Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Aaron Sorkin talks too fast!

Tim Goodman at the San Francisco Chronicle says that "Aaron Sorkin makes dazzling comeback calling on 'West Wing'-like sophistication"

I don't agree (but then, I'm not from San Francisco--in fact, I've always disliked San Franciso even when I felt guilty about that fact--plus, I'm not important: although I did work at Universal Studios for 16 years, so I'm not a complete rube).

First of all, I don't get the "West Wing" connection at all (except that, of course, Aaron Sorkin wrote both shows).

Secondly, I just didn't like it!

I learned that it's my gut reaction that counts. I know some people that say "Desperate Housewives" glorifies the wrong values, etc. etc. but all I know is that I really like it.

Yes, that could change. I stopped liking (and watching) "Boston Legal" because it just became a huge liberal lecture forum...c'mon, how can intelligent people (supposedly) mix up their genres?

Anyway, as far as "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" is concerned I just don't buy Amanda Peet as it's newly hired entertainment president. NOT because she's young (as Tim Goodman's preemptive comment accuses) and NOT because she's beautiful (Linda Obst made us all painfully aware of these realities) but simply because I DIDN'T BELIEVE HER! (I'm guessing it's the personality type she chose, as an actress, to present.)

I like Matthew Perry, but I wonder why Sorkin chose to belabor (beat us over the head actually) his private, painful, personal struggle with Vicodin (remember how much weight he lost on "Friends"?) in the opening episode...

Although I still remember recoiling in horror while reading Betty Friedan's recounting of the mad housewife's naked run down the street when her "Feminie Mystique" first came out, I just never got into watching men acting stupid around women.

But one thing I do know: no one talks as fast as Aaron Sorkin's characters do (and actually this IS the one common thread between the two shows) unless they are, as Sorkin has intimated in the past, on cocaine (I mean the new liquid entertainment being advertised on the telly of course).

And, if I'm wrong, and everyone loves this show, well...nothing at all will happen to me since Sorkin is only, probably, a Liberal and NOT a Muslim!

If, however, you see my head rollin' down the street, then you'll know I was wrong.

Choudary or the Pope: your choice

Reputed to be an articulate man, thirty-nine year old Anjem Choudary "preaches hatred and murder in the streets of Britain" but interrupted his holy mission last week in order "to call for the execution of the Pope as punishment for 'insulting Islam'".

Aside from the fact that free speech is obviously not included in the Muslim doctrine, one has to wonder just what qualifies this man to call for the Pope's death.

If a man's life is to be taken into consideration at all, let us see what Anjem Choudary brings to the table:


  • As a medical student at Southampton University, "Andy" as he called himself then, freely indulged in booze, sex and smoking pot, was "famed for his ability to drink a pint of cider in a few seconds" and "at parties...was rarely without a joint".


  • Having sex with his white girlfriends apparently took so much time that he wasn't able to attend any of the local mosques.


  • One friend remembers that he and "Andy" took too much LSD and hallucinated for twenty hours. (After failing his first-year exams, he switched from medicine to studying law at Guildford.)


  • At 29 he married and had three children but then stopped practicing law and left his family in order to have the time to do such complicated things as organizing the protest of some Danish cartoons, calling for the murder of the Pope last week, and other worthy Islamic causes.


  • His heroes are the 9/11 hijackers and all the rest of the "magnificent martyrs" such as British suicide bomber Asif Hanif who blew up some people in Tel Aviv in 2003.


  • Even though his wife gets £1,700 a month in housing benefit and income support, and even though Choudary himself also gets £202 a month in income support from the British government, "he vowed he would not tell the police if he knew a terror attack was being planned and urged Muslims to defend themselves against perceived attacks by 'whatever means they have at their disposal'". (Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!).


I don't know a lot about the Pope, personally, but if I had to bet real money on who was more deserving to live, I don't think it would be a very difficult feat to figure it out, do you?

Read more

Monday, September 18, 2006

www.thereligionofpeace.com

NOT to be confused with www.religionofpeace.com !


The Reigion of Peace (believe it or else)

FANTASTIC RESOURCE with Jihad du Jour (News of the Day), a counter listing deadly terror attacks since 9/11, a weekly jihad report listing jihad attacks, dead bodies, and critically injured, and this time it's true: much, much more.

A must see website especially now given the death threats on the Pope and announcement of a new "holy" war:

The Reigion of Peace (believe it or else)

Sunday, September 17, 2006

BBC incites violence...but why?

David Warren pointed out today ("Apologize for What?") that the BBC was quick to post a story 'round the world that the Pope had insulted the Prophet Mohammed -- but he hadn't! Warren provides the context and historical background for what the Pope was trying to convey which requires a type of education and analytical thinking that is obviously beyond both the Western Media and Muslim fanatics.

But the intentions of the BBC are clearly suspect:

By turning the story back-to-front, so that what's promised in the lead -- a crude attack on Islam -- is quietly withdrawn much later in the text, the BBC journalists were having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world. Either the writers were so jaw-droppingly ignorant, they did not realize this is what they were abetting (always a possibility with the postmodern journalist), or the malice was intended. There is no third possibility.


And now an Italian nun in Somalia is dead--how many more will there be?

He goes on, at the end, to point out another high-profile news organization who managed to accomplish the same thing from a different angle:


I would also add that an incredibly ignorant editorial appeared in the New York Times ("The Pope's Words"), demanding a "deep and persuasive" papal apology, for words he never uttered. Like so much that comes out of the New York Times today, it manifests the logic of the loony bin.


Let's not forget the May, 2005 fiasco when false reporting by yet another major news outlet caused violence around the Muslim world (what else is new).

Newsweek retracts Quran story


By now, don't you wonder if half the world is either so stunningly stupid or has a group death wish since they will ignore the most hideous torture and human rights violations while agonizing over the apparently endless "rights" of these vicious hypocrites who insult the very concept of God?

Friday, September 15, 2006

10 good things President Bush accomplished

1. President Bush put together and submitted a comprehensive energy plan for the country. President Clinton had submitted nothing in 8 years, leaving us in a weak, oil dependant position. It is awaiting action from Congress now. It includes enough energy conservation items for development, subsidies, etc. to make an additional list of ten.

2. President Bush created the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, the largest single conservation area in the history of our country, and the largest protected marine area in the world.

3. President Bush has presided over the remarkable survival of the American economy, with continued growth to this day, despite Bush inheriting a mild recession (yes, the numbers were sloping down as the President took office- the data is on the record), and the huge economic hits of 9/11 and Katrina. The economy continues to grow, along with a low 4.7% unemployment, low inflation, and low interest rates.

4. President Bush has freed roughly 40 million people, between Afghanistan and Iraq, from dictatorship and Taliban. Yes, there are still problems in both countries. We've always had to fight and shed blood for freedom, such as the American Revolution, the WW's, Civil War, etc. Freedom is never perfect, as we continue to prove here in America.

5. On the same note, President Bush has started to withdraw the remaining troops from Bosnia, President Clinton's war. Bush has also announced withdrawal of troops from Germany, and the Korean DMZ.

6. President Bush lowered dividend taxes and income taxes, stimulating sustained higher revenue income, also to this day. Yes, the *spending* has been terrible, on both sides, Republican and Democrat. However, income and spending have always been separate issues. Just think what shape we'd be in if spending was terrible and we had LOW national (tax revenues) income?

7. President Bush established the Prescription Drug Plan for seniors, helping make them more affordable. Yes it is imperfect, but it is a large and meaningful (in real dollars) program that is now in place and working. Additionally, Americans can now set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, in Health Savings Accounts to save for medical expenses. Importantly, any unspent money stays in the account and grows tax free, similar to an IRA, like a personal medical 'nest egg'.

