half of all tax filers wait until this last week before the April 16 deadline to do their taxes. No wonder: This year there are a record 66,000 pages of mostly incomprehensible tax laws to comply with, and for those with really complicated returns, 526 separate forms that may need to be filled out. In 2005 an astonishing six out of every 10 taxpayers needed the help of a trained professional to complete their returns. Tax preparation is now one of America’s fastest growth industries...[T]o make sense of their taxes American workers and businesses devote 6.4 billion hours a year, about 45 hours per return. There are now 16 separate tax breaks for college education and several dozen for energy conservation, including write-offs for such things as purchasing electricity-saving refrigerators... In 1914 the total income-tax collections were $10 billion (in today’s dollars). Now the income tax gathers in roughly $1 trillion, and gathering that stash requires a massive collection machine. The original IRS enforcement office had 4,000 employees. Now the IRS has 100,000 tax agents, more employees than the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Administration combined. Yet Congressional Democrats want to hire thousands more tax agents to audit more Americans and close the $300 billion ‘tax gap.’ Before hiring more tax snoops, we might want to heed the warning of historian Charles Adams, who notes in his book ‘For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization’: ‘From the earliest records of civilization, tax laws have taken away liberty more often than foreign invaders’.” —Stephen Moore

To submit comments for publication or to view reader comments, link to http://PatriotPost.US/comments.asp Join the debate at the Patriot Blog

Sunday, April 15, 2007


When John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam he branded them as "war criminals." Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry’s anti-war persona for the first time. It isn’t dubious medals or Kerry’s disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then Lt. (j.g.) Kerry’s acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry’s public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

For the anti-war, anti-American protesters, the American soldiers are the "terrorists," and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry’s true "Band of Brothers" are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.

The background to this lawsuit is long and complex, but even a condensed version is rich in irony and poetic justice.

It had it roots in 2004 with the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. Many may recall the film, although it is probably best known for not being seen, suppressed after Sinclair Broadcasting Company courageously announced it was going to air the documentary in its entirety. Thanks to Kerry and his liberal colleagues in the Senate and their enablers in the mainstream media, Sinclair was browbeaten into withdrawing the film, its broadcast license threatened by a Kerry campaign manager in 2004. The film’s producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award-winning investigative reporter, interviewed former POWs for the documentary.

I was among those whom Sherwood, a decorated Marine combat veteran himself, asked to participate in Stolen Honor. I was a POW for nearly six years, held in North Vietnam prison camps, including the notorious Hanoi Hilton, a place of unimaginable horrors -- torture, beatings, starvation and mind-numbing isolation. When Kerry branded us "war criminals," he handed our captors all the justification they needed to carry out their threats to execute us. Thanks to Kerry, Jane Fonda and their comrades in the anti-war movement, our captivity was prolonged by years. The communists in Hanoi and Moscow couldn’t have had a better press agent to spread their anti-American propaganda.

To guarantee Stolen Honor would never be seen by anyone – not even theatre-goers – the producer was slapped with a libel and defamation lawsuit.

The POWs and the wives of POWs who participated in Stolen Honor refused to abandon the facts conveyed in the film. For some of us, it was the first time since our release by the Communists in 1973 that we were able to have our voices publicly heard, to tell our stories about the consequences of Kerry’s treachery. In 2005, we formed a nonprofit organization, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), to gather records, documents and other materials to form a fact-based, educational repository for students and scholars of Vietnam history and to tell the true story of the American soldiers in Vietnam. The VVLF’s mission is "to set the record straight, factually, about Vietnam and those who fought there."

For our efforts, we were promptly sued by Campbell and another long-time anti-war Kerry follower and VVAW member, Dr. Jon Bjornson. It was clear that Kerry not only wanted to punish us for Stolen Honor; he intended to use surrogates to sue us into permanent silence and financial ruin.

Col. George E. "Bud" Day, USAF (Ret.,) was a POW in North Vietnam for five years, seven months and 13 days. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and earned the Medal of Honor. He is the Air Force’s most decorated living veteran. He is the Director and President of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, Inc., an organization created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the men and women who sacrificed to serve their country.

Please go here to read Col. Day’s statement in its entirety

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England...

Read it

Message from Iraq

Sinews of Pelosi

Are you really interested in tax rates that benefit the economy & raise revenue--or are you interested in redistributing income for political reasons?

The richest 1% of Americans now pays 35% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay more taxes than the bottom 60%.

President John F. Kennedy was an astute proponent of tax cuts and the proposition that lower tax rates produce economic growth. Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also understood the power of lower tax rates and managed to put through cuts that grew the U.S. economy like Kansas corn. Sadly, we just don't seem able to keep that lesson learned.

