Thursday - March 22, 2007

German Judge:  Okay to Beat Your Wife if You are Muslim

 Or the Death of the West

A German judge has ruled that the Koran allows a husband to beat his wife.  The elites in Europe will destroy Western civilization.  The New York Times reports:

A German judge has stirred a storm of protest here by citing the Koran in turning down a German Muslim woman’s request for a fast-track divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

In a remarkable ruling that underlines the tension between Muslim customs and European laws, the judge, Christa Datz-Winter, said that the couple came from a Moroccan cultural milieu, in which she said it was common for husbands to beat their wives. The Koran, she wrote, sanctions such physical abuse.

News of the ruling brought swift and sharp condemnation from politicians, legal experts, and Muslim leaders in Germany, many of whom said they were confounded that a German judge would put 7th-century Islamic religious teaching ahead of modern German law in deciding a case involving domestic violence.

The woman’s lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, said she decided to publicize the ruling, which was issued in January, after the court refused her request for a new judge. On Wednesday, the court in Frankfurt abruptly removed Judge Datz-Winter from the case, saying it could not justify her reasoning.

The modern leftist, whether in Europe or the U.S., feels nothing but disdain for Western culture.  And while they undermine a culture that has brought democracy to the world, they seem to have a morbid attraction to movements that embody the worst characteristics of humanity.  First the left flirted with communism and now Islamism.

Thursday - March 22, 2007

Even in Canada, the Liberals Love the Enemy

Or the Canadian Prime Minister Has Had Enough 

Canadian liberals are just like our liberals.  Their care for the well-being of our enemies is greater than their fear of our enemies.  No nation can long endure when a large percentage of its population has lost its love for its country.  

Just like these two American liberals we mentioned last week, it seems the Liberal Party in Canada is more interested in the handling of Taliban captives than actually defeating the Taliban militarily.  Luckily, Canada has a level headed Prime Minister who finally had enough of this dangerous silliness last week:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper went into attack mode in the House of Commons on Wednesday, accusing the Liberals of caring more about Taliban prisoners than Canadian troops.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper leaped to the defence of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor during question period in the House of Commons on Wednesday.Prime Minister Stephen Harper leaped to the defence of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor during question period in the House of Commons on Wednesday. 

The attack came during Question Period, as the Liberals called for the resignation of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor over the erroneous information he provided to the government two weeks ago.

O'Connor incorrectly told the House of Commons that the Red Cross would keep Canada informed about the condition of prisoners handed over to Afghan officials by Canadian soldiers. On Monday, O'Connor apologized, admitting that the Red Cross has no obligation to report to Canada and must only keep Afghanistan informed.

On Wednesday, a visibly flustered and red-faced O'Connor repeated his apology. Moments later, Harper swooped in to his defence.

"I can understand the passion that the leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for the Taliban prisoners," Harper said. "I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers."

His comments were quickly followed by boos and jeers from Liberals in the House. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said he was shocked by Harper's suggestion and demanded an apology.

Harper continued with his barrage.

"I would like to see more support in the House of Commons from all sides for Canadian men and women in uniform," he said. "I think Canadians expect that from parliamentarians in every party. They have not been getting it, and they deserve it.

 

Way to let them have it, Mr. Harper.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Amboy Times, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Thursday - March 22, 2007

One-Third of Population Illiterate in D.C.

 Or Bad Schools, Rotten Immigration Policy

While most of the blogs have pounced on this story, few have noted the role immigration has played in the high rate of illiteracy in the District of Columbia.

About one-third of the people living in the national's capital are functionally illiterate, compared with about one-fifth nationally, according to a report on the District of Columbia.

Adults are considered functionally illiterate if they have trouble doing such things as comprehending bus schedules, reading maps and filling out job applications.

The study by the State Education Agency, a quasi-governmental office created by the U.S. Department of Education to distribute federal funds for literacy services, was ordered by Mayor Anthony A. Williams in 2003 as part of his four-year, $4 million adult literacy initiative.

The growing number of Hispanic and Ethiopian immigrants who aren't proficient in English contributed to the city's high functional illiteracy level, which translated to 170,000 people, said Connie Spinner, director of the State Education Agency. The report says the district's functional illiteracy rate is 36 percent and the nation's 21 percent.

Adults age 65 and older had the lowest literacy score of any group, the report found.

The District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce, which contributed to the report, said the city lost up to $107 million in taxes annually between 2000 and 2005 because of a lack of qualified job applicants. 

Friday - March 16, 2007

Britain Barely Renews its Nuclear Arsenal

Or What Happens When a People Will Not Defend Themselves?

America, over that last few months, has been asking, why doesn't the left want to defend their own country?  Why does the left oppose the use of military force even in the face of a minimal enemy?  There is a core constituency of the Democratic party that seemingly cannot imagine that force is sometimes necessary in a very hostile world.  To see where this far left self-absorption, this naiveté, this narcissism, and this inability to discern that there are real threats to national security can lead, we need look no further than our ally, Great Britain.

Just this week, Tony Blair brought before Parliament, a measure to modernize Britain's nuclear arsenal.  The Labour Party, which has a 67 seat majority in Parliament, had 85 members revolt and as a result, Blair had to depend upon the Conservative Party for the measure to pass. 