8. President Bush started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered in history. For the first time, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, plus areas of interest such as education to the environment, and can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world.

9. President Bush issued an Executive Order implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, mandating the moving of disabled people from institutions to community based facilities whenever possible. The President increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them. He also revised HUD's section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's vouchers to finance down payments on homes. The President also committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children with AIDS in Africa.

10. President Bush rebuilt our Military from a decade long decrease in funding to dangerously low levels, starting when he entered office. The building continues currently, including ABM (anti-ballistic missile) defenses, in case North Korea, Iran, or some rogue state decides to shoot missiles at America.

11. President Bush has prevented numerous domestic and international terrorist attacks (many stories on record in U.S. main stream media) by using programs such as monitoring phone calls originating or ending in terrorist supporting countries or Al Queda connections (yes, this is the 'domestic spying' people are talking about) and monitoring international financial transactions between terrorist parties through the world financial network, with permission from all countries involved (The New York Times divulged this program, so now terrorists know about it and are changing their methods accordingly. Logically, it is undeniable that more innocent deaths will now happen than if this divulgence had not occurred).


Rick Schilf from SFVRC

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Rejoice, all ye females

Here is good news:

Men are more intelligent than women, claims new study.

This is very good news because, in nature, it is incumbent upon the smartest people to do the most work!

And, if you are a communist, it is doubly true: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." (Karl Marx)

I'm outta luck though--my IQ is one point higher than my husband's :(

Animated puzzle

This is amazing - the picture has movement in it the entire time you are working on it. Drag the pieces together to make a picture:

Do it now!

The Arab and Iranian Reaction to 9/11 Five Years Later

Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, The Middle East Media Research Institute has monitored, translated, and recorded what was said in the Arab and Iranian press about that day. Prominent journalists, members of academia, leading religious figures, and even Arab government officials helped shape conspiracies about what "really" happened.

The carefully documented collection is now available as a PDF and includes a compilation of articles and editorials from the mainstream Arabic and Persian language press, as well as transcripts from television programs.

A documentary film about the Arab and Iranian reaction to 9-11 incorporates footage from various TV and satellite stations in the Middle East. It was made with Interface Media Group and narrated by acclaimed actor Ron Silver.

Download "The Arab and Iranian Reaction to 9/11 Five Years Later"

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Picture Proof: The Saddam-Al Qaeda Connections

The following information did not make it into the Senate Intelligence Committee's report released last Friday, that claimed Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

What do you suppose the committee had to say about these documents?

Read -- SEE -- more!

The difference between Republicans and Democrats


  • Republicans stand united against our enemies.


  • Democrats stand united against our President.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

World Trade Center, 9-13-01

These photos were taken at Ground Zero, the World Trade Center site in New York, on September 13, 2001. They were taken by someone named Ed who was allowed into the area by a member of the emergency response crew, at a time when all civilians -- including most journalists -- were forbidden to enter the area. As a result, these photos are just about the only close-ups ever taken of the World Trade Center site so soon after the 9/11 attacks.

Monday, September 11, 2006

9 / 11

PATRIOT POST Publisher's Note:

Today we mark the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001, when 2,996 innocents, mostly American citizens, lost their lives in the murderous attacks of Islamic Fascists against our country.

In keeping with the presidential proclamation designating September 11, 2006, as Patriot Day, all flags should be flown at half staff in memory of those who lost their lives five years ago. We invite you to join us as we offer our prayers for the families of those lost and for our Armed Forces now serving on the front lines of the war that began that day.

As you remember September 11th, we invite you to visit The Patriot’s new resource to commemorate the attacks on our countrymen, “Day of Terror: A September 11 Retrospective”.

Now, as we move forward and continue to engage our jihadist foe in battle fronts around the globe, let us never forget why we fight.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
“We’re engaged in a global struggle against the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom and crushes all dissent, and has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims... And against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in and we will never accept anything less than complete victory... We will defeat the terrorists and their hateful ideology by spreading the hope of freedom across the world... The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations.” —President George W. Bush

Want to see the part of the 9/11 film the Democrats and Clinton didn't want you to see?

Go to savethesoldiers.com and scroll down...

The Democrats threatened to yank ABC's broadcasting license if they showed "The Path to 9/11" (airing 9/10 and 9/11)--this in a free country? From the Party of tolerance and diversity? For a Docu-drama? That tells you just how badly they didn't want you to see these things!

Bush and the Republicans never threatened to stop "Farenheit 911" and that WAS labeled a documentary (even though it actually has 59 specific falsehoods).

Go to savethesoldiers.com and scroll down...

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Anger Management

When you occasionally have a really bad day, and you just need to take it out on someone, don't take it out on someone you know, take it out on someone you don't know.

It all started one day when I was sitting at my desk and remembered a phone call I had forgotten to make. I found the number and dialed it.

A man answered, saying, "Hello." I politely said, "This is Chris. May I please speak with Robin Carter?" Suddenly, the phone was slammed down on me.

I couldn't believe that anyone could be so rude.

I tracked down Robin's correct number and called her. I had transposed the last two digits of her phone number.

After hanging up with her, I decided to call the 'wrong' number again. When the same guy answered the phone, I yelled, "You're an @$$hole!" and hung up.

I wrote his number down with the word '@$$hole' next to it, and put it in my desk drawer.

Every couple of weeks, when I was paying bills or had a really bad day, I'd call him up and yell, "You're an @$$hole!" It always cheered me up.

When Caller ID came to our area, I thought my therapeutic '@$$hole' calling would have to stop.

So, I called his number and said, Hi, this is John Smith from the Telephone Company. I'm just calling to see if you're interested in the Caller ID program?"

He yelled, "NO!" and slammed the phone down.

I quickly called him back and said, "That's because you're an @$$hole!"

One day I was at the store, getting ready to pull into a parking spot. Some guy in a black BMW cut me off and pulled into the spot I had patiently waited for.

I hit the horn and yelled that I had been waiting for the spot. The idiot ignored me. I noticed a "For Sale" sign in his car window, so I wrote down his number.

A couple of days later, right after calling the first @$$hole, ( I had his number on speed dial ), I thought I had better call the BMW @$$hole, too.

I said, "Is this the man with the black BMW for sale?"

"Yes, it is."

"Can you tell me where I can see it?"

"Yes, I live at 1802 West 34th Street. It's a yellow house, and the car's parked right out in front."

"What's your name?" I asked.

"My name is Don Hansen," he said.

"When's a good time to catch you, Don?"

"I'm home every evening after five."

"Listen, Don, can I tell you something?"

"Yes?"

"Don, you're an @$$hole." Then I hung up, and added his number to my speed dial, too.

Now, when I had a problem, I had two @$$holes to call. But after several months of calling them, it wasn't as enjoyable as it used to be So, I came up with an idea.

I called @$$hole #1.

"Hello."

"You're an @$$hole!" (But I didn't hang up.)

"Are you still there?" he asked.

"Yeah," I said.

"Stop calling me," he screamed.

"Make me," I said.

"Who are you?" he asked.

"My name is Don Hansen."

"Yeah? Where do you live?"

"@$$hole, I live at 1802 West 34th Street, a yellow house, with my black Beamer parked in front."

He said, "I'm coming over right now, Don. And you had better start saying your prayers."

I said, "Yeah, like I'm really scared, @$$hole."

Then I called @$$hole #2.

"Hello?" he said.

"Hello, @$$hole," I said.

He yelled, "If I ever find out who you are!"

"You'll what?" I said.

"I'll kick your @$$," he exclaimed.

I answered, "Well, @$$hole, here's your chance. I'm coming over right now."

Then I hung up and immediately called the police, saying that I lived at 1802 West 34th Street, and that I was on my way over there to kill my gay lover.

Then I called Channel 4 News about the gang war going down on West 34th Street.