Case Closed: Tax cuts mean growth
Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Imus isn’t the real bad guy

COMMENTARY: Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture!

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest.
This is opportunism. This is a distraction.
In the grand scheme,

Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

To reach Jason Whitlock, call (816) 234-4869 or send e-mail to For previous columns, go to

Jason brings together his best columns from the last 10 years -- a decade of sports, passion and Kansas City in this new hardcover book. Introduction by Buck O'Neil! Includes behind-the-scenes photos of Jason and Kansas City sports greats.

Pelosi 's Follies

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack

Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 11, 2007


Several prominent scholars who were interviewed in a bitterly contested documentary that suggests that Jesus and his family members were buried in a nondescript ancient Jerusalem burial cave have now revised their conclusions, including the statistician who claimed that the odds were 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, a new study on the fallout from the popular documentary shows.

The dramatic clarifications, compiled by epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem in a paper titled "Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus story is losing its scholarly support," come two months after the screening of The Lost Tomb of Christ that attracted widespread public interest, despite the concomitant scholarly ridicule.

The film, made by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and Emmy-winning Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, prompted major criticism from both a leading Israeli archeologist involved in the original dig at the site as well as Christian leaders, who were angered over the documentary's contradictions of main tenets of Christianity.

But now, even some of the scholars who were interviewed for and appeared in the film are questioning some of its basic claims.

The most startling change of opinion featured in the 16-page paper is that of University of Toronto statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger, who stated those 600 to one odds in the film. Feuerverger now says that these referred to the probability of a cluster of such names appearing together.

Pfann's paper reported that a statement on the Discovery Channel's Web site, which previously read "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters...concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family," in keeping with Feuerverger's statement, has been altered and now reads, "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters... concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally 'surprising' cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions."

Another sentence on the same Web site stating that Feuerverger had concluded it was highly probable that the tomb, located in the southeastern residential Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot, was the Jesus family tomb - the central point of the film - has also been changed. It now reads: "It is unlikely that an equally surprising cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling."

Israeli archeologists have said that the similarity of the names found inscribed on the ossuaries in the cave to the members of Jesus's family was coincidental, since many of those names were commonplace in the first century CE.

The film argues that 10 ancient ossuaries - burial boxes used to store bones - that were discovered in Talpiot in 1980 contained the bones of Jesus and his family. The filmmakers attempt to explain some of the inscriptions on the ossuaries by suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the couple had a son, Judah.

One of the ossuaries bears an inscription reading "Yeshua son of Yehosef" or "Jesus son of Joseph;" a second reads "Mary;" a third is a Greek inscription apparently read by one scholar as "Mary Magdalene;" while a fourth bears the inscription, "Judah, son of Jesus." The inscriptions are in Hebrew or Aramaic, except for the one in Greek.

But Shimon Gibson, who was part of the team that excavated the tomb two and half decades ago and who appeared in the film, is quoted in Pfann's report as saying he doubted the site was the tomb of Jesus and his family.

"Personally, I'm skeptical that this is the tomb of Jesus and I made this point very clear to the filmmakers," Gibson is quoted as saying.

"We need much more evidence before we can say that the Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus," he added.

In the film, renowned epigrapher Prof. Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus of Hebrew and oriental languages at Harvard University, is seen reading one of the ossuaries and stating that he has "no real doubt" that it reads "Jesus son of Joseph." But according to Pfann, Cross said in an e-mail that he was skeptical about the film's claims, not because of a misreading of the ossuary, but because of the ubiquity of Biblical names in that period in Jerusalem.

"It has been reckoned that 25 percent of feminine names in this period were Maria/Miriam, etc. - that is, variants of 'Mary.' So the cited statistics are unpersuasive. You know the saying: lies, damned lies, and statistics," Cross is quoted as saying.

The paper also notes that DNA scientist Dr. Carney Matheson, who supervised DNA testing carried out for the film from the supposed Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries, and who said in the documentary that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife," later said that "the only conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me, it sounds like absolutely nothing."

Furthermore, Pfann also says that a specialist in ancient apocryphal text, Professor Francois Bovon, who is quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription "Mariamne" is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene - one of the filmmakers' critical arguments - issued a disclaimer stating that he did not believe that "Mariamne" stood for Mary of Magdalene at all.

Pfann has already argued that the controversial inscription does not read "Mariamne" at all.

The burial site, which has been contested from the start by scholars and church officials alike, is some distance from the Church of the Holy Sepulchrr in the Old City, where many Christians believe Jesus's body lay for three days after he was crucified.

According to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and an ossuary containing Jesus's bones - the explanations of the movie director notwithstanding - would contradict the core Christian belief that he was resurrected and then ascended to heaven.

This article can also be read at