I quickly got into my car and headed over to 34th street.

There I saw two @$$holes beating the crap out of each other in front of six squad cars, a police helicopter, and a news crew.

NOW, I feel better. Anger management really works.

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Sunday, Sept. 10, 2006 6:13 p.m. EDT

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden.

And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape. You can listen to the tape yourself -- Click Here

Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden.

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."

During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.

At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.

Then came the bombshell offer:

"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

Still, with the extraordinarily fortuitous offer on the table, back in Washington President Clinton had other things on his mind.

A timeline of events chronicled in the Starr Report shows that during the period of late January through March 1996, Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was then at its most intense.

On Feb. 4, 1996, for instance - two days before Ambassador Carney's key meeting with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, the president was focused not on Osama bin Laden, but instead on the 23-year-old White House intern.

Their rendezvous that day included a sexual encounter followed by a leisurely chat between Clinton and Lewinsky, as the two "sat and talked [afterward] for about 45 minutes," according to the Starr Report.

Later in the afternoon that same day, as Sudanese officials weighed their decision to offer bin Laden to the U.S., Clinton found time to call Lewinsky "[to say] he had enjoyed their time together." If there were any calls from Clinton to the State Department or Khartoum that day, the records have yet to surface in published reports.

The Feb. 4 encounter with Lewinsky followed a period of intense contact detailed in the Starr report in interviews with the former White House intern, including a sexual encounter on Jan. 6, 1996, several sessions of phone sex during the week of Jan. 14 - 21, and another sexual encounter on Jan. 21.

Sudan's offer to the U.S. for bin Laden's extradition remained on the table for at least a month, and was reiterated by Sudanese officials who traveled to Washington as late as March 10, 1996.

On March 3, Sudan's Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa met secretly with Ambassador Carney, another State Department official and the CIA's Africa bureau Director of Operations at an Arlington, Va., hotel, according to Miniter's book.

Erwa was handed a list of issues the U.S. wanted taken care of if relations were to improve. The list included a demand for information on bin Laden's terrorist network inside Sudan.

Erwa replied that he would have to consult with Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir about the list. When he returned for a March 10, 1996 meeting with the CIA's Africa bureau chief, "Erwa would be empowered to make an extraordinary offer," writes Miniter.

On instructions from its president, the government of Sudan agreed to arrest bin Laden and hand him over to U.S law enforcement at a time and place of the Clinton administration's choosing. "Where should we send him?" Erwa asked the CIA representative.

In his 2002 speech President Clinton has acknowledged being fully briefed on the Sudanese efforts to turn over the 9/11 mastermind, admitting that he made the final decision to turn the offer down.

As chronicled in the Starr report, however, Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky proved to be a growing distraction around this time.

Two weeks before the secret meeting between Erwa, Carney and the CIA bureau chief, the president summoned Lewinsky to the White House to inform her that he "no longer felt right" about their relationship and it would have to be suspended until after the election.

Lewinsky explained, however, that Clinton's decision to put their relationship on hold did little to change its basic character, telling Starr's investigators, "There'd continue to be this flirtation when we'd see each other."

The Starr report noted, "In late February or March [1996], the president telephoned her at home and said he was disappointed that, because she had already left the White House for the evening, they could not get together."

The call, Lewinsky said, "sort of implied to me that he was interested in starting up again."

On March 10, 1996, as Sudanese Defense Minister Erwa was making his extraordinary offer for bin Laden's arrest to the CIA's Africa bureau chief, Clinton met with Lewinsky in the White House.

The Starr report:

"On March 10, 1996, Ms. Lewinsky took a visiting friend, Natalie Ungvari, to the White House. They bumped into the president, who said when Ms. Lewinsky introduced them, 'You must be her friend from California.' Ms. Ungvari was 'shocked' that the president knew where she was from."

Though there was no physical contact that day, three weeks later, on March 31, 1996, Clinton resumed his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.

It was around this time, the president later admitted, that he was involved in delicate negotiations to try to persuade Riyadh to take bin Laden, after refusing to accept his extradition to the U.S.

"I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have," Clinton admitted in the 2002 speech. "But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

On April 7, 1996, Monica Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon. Around the same time, the administration's hunt for bin Laden finally seemed to begin in earnest. Just weeks after Clinton spurned Sudan's bin Laden offer, for instance, the CIA created a separate operational unit dedicated to tracking down bin Laden in Sudan.

But it happened too late to capture the 9/11 mastermind. On May 18, 1996, bin Laden boarded a chartered plane in Khartoum with his wives, children, some 150 al-Qaida jihadists and a cache of arms - and flew off to Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

TRANSCRIPT: Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY Feb. 15, 2002

To hear NewsMax.com's exclusive audio recording of ex-President Clinton explaining why he turned the Sudanese offer down, Click Here.

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)



Technorati Tags:

Bush-hatred as a snuff film

The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Read more

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Clinton aide says 9/11 film 'correct'

Producer consulted with military attaché who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden

Posted: September 8, 2006 3:33 p.m. Eastern by Art Moore © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

"A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.

In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.

Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.

Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.

"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.

The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11."

Read more

Technorati Tags: , ,

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Iraq: The Policy Dilemma

By George Friedman

U.S. President George W. Bush now has made it clear what his policy on Iraq will be for the immediate future, certainly until Election Day: He does not intend to change U.S. policy in any fundamental way. U.S. troops will continue to be deployed in Iraq, they will continue to carry out counterinsurgency operations, and they will continue to train Iraqi troops to eventually take over the operations. It is difficult to imagine that Bush believes there will be any military solution to the situation in Iraq; therefore, we must try to understand his reasoning in maintaining this position. Certainly, it is not simply a political decision. Opinion in the United States has turned against the war, and drawing down U.S. forces and abandoning combat operations would appear to be the politically expedient move. Thus, if it is not politics driving him -- and assuming that the more lurid theories on the Internet concerning Bush's motivations are as silly as they appear -- then we have to figure out what he is doing.

Let's consider the military situation first. Bush has said that there is no civil war in Iraq. This is in large measure a semantic debate. In our view, it would be inaccurate to call what is going on a "civil war" simply because that term implies a degree of coherence that simply does not exist. Calling it a free-for-all would be more accurate. It is not simply a conflict of Shi'i versus Sunni. The Sunnis and Shia are fighting each other, and all of them are fighting American forces. It is not altogether clear what the Americans are supposed to be doing.

Counterinsurgency is unlike other warfare. In other warfare, the goal is to defeat an enemy army, and civilian casualties as a result of military operations are expected and acceptable. With counterinsurgency operations in populated areas, however, the goal is to distinguish the insurgents from civilians and destroy them, with minimal civilian casualties. Counterinsurgency in populated areas is more akin to police operations than to military operations; U.S. troops are simultaneously engaging an enemy force while trying to protect the population from both that force and U.S. operations. Add to this the fact that the population is frequently friendly to the insurgents and hostile to the Americans, and the difficulty of the undertaking becomes clear.

Consider the following numbers. The New York Police Department (excluding transit and park police) counts one policeman for every 216 residents. In Iraq, there is one U.S. soldier (not counting other coalition troops) per about 185 people. Thus, numerically speaking, U.S. forces are in a mildly better position than New York City cops -- but then, except for occasional Saturday nights, New York cops are not facing anything like the U.S. military is facing in Iraq. Given that the United States is facing not one enemy but a series of enemy organizations -- many fighting each other as well as the Americans -- and that the American goal is to defeat these while defending the populace, it is obvious even from these very simplistic numbers that the U.S. force simply isn't there to impose a settlement.

Expectations and a Deal Unwound

A military solution to the U.S. dilemma has not been in the cards for several years. The purpose of military operations was to set the stage for political negotiations. But the Americans had entered Iraq with certain expectations. For one thing, they had believed they would simply be embraced by Iraq's Shiite population. They also had expected the Sunnis to submit to what appeared to be overwhelming political force. What happened was very different. First, the Shia welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein, but they hardly embraced the Americans -- they sought instead to translate the U.S. victory over Hussein into a Shiite government. Second, the Sunnis, in view of the U.S.-Shiite coalition and the dismemberment of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army, saw that they were about to be squeezed out of the political system and potentially crushed by the Shia. They saw an insurgency -- which had been planned by Hussein -- as their only hope of forcing a redefinition of Iraqi politics. The Americans realized that their expectations had not been realistic.

Thus, the Americans went through a series of political cycles. First, they sided with the Shia as they sought to find their balance militarily facing the Sunnis. When they felt they had traction against the Sunnis, following the capture of Hussein -- and fearing Shiite hegemony -- they shifted toward a position between Sunnis and Shia. As military operations were waged in the background, complex repositioning occurred on all sides, with the Americans trying to hold the swing position between Sunnis and Shia.

The process of creating a government for Iraq was encapsulated in this multi-sided maneuvering. By spring 2006, the Sunnis appeared to have committed themselves to the political process. And in June, with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the announcement that the United States would reduce its force in Iraq by two brigades, the stage seemed to be set for a political resolution that would create a Shiite-dominated coalition that included Sunnis and Kurds. It appeared to be a done deal -- and then the deal completely collapsed.

The first sign of the collapse was a sudden outbreak of fighting among Shia in the Basra region. We assumed that this was political positioning among Shiite factions as they prepared for a political settlement. Then Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), traveled to Tehran, and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army commenced an offensive. Shiite death squads struck out at Sunni populations, and Sunni insurgents struck back. From nearly having a political accommodation, the situation in Iraq fell completely apart.

The key was Iran. The Iranians had always wanted an Iraqi satellite state, as protection against another Iraq-Iran war. That was a basic national security concept for them. In order to have this, the Iranians needed an overwhelmingly Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, and to have overwhelming control of the Shia. It seemed to us that there could be a Shiite-dominated government but not an overwhelmingly Shiite government. In other words, Iraq could be neutral toward, but not a satellite of, Iran. In our view, Iraq's leading Shia -- fearing a civil war and also being wary of domination by Iran -- would accept this settlement.

We may have been correct on the sentiment of leading Shia, but we were wrong about Iran's intentions. Tehran did not see a neutral Iraq as being either in Iran's interests or necessary. Clearly, the Iranians did not trust a neutral Iraq still under American occupation to remain neutral. Second -- and this is the most important -- they saw the Americans as militarily weak and incapable of either containing a civil war in Iraq or of taking significant military action against Iran. In other words, the Iranians didn't like the deal they had been offered, they felt that they could do better, and they felt that the time had come to strike.

A Two-Pronged Offensive

When we look back through Iranian eyes, we can now see what they saw: a golden opportunity to deal the United States a blow, redefine the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf and reposition the Shia in the Muslim world. Iran had, for example, been revivifying Hezbollah in Lebanon for several months. We had seen this as a routine response to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. It is now apparent, however, that it was part of a two-pronged offensive.

First, in Iraq, the Iranians encouraged a variety of factions to both resist the newly formed government and to strike out against the Sunnis. This created an uncontainable cycle of violence that rendered the Iraqi government impotent and the Americans irrelevant. The tempo of operations was now in the hands of those Shiite groups among which the Iranians had extensive influence -- and this included some of the leading Shiite parties, such as SCIRI.

Second, in Lebanon, Iran encouraged Hezbollah to launch an offensive. There is debate over whether the Israelis or Hezbollah ignited the conflict in Lebanon. Part of this is ideological gibberish, but part of it concerns intention. It is clear that Hezbollah was fully deployed for combat. Its positions were manned in the south, and its rockets were ready. The capture of two Israeli soldiers was intended to trigger Israeli airstrikes, which were as predictable as sunrise, and Hezbollah was ready to fire on Haifa. Once Haifa was hit, Israel floundered in trying to deploy troops (the Golani and Givati brigades were in the south, near Gaza). This would not have been the case if the Israelis had planned for war with Hezbollah. Now, this discussion has nothing to do with who to blame for what. It has everything to do with the fact that Hezbollah was ready to fight, triggered the fight, and came out ahead because it wasn't defeated.

The end result is that, suddenly, the Iranians held the whip hand in Iraq, had dealt Israel a psychological blow, had repositioned themselves in the Muslim world and had generally redefined the dynamics of the region. Moreover, they had moved to the threshold of redefining the geopolitics to the Persian Gulf.

This was by far their most important achievement.

A New Look at the Region

At this point, except for the United States, Iran has by far the most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf. This has nothing to do with its nuclear capability, which is still years away from realization. Its ground forces are simply more numerous and more capable than all the forces of the Arabian Peninsula combined. There is another aspect to this: The countries of the Arabian Peninsula are governed by Sunnis, but many are home to substantial Shiite populations as well. Between the Iranian military and the possibility of unrest among Shia in the region, the situation in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Peninsula is uneasy, to say the least. The rise of Hezbollah well might psychologically empower the generally quiescent Shia to become more assertive. This is one of the reasons that the Saudis were so angry at Hezbollah, and why they now are so anxious over events in Iraq.

If Iraq were to break into three regions, the southern region would be Shiite -- and the Iranians clearly believe that they could dominate southern Iraq. This not only would give them control of the Basra oil fields, but also would theoretically open the road to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. From a strictly military point of view, and not including the Shiite insurgencies at all, Iran could move far down the western littoral of the Persian Gulf if American forces were absent. Put another way, there would be a possibility that the Iranians could seize control of the bulk of the region's oil reserves. They could do the same thing if Iraq were to be united as an Iranian satellite, but that would be far more difficult to achieve and would require active U.S. cooperation in withdrawing.

We can now see why Bush cannot begin withdrawing forces. If he did that, the entire region would destabilize. The countries of the Arabian Peninsula, seeing the withdrawal, would realize that the Iranians were now the dominant power. Shia in the Gulf region might act, or they might simply wait until the Americans had withdrawn and the Iranians arrived. Israel, shaken to the core by its fight with Hezbollah, would have neither the force nor the inclination to act. Therefore, the United States has little choice, from Bush's perspective, but to remain in Iraq.

The Iranians undoubtedly anticipated this response. They have planned carefully. They are therefore shifting their rhetoric somewhat to be more accommodating. They understand that to get the United States out of Iraq -- and out of Kuwait --they will have to engage in a complex set of negotiations. They will promise anything -- but in the end, they will be the largest military force in the region, and nothing else matters. Ultimately, they are counting on the Americans to be sufficiently exhausted by their experience of Iraq to rationalize their withdrawal -- leaving, as in Vietnam, a graceful interval for what follows.

Options

Iran will do everything it can, of course, to assure that the Americans are as exhausted as possible. The Iranians have no incentive to allow the chaos to wind down, until at least a political settlement with the United States is achieved. The United States cannot permit Iranian hegemony over the Persian Gulf, nor can it sustain its forces in Iraq indefinitely under these circumstances.

The United States has four choices, apart from the status quo:

1. Reach a political accommodation that cedes the status of regional hegemon to Iran, and withdraw from Iraq.

2. Withdraw forces from Iraq and maintain a presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- something the Saudis would hate but would have little choice about -- while remembering that an American military presence is highly offensive to many Muslims and was a significant factor in the rise of al Qaeda.

3. Halt counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and redeploy its forces in the south (west of Kuwait), to block any Iranian moves in the region.

4. Assume that Iran relies solely on its psychological pre-eminence to force a regional realignment and, thus, use Sunni proxies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in attempts to outmaneuver Tehran.

None of these are attractive choices. Each cedes much of Iraq to Shiite and Iranian power and represents some degree of a psychological defeat for the United States, or else rests on a risky assumption. While No. 3 might be the most attractive, it would leave U.S. forces in highly exposed, dangerous and difficult-to-sustain postures.

Iran has set a clever trap, and the United States has walked into it. Rather than a functioning government in Iraq, it has chaos and a triumphant Shiite community. The Americans cannot contain the chaos, and they cannot simply withdraw. Therefore, we can understand why Bush insists on holding his position indefinitely. He has been maneuvered in such a manner that he -- or a successor -- has no real alternatives.

There is one counter to this: a massive American buildup, including a major buildup of ground forces that requires a large expansion of the Army, geared for the invasion of Iran and destruction of its military force. The idea that this could readily be done through air power has evaporated, we would think, with the Israeli air force's failure in Lebanon. An invasion of Iran would be enormously expensive, take a very long time and create a problem of occupation that would dwarf the problem faced in Iraq. But it is the other option. It would stabilize the geopolitics of the Arabian Peninsula and drain American military power for a generation.

Sometimes there are no good choices. For the United States, the options are to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to Iran and live with the consequences, raise a massive army and invade Iran, or live in the current twilight world between Iranian hegemony and war with Iran. Bush appears to be choosing an indecisive twilight. Given the options, it is understandable why.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Was this forwarded to you? Sign up to start receiving your own copy – it’s always thought-provoking, insightful and free. 

Go to https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to register

Iran: Redefining the Middle East?   

We would like to bring to your attention a recent Stratfor update on the political struggles in Iraq, the complex power matrix in the Middle East and the role Iran has been playing in redefining the entire region.

With an increase in the militia incidents in Iraq and the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict, you will find the Break Point: What Went Wrong analysis a timely, sobering review of:
  • The escalation of sectarian violence in Iraq and its root causes
  • The internal Shiite struggle and its resolution
  • Iran's interests and motivations concerning Iraq and within the larger Arab world
  • Why Iran is key to understanding both the crisis in Iraq and the Israel-Hezbollah conflict

Click here to download the report and find out how you can save $100 off regular Premium rates.

Distribution and Reprints



This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.


Technorati Tags: ,

Monday, September 04, 2006

Crime: The Final Solution

This was sent in by a reader. I would like to get your responses. Please use the "comment" function below. Thank you.
*************************************************************************************
Crime and Punishment


Society has long been at the mercy of violent and sometimes equally destructive non-violent predators.


I believe crime could virtually be brought to a standstill almost overnight or be so minimized that it would no longer exist as we know it today by implementing a simple solution. Our prisons could be almost emptied out. The recidivism rate would virtually disappear. There would be a powerful and compelling deterrent to other would-be criminals. While the death penalty obviously stops one criminal from ever committing another crime, people have questioned whether it is actually a deterrent to others. My solution eliminates such a debate. Punishment and justice would both be simultaneously served.


Most all crimes require two things in order to come into existence and be carried out: desire and eyesight. It has long been proven that there is little to no deterrent for desire but take away eyesight, which enables a crime to be carried out, and the ability to perpetrate the crime is reduced to almost nil. It is hard to lust after what you can’t see.


Criminals take something away from society each time they prey upon the innocent. Society has the right to take something away from the criminals. We have been so busy, in most cases, temporarily taking away “freedom” from the criminals that we have blinded ourselves to any other solution. Take away eyesight and the solution becomes not only permanent but also a very powerful deterrent.


Instead of building more prisons, giving life sentences and executing people, build homes for the blind and staff them with sighted workers. One thing is for sure, violent predators aren’t going to be traveling around “looking” for prey any more. Gang bangers aren’t going to be shooting anyone and it is rather difficult to attack someone you can’t see. Sexual predators aren’t going to be stalking anyone they can’t see. Children will have a chance to outrun and avoid these perverts and those the sexual predator can’t lust after, is not likely to become a victim. Computer hacks are not going to find stealing identities and easy job. Neighbors would no longer have a “not in my backyard” concern in living near such houses for the blind. Even some families of the criminals might be willing to house these individuals once they no longer pose the same level of threat as they did when they were sighted.


The blinded ex-criminals could also be trained and required to “work” to pay for their own care, thereby relieving society of the costly burden of caring for them.


For those who think blinding criminals is inhumane, I would suggest they consider the inhumanity perpetrated upon their victims and understand that many innocent people must deal with such handicaps as blindness all of their lives. In the criminal’s case, they deserve to be handicapped. Society deserves the chance to "level the playing field." Finally, if someone is “wrongly” convicted for a crime, they are at least still alive even though they are blind. As to being humane, what might be considered as inhumane is locking a person in a cell or keeping them in isolation? What is humane about being attacked by other inmates? What is humane about being constantly searched and having altercations with guards? What is humane about walking around with chains? What is humane about being raped in prison?


Just think about all the services society must pay for in order to deal with criminals both before, during and afterwards that could be avoided. I think this is a viable solution to the problem of crime and those choosing to commit them. Certainly, blinding a criminal is a perfect justice for the victims. It removes the victim’s fear of retribution, when the criminal is finally freed. Isn’t it time when what we are doing has not worked to finally find solutions that do?


For Jews and Christians who think blinding a person is outrageous, consider that at one time God required "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Wasn't it also Jesus who said "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." Obviously, blinding someone or yourself was not considered outrageous by God. I can only surmise that many evil men (those who hurt or destroy the innocent for their own gain or pleasure) might not mind serving prison sentences or even facing the death penalty for their crimes, but I can't help wondering just how many of the same people are willing to face life blind, if that was the price to pay?

Sunday, September 03, 2006

WHY???

Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide...

Let's see now:

No Jesus.
No Wal-Mart.
No television.
No cheerleaders.
No baseball.
No football.
No basketball.
No hockey.
No golf.
No tailgate parties.
No Home Depot.
No hot dogs.
No burgers.
More than one wife. (HELLO, ARE YOU CRAZY?)
Rags for clothes and towels for hats.
Constant wailing from the guy next-door--he's sick and there are no doctors.
Constant wailing from the guy in the tower.
No chocolate chip cookies.
No Girl Scout cookies.
No Christmas.
You can't shave.
Your wives can't shave.
Can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung.
The women have to wear baggy dresses and veils at all times.
Your bride is picked by someone else.
She smells just like your donkey, but your donkey has a better disposition.
Then they tell you that when you die it all gets better!

I mean, really!

IS THERE ANY MYSTERY HERE???

Friendship

No. 2 al-Qaida in Iraq leader arrested

AP - BAGHDAD, Iraq

[Iraqi National Security Advisor Mouwafak] Al-Rubaie said al-Saeedi was arrested “along with another group of his aides and followers,” and that after his arrest, he gave information that led to the capture or death of 11 other top al-Qaida in Iraq figures and nine lower-level members.

The security adviser said those arrested included non-Iraqi Arabs, but he would not give any further information for security reasons.

Read the good news here.

Strange email

I got this email today entitled "Notice" from someone I've never heard of and of course thought it was spam...but I happened to start reading it and it actually says some important things about animals and didn't come with any links to click on. I'm so in love with the animals I've known and want to help them all however possible so, in that spirit, I'm passing this on to you:

From: "Sherman" who is really JanetteiaMcneillcg@charter.net
(whoever that is!):


#1 Never ever leave your pet behind when evacuating
for ANY reason be it a hurricane, a fire, or a man
made disaster, even of you think you will be back
soon, Hurricane Katrina has taught many, that is
a fatal mistake (although most people have already
forgotten that and still did the same thing during
Hurricane Rita) and at LEAST 600,000 pets suffered,
drowned and died of starvation and dehydration when
there simply weren't enough rescue groups available.
As hard as it might be to put a small or large animal
in the car with you, PLEASE just figure out a way and
put them on your lap if you have to, they depend on
you to protect them and not chain them up to suffer
and die. It should never and will never have to be a
choice between your pet(s) and your kids, you figure
out a way to get EVERYONE to safety, including your
pet who is your responsibility and also a member of
your family, otherwise you should not own a pet in
the first place if you don't see it that way.

#2 Please adopt a pet from your local shelter instead
of buying one from a pet store. There are many great
pets waiting for a home but 80% end up being put to sleep
because so many people end up buying pets that come
from puppy mills where the animals are tortured, forced
to bread 24/7.

Google.com: "Puppy Mills" and you will understand.
Help stop puppy mills by putting them out of business
and help stop thousands of animals from being put to
sleep every day and adopt a beautiful friend from your
local shelter today. Most shelters have pure breeds as
well, but I prefer mutts myself. Just 1 adoption by you
will make 100% difference in the life of that pet.
Please also consider adopting a mature pet over a
puppy or kitten, mature pets are usually more at risk of
being put to sleep and in most cases a mature pet will
already be house broken which is better for you.
And remember once you have taken the responsibility
of taking a pet, be kind to it forever, give it a better
life then it previously had, in most cases it has been
abused by a previous owner. If you can't take the responsibility,
don't get one as it will hurt the pet in the long run when
you decide you don't want to keep it.

#3 NEVER leave your pet in a place you would not leave a
baby in, such as a car when the temperature outside is hot
or cold since a car will heat up or cool down really fast
to an extreme temperature usually worse then it is outside
and leaving a window cracked open wont help, its is a myth-
even if you think you may only be gone for a few minutes,
those few minutes make a huge difference on the inside.
As well do not leave your pet chained outside for more
then an hour in same types of temperatures. They have fur,
so imagine yourself in that kind of temperature and how
you would feel being chained outside for hours in it, and
then imagine wearing a fur coat during this time- as well
you should remember that asphalt gets hot, so put a bare
palm to the asphalt when it gets hot before walking your pet,
if it burns your palm, it will burn their paw pads when they
are walking on it so try to acclimate them to pet booties if
at all possible when conditions are really bad.

#4 If in circumstances of last resort you decide to post a
listing on craigslist to give your pet away, consider the
fact that 70% of those you get responses from will NOT BE
with good intentions, even if they sound and look like
the nicest and most trustworthy folks on the planet,
they are professionals and know what unsuspecting owners
want to see. Once they have your pet because you trusted
them when they brought "their" 10 year old kid with them,
your pet will very likely end up being used as live bait
for dog fight training, or sold to labs for scientific
experiments, and you will never know, you will just hope
for the best and want to believe you did the right thing.
So think very carefully before even deciding to make that
listing, you might just decide you should make every attempt
possible to keep your pet with you after all even if it does
soil that nice new carpet a few times a day, you are better
of investing a few bucks and taking your pet to a pet behavior
specialist which will almost always solve the problem behavior
of your pet.

Thank you for reading and please DO take all this to heart,
and forward this to anyone you know that also
owns a pet or is thinking of getting one.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

A Sea Change in Global Warming?

Within weeks, a paper is going to appear in the refereed journal Geophysical Research Letters, by John Lyman of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, showing that, globally, the top 2500 feet of the ocean lost a tremendous amount of heat between from 2003 through 2005—about 20% of all the heat gained in the last half-century.

Posted on August 24, 2006
World Climate Report

Under the Hood: AB32

In order for California business to retro-fit per AB 32, the cost will be a minimum of $7.9 billion--and that is a tax increase...when you mandate business to spend money on non-productive items, just to be allowed to stay in business, that is a tax. The dollar amount comes from the report of the Governors Climate Action Team. I wrote about it on December 9, 2005--but misnamed it at the time the "Governors Action Team."

On January 24, 2006, I gave more information about the proposed costs:

"In a few days the California Climate Action Team, appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger, is going to announce the "fix" for so called Global Warming. According to Table 8.1 of the working document, by 2020 the costs will be $7.9 billion, with "savings", not described, of over $9 billion per year.

In reality, if the "savings" were so great, creating new, more productive technologies, businesses would implement them without government action. Does anyone really believe that businesses want to waste $9 billion and use old technologies? Only a government report could imply such a silly thought. The report also says we could create 19,000 new jobs by 2010 because of these new policies and 83,000 new jobs by 2020. But, the report does not note the number of jobs (lost) and economic growth stunted by these new policies."

On Thursday, the Federal government awarded a multi-billion dollar contract to Lockheed-Martin to build equipment to be used for space use. California companies bid on the project, but a Georgia firm received the bid. Did Lockheed get the contract because labor costs are less in Georgia, because regulations are higher in California, were the California firms disadvantaged because of the reckless financial spending and impending service cuts or tax increases because of out of control deficit (The Legislative Analyst sees continued deficits for several years) or the massive bonded indebtedness California political leaders are promoting?

This, even before the passage of, and soon to be signed, AB 32. What are the real costs of this measure? The Governors office is proud to say that if we have an economic emergency due to this bill, the Governor can stop the effectiveness of the bill. True, but the governor can only postpone it for one year. After the year is up, the Guv no longer has a say in the matter.

Here are a couple of articles on the subject:

Global Warming Plan Could Be Costly

California's ambitious plan to curb global warming will be costly to businesses and consumers, experts said Thursday, and its effect on the climate could be negligible unless other states and nations follow. Although it is too early to know what will happen over the next two decades, the state's basic industries, including utilities, oil refineries and steel mills, can expect to make major changes in how they do business. And consumers may face higher bills for electricity, gasoline and other goods that use energy.

Is Green Good Or Bad For States Economy?

Take your pick: Will California's drive to cut greenhouse gases reshape the state's industries, weaning businesses away from fossil fuels and setting the stage for the state's next golden age? Or will it drive away businesses, ship jobs to Nevada and kill the California economy? With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger poised to sign into law a hard-fought agreement over global warming, economists and business groups remain sharply divided over the legislation's likely effects.

The Chronicle article shows the problem of the unknown, "Part of the disagreement about effects comes from simple uncertainty. The legislation's language is purposely vague, stating a broad goal but leaving most details undecided. The exact limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases have not been set. Nor have the businesses, factories or facilities that would be covered."

It will not be the legislature, but unelected commissions and the courts that will decide the fate of businesses in California..and it will take years. If you were a major, or minor corporation, would you invest in such an uncertain environment? If you were [and you did], don't be surprised if your Board of Directors fired you.

But the Sacramento Bee, in a September 1, 2006 editorial Cool move, California leads on fighting global warming, told the whole story about who the winner is in this battle.

Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have taken a monumental step in the fight against global warming with the passage of Assembly Bill 32. Once again, California is leading, and much of the world is cheering.

Of course much of the world is cheering! California, the world's seventh largest economy just made it's future uncertain and costly.

From the Bill:

PART 7. Miscellaneous Provisions

38590.

If the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 43018.5 do not remain in effect, the state board shall implement alternative regulations to control mobile sources of greenhouse gas emissions to achieve equivalent or greater reductions.
(In real people's language that means an eleven member, unelected, board can restrict the number of "bad" vehicles sold in the State)


Who will advise them? You will love this, also from Part 7 of the Bill:

38591.

(a) The state board, by July 1, 2007, shall convene an environmental justice advisory committee, of at least three members, to advise it in developing the scoping plan pursuant to Section 38561 and any other pertinent matter in implementing this division. The advisory committee shall be comprised of representatives from communities in the state with the most significant exposure to air pollution, including, but not limited to, communities with minority populations or low-income populations, or both.


(b) The state board shall appoint the advisory committee members from nominations received from environmental justice organizations and community groups.


Can anyone reading this define for me an "environmental justice organization"?

You might ask, how much is this going to cost? To start with, as noted above, $7.9 billion. Then, besides that, answer is simple--whatever the eleven member unelected Air Resource Board (ARB) wants to charge! Here is the language from the Bill:

38597.

"The state board may adopt by regulation, after a public workshop, a schedule of fees to be paid by the sources of greenhouse gas emissions regulated pursuant to this division, consistent with Section 57001. The revenues collected pursuant to this section, shall be deposited into the Air Pollution Control Fund and are available upon appropriation, by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying out this division."


Remember, cars are an alleged source of greenhouse gases. That means the ARB could put a fee on your 2005 Honda if it doesn't use the "correct" fuel" How large will that fee be, anything they want. Again, section 38597 can be used to close down any business, just put a high enough fee on it. It can be used to force you into a bus, by raising the fee on your car so high you can't afford it. Don't believe me, think of all the other "I can't believe government can get away with it" laws". Even if they can't, that is an "interpretation" of the law, who will sue to save your car?

On February 20, 2006 I wrote about the Governors Climate Action Team. They were recommending the same basic ideas as AB 32. and in their report the cost of retro-fitting California business was $7.9 billion. The Governor came out against that, at the time. Yet, there is no reason to believe that the current cost of retrofitting will be any less today, seven months later, for California business. Now, he favors that tax on California business.

So, when the Governor signs AB 32, he will have signed a tax increase, the minimum increase being $7.9 billion. Since business only passes on mandated costs to the consumer, businesses will either leave the state, raise the cost of goods and services or cut the number of employees. None of these are good for California families or businesses (unless you own a U-Haul franchise or Moving company).

When Social Security was debated they decided not to put a limit on the tax in the law. The reasoning was because no one would be stupid enough to try to go beyond the 1%--so when they say they won't do that, remember all the times government created silly and harmful regulations, taxes and fees!

Now, after reading just this minor analysis of the bill, would any responsible business person want to do business in California. Would they trust the investment of tens of millions of dollars to the vagaries of a "ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATION"? Would you?

What do you think Dr. Milton Friedman thinks of this?

What do you think of it?

Would you invest in California?

If so, why?

Write your thoughts directly on the blog site and let others see what you believe. -- Steve Frank

Friday, September 01, 2006

Redefining the grip of the IRS

A federal appeals court ruling this week offers a rare opportunity to loosen the stranglehold the IRS has on our income. In its ruling, the court agreed with a woman who argued that a settlement she received for emotional distress should be considered tax exempt because it was not income as defined in the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Traditionally, insurance claims and awards for physical injury have been tax exempt because they do not add to a person’s income—they simply make a person whole after a loss.

This is important because, for the reams upon reams of paperwork that make up the tax code, there is no formal definition of income. The term has been defined differently at different times, and the IRS in practice believes that all income can be taxed. With this ruling, the appeals court has stated that there is a constitutional limit to what can be taxed. If taken to its logical conclusion, the case can be made that interest cannot be taxed, because as some economists state, interest is merely compensation for loss of not being able to enjoy a portion of money immediately.

The IRS and the federal government are sure to fight this one as hard as they can, but it opens up a debate that is long overdue.

PatriotPost.US

Thursday, August 31, 2006

1,000 Streisand tickets invalidated by Ticketmaster

Posted: August 29, 2006
NEW YORK (CelebrityAccess MediaWire) -- Ticketmaster teamed up with promoter Michael Cohl and Barbra Streisand’s manager Martin Erlichman to warn fans that more than 1,000 tickets purchased for the tour using stolen credit card information have been invalidated.

Hmmm...

Letter from a friend

No, now that I know my grandson is joining the Marines, I don't feel any different about the war. I have no doubt at this juncture that if we pull out of Iraq that Israel will be overwhelmed and destroyed by the Islamofascists surrounding them. I also believe we owe the people in Iraq support until they either stand on their own or join the terrorists against us in mass numbers. I can't forget the huge number of Iraqi people that risked their very lives to vote for a democracy. I believe in Bush's position and his premise that people want to be free. I believe there are many people who are terrorized into not speaking out about their desire for freedom but it is still there. These are the people that need our support most desperately.


It takes me a long time generally to adopt a stance on a particular issue. I have to consider all the information available before coming to my own conclusion. I am not one to faint at bad turns. I just remember how close we came to losing World War II and how many mistakes, miscalculations, bad decisions and out-right stupidity in underestimating the enemy occurred at that time. I also remember those Americans that were defeatists then, just as I know in every war there are those who are pessimists, gutless, selfish to maintain their own status quo, etc. I think about God's instructions to his people to leave those negative people at home during a time of war because they badly affect everyone else’s morale. I am not a person tossed to and fro by every wind that blows. If we allow Israel to be defeated, we too will eventually be defeated. It must not happen.


There is the factor that my grandson may die. He and I have talked about why he has chosen to join the military. He understands the issues and what is at stake. He understands death. He knows that war is not glorious and that many soldiers survive maimed for life. He insists this is something he must do. I respect his decision. My father made the same decision during World War II at the age of 19. My mother's father joined up to fight in World War I as did all of my grandmother's brothers and cousins. Many Americans have fought and died for our country and for those in other countries wanting to be free. Each person must take their own stand and make their own decisions.


I hate war. It is simply horrible. So naturally, I want to see those who MAKE war against others for the purpose of ruling over them, stealing their land, wealth, etc., stopped. If we don't do it, who will?


The Democrats of today and anti-war folks are self-defeating pessimists. They are yellow-bellied wimps that can't stand up against bullies. They can’t tell the difference between the bullies and their victims. They are treasonous, narcissist, selfish people. They can't discern right from wrong and have no allegiance to anything but themselves. Guess that about says it all for me.


Nothing I know of at this point is going to make me change my position. The only fear I have is that the Democrats gain the presidency and the legislature. They already control most of the educational, media and judicial systems and those entities are really screwed up. Honor, honesty and justice are words they don’t seem to care about.


Love ya,


Judie

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Cokie Roberts stuns Stephanopoulos

“[O]n ‘This Week’ recently, former co-host (and daughter of a former Democratic congressman) Cokie Roberts stunned host George Stephanopoulos when she said before the Connecticut primary that it would be a ‘disaster for the Democratic Party’ if Lamont defeated Lieberman.

‘Pushing the party to the left,’ Roberts said, ‘is pushing the party to the position from which it traditionally loses.’


The American people may not be happy with events in Iraq. But they do know, especially after events in Lebanon and the foiled British bomb plot, that we’re in a war in which failure is not an option and for which repeating ‘Bush lied’ is not a strategy.

Americans will not put in power a party that accepts the proposition that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, that thinks Wal-Mart is a plague on the poor and that wants to repeal the job-creating, economy-boosting and deficit-cutting Bush tax cuts.

They will not put in power a party that thinks death is a taxable event and that success should be punished.

They will not pass the reins to a party that denies us access to energy reserves offshore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and which thinks energy independence means building windmills and hugging caribou.

The Democrats think this year will be their 1994. As voters read the morning papers on their way to vote in November, and decide who should navigate these unsettled waters, the Democrats may well wake up the next day to find the Republicans still in power and Lieberman getting a congratulatory phone call from President Bush.” —Investor’s Business Daily

What the Founding Fathers Gave, Arnold Takes Away

TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2006
Flash Report

*OMG - Governor signs Kuehl bill that assaults the rights of religious and private institutions to maintain moral standards*

We've asked Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute to give more information to FR readers on this horrific bill signed into law by the Governor (article below). He signed this bill into law after it was voted down BY EVERY REPUBLICAN in the Assembly. The Governor that many FR readers voted for in the recall would not have signed this. Where did he go?

*************************************************************************************
Over 200 years ago our Founding Fathers changed history when they, with the stroke of their pens, declared that the United States would not only recognize, but protect citizens’ freedoms of religion and speech.

Yesterday, with the stroke of his pen, Governor Schwarzenegger declared that such freedoms are subject to the approval of a politically correct government. By signing SB 1441 (Kuehl-D) into law, the Governor decided that certain Constitutional freedoms will not be protected in the state of California.

SB 1441 adds sexual orientation (actual or perceived) and gender identity (actual or perceived) to the list of protected classes under California law prohibiting discrimination. According to the State Senate’s legislative analysis, “This clarification would greatly expand the effect this bill would have on programs and services provided or paid for by the state or a state agency.”

To enforce these new protections, the state may withhold funding from any organization that “discriminates” against homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, or anyone’s gender (actual or perceived). Now, under California law, simply living out your faith is considered discriminatory.

As applied, this legislation would prevent parochial schools, private schools, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, and many other religious universities, from receiving student financial assistance if they also maintain a student code of conduct preventing behavior deemed immoral by their religious beliefs.

In order to receive a CalGrant for your child’s education, you may no longer send your child to a religious school. This will put an unbelievable strain on California families as they will be forced to choose between their deeply-held religious beliefs and affording a college education for their children. If legislators truly desire diversity in California, religious institutions should receive the same equal protections sought by radical homosexual activists. Instead, with the signing of SB 1441, religious rights are secondary to the special rights created by this new law.

Instead of using their resources to educate future leaders, these schools will now be forced to defend themselves in discrimination lawsuits brought by the male teacher who perceives himself as female and wears a dress to school.

For those who still don’t believe that there is a radical homosexual agenda, keep in mind that the characteristics added to the protected list are designed to target people of faith alone. After all, who will be most directly affected by this legislation? Private schools, religious institutions, and faith-based businesses.

According to the State Senate’s legislative analysis, “the impact of this bill is both wide-ranging and deep.” Government services affected by this new law include police and fire protection, recreational programs, social services, health care clinics, and, of course, public schools.

This bill is yet another step towards discriminating against citizens with moral and religious principles who desire to express their beliefs and educate their children according to those beliefs. SB 1441 will inevitably result in reverse discrimination where individuals, organizations and businesses are discriminated against because of their bona fide religious convictions.

In creating special rights for a few, Arnold denies fundamental rights for the rest of us.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

The world's longest-running experiment

The pitch drop test is recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the longest-running laboratory experiment, but there are plenty of other, even lengthier scientific enterprises still on the go around the world:

Read on
Plame Out

The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington.


Ya gotta read this!

(Maybe, finally, the Bush-haters will SHUT UP!)

The opposite of the Right is Wrong

I believe the Left has been wrong on virtually every great moral issue in the last 30 years.

  • During that period, it was wrong on the Cold War—it devoted far more energy to fighting anti-communism than to fighting communism.


  • It was wrong for attacking Israel for its destruction of Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor.


  • It was wrong on welfare.


  • It was wrong in its demanding less morally and intellectually from black Americans than from all other Americans.


  • It was wrong in advocating bilingual education for children of immigrants.


  • It was wrong in generally holding American society rather than violent criminals responsible for violent crime.


  • It was wrong in imposing its view on abortion on America through the courts rather than through the democratic process.


  • It was wrong in identifying 'flag waving' with fascism.


  • It was wrong in supporting the teachers' unions rather than students and educational reform.


  • It was wrong in allying itself with trial lawyers and blocking tort reform.


  • It was wrong in blocking the military from recruiting on campuses and teaching a generation of young Americans that 'war is not the answer' when war is at times the one moral answer.


In just about every instance, one could say that the Left was foolish, the Left was naive, the Left was wrong, even that the Left was dangerous. —Dennis Prager

Monday, August 28, 2006

156 years ago

Do you know what happened this week back in 1850 in California 156 years ago?

  • California became a state.


  • The State had no electricity.


  • The State had no money.


  • Almost everyone spoke Spanish.


  • There were gunfights in the streets.


So basically it was just like California is today except the women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.

Counterterrorism Blog

Welcome to the Counterterrorism Blog, a unique, multi-expert blog dedicated to providing a one-stop gateway to the counterterrorism community. To our knowledge, there has been no such blog on the internet. We envision the blog’s audience to be the policymakers in Congress and the Executive Branch, as well as serious students elsewhere, who want to visit a single site to access (1) overnight and breaking news, with realtime intel and commentary by operational experts ("Contributing Experts"); (2) discussions of long-term trends in counterterrorism; (3) summaries of and discussions about US and international law; and (4) a calendar of upcoming events, hearings, and seminars featuring the Contributing Experts. We want to highlight those experts who are or have been deeply involved in counterterrorism cases, and thus enable them to expand their opportunities to bring their expertise to the attention of policymakers.

The site is intended to provide fresh information and various perspectives (sometimes opposing), as presented by the Contributing Experts and in the news articles, columns, and website links posted on the blog. Contributing Experts are responsible only for the content of their posts and links. The editor is responsible for sidebar content and design.

The Founder and Co-Editor, Andrew Cochran, is Vice President of GAGE, a business consulting and government affairs firm headquartered in Washington, DC. GAGE's marketing and business development unit engages in securing a variety of funding, new business, and regulatory approvals for clients. Mr. Cochran advises clients on terrorism and homeland security, corporate governance, and appropriations issues. He also serves as a special adviser to the Congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force and is Co-Chairman of the Advisory Board of CatholicMil.Org, which serves Catholics serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, their families, and Catholic chaplains. He has appeared in numerous media outlets, including MSNBC, the Fox News Channel, BBC Radio, Congressional Quarterly, and Roll Call to discuss terrorism issues and events. Mr. Cochran previously served as Senior VP of Public Policy Partners LLC from January 2004 until that firm merged with GAGE LLC in September 2005.

From 2001 through 2003, Mr. Cochran was senior oversight counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, chaired by Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH). He led investigations into terrorism issues and into the corporate accounting scandals, including the first Congressional hearings on Enron, Global Crossing, and WorldCom. He was the lead counsel for the committee's oversight of federal money laundering and anti-terrorist financing issues and the international efforts to seize and repatriate Saddam Hussein’s hidden assets. Many of the Contributing Experts served as witnesses or informally advised the committee on many of the major terrorism issues. He also served in the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, was an attorney in private practice, and was a CPA in Ohio prior to his government service.

Bill Roggio is the co-Chairman of the Counterterrorism Foundation and Co-Editor of the Counterterrorism Blog. He served as a signalman and infantryman in the U.S. Army and the New Jersey National Guard from 1991 to 1997. He has been tracking the daily progress of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. During the fall of 2005, Mr. Roggio embedded with the U.S. Marines and U.S. Army in Iraq's Anbar province and witnessed the parliamentary election in the heart of the Sunni Triangle. His reporting, analysis and predictions of military operations in Iraq, the development of the Iraqi Army and the splits between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency at "The Fourth Rail" have been quoted by numerous media outlets and elicited positive reaction from U.S. armed forces personnel and policymakers. Mr. Roggio embedded with the Canadian Army in Kandahar province in May - June of 2006.

Counterterrorism Blog started in January, 2005.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

eBay prohibits textbooks for homeschool teachers

Lumps them with illegal drugs, bootleg recordings,
prompting avalanche of complaints from customers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 27, 2006 - 1:00 a.m. Eastern - © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


A new policy by Internet trading behemoth eBay that bans homeschool teachers' texts from its auctions is prompting a tirade of complaints from the company's faithful customers.


Read more