Listen to some of the leftists who voted against upgrading Britain's nuclear deterrent:

 "We must lead the world in campaigning for the eradication of the nuclear threat and we must lead by example," said Nigel Griffiths, one of four Labour politicians who quit their junior government posts this week to vote against the plan.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rightlinx, Adam's Blog, Right Voices, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Friday - March 16, 2007

Barney Frank Wants to Make Online Gambling Legal, Again

Or A Bad Idea, Sort of Like Running A Prostitution Ring From Your Office

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat, wants to make internet gambling legal again.  As one who wholeheartedly believes that government has the duty to promote virtue and morality, this is simply a bad idea.  Gambling ruins too many lives to allow internet gambling to become legal again.

It is bad enough that states have legalized casino gambling, where millions of people have become addicted to this vile habit every year, but Frank now wants to legalize internet gambling, making it easier for people to become hooked to this addictive pastime.  Imagine, you can gamble from your home using your Master Card.  Playing from your computer, it will seem like a video game until the bill comes due.  In this instance, government needs to protect people from their worst demons and vices.

Rep. Barney Frank said on Thursday he will give details in the coming weeks on possible legislation to repeal a ban imposed last year on online gambling.

In an interview, the chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee said he is in no hurry and plans to consult with others on the matter.

"I'm not ready to give you more details, but I will be by next week or so. We'll talk more about it later. There's no urgency on it," he said.

Internet gambling in the United States was effectively banned last October when President George W. Bush signed legislation outlawing gaming financial transactions.

A spokesman for the Massachusetts Democrat said on Wednesday Frank was considering legislation to repeal the ban but had not drafted a bill and had no timetable for action.

 

  Trackposted to Blue Star Chronicles, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Jo's Cafe, basil's blog, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags Barney Frank Gambling

Friday - March 16, 2007

More "thuggery" in Ecuador

Or Ecuador Slides Toward Authoritarian Rule 

President Rafael Correa's leftist suporters are intimidating the opposition.  Soon Ecuador will become like Venezuela, a defacto one party, socialist state.

Unidentified gunmen on motorcycles shot at a crowd of supporters of fired Ecuadorean lawmakers, injuring two people on Tuesday and escalating violence in a feud between Congress and the president, witnesses said on Tuesday.

It was not immediately clear how seriously the two had been hurt in the politically unstable Andean nation. The shots were fired outside a hotel only hours after fired lawmakers scuffled with police and forced their way into Congress.

"A group of unknown assailants on motorcycles shot at our supporters outside. There are two people hurt," said opposition lawmaker Clemente Vasquez who was inside the hotel. Witnesses and legislators said no lawmaker had been hurt.

Fifty-seven lawmakers have refused to accept an electoral court decision to fire them last week. They had tried to reverse a ruling that would allow the popular President Rafael Correa to hold a referendum that would weaken Congressional powers.

Monday - March 12, 2007

Shadow Wolves Put on Bin Laden's Trail

Or 'Bout Time 

Because of the Republican defeat in November, President Bush was rudely awakened out of his slumber in terms of policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Beginning with the appointment of Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, the U.S. has started to do the right things, such as the promotion of Petraeus, the additional troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and now the deployment of Native American trackers to hunt down Bin Laden.

An elite group of Native American trackers is joining the hunt for terrorists crossing Afghanistan's borders.

The unit, the Shadow Wolves, was recruited from several tribes, including the Navajo, Sioux, Lakota and Apache. It is being sent to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to pass on ancestral sign-reading skills to local border units.

In recent years, members of the Shadow Wolves have mainly tracked smugglers along the US border with Mexico.

But the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan and the US military's failure to hunt down Osama bin Laden - still at large on his 50th birthday on Saturday - has prompted the Pentagon to requisition them.

US Defence Secretary Robert M.Gates said last month: "If I were Osama bin Laden, I'd keep looking over my shoulder."

The Pentagon has been alarmed at the ease with which Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters have been slipping in and out of Afghanistan. Defence officials are convinced their movements can be curtailed by the Shadow Wolves.

The unit has earned international respect for its tracking skills in the Arizona desert. It was founded in the early 1970s to curb the flow of marijuana into the US from Mexico and has since tracked people-smugglers across hundreds of square kilometres of the Tohono O'odham tribal reservation, southwest of Tucson.

What a difference one man can make in regards to effective policy.  One can definitely see Gate's hand in the new hard nosed, common sense policies that are being played in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  If the high tech route doesn't work, Gates is willing to try the low tech approach.  His flexibility compared to Rumsfeld's rigidity definitely makes him the right man at the right time in history.  If only the Democrats would take pride in the fact that their victory in November forced Bush to reexamine and rework his war strategies.

Trackposted to Wake Up America, Conservative Cat, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, and DragonLady's World, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Friday - March 09, 2007

Skynet Launched

Or Time to Move to Mexico 

Terminator fans might be amused by this story.  Britain will be launching a new satellite called "Skynet" in the near future.  Can the end of civilization be far behind?

The British military is set to take one of its most significant steps into the digital age with the launch of the first Skynet 5 satellite.

The spacecraft will deliver secure, high-bandwidth communications for UK and "friendly" forces across the globe.

It is part of a multi-billion-pound project that will allow the Army, Royal Navy and RAF to pass much more data, faster between command centres.

The Skynet 5A platform lifts off from Kourou, French Guiana, on Saturday.

It will fly atop an Ariane 5-ECA launcher that is scheduled to leave Earth at 1925 local time (2225 GMT).

A second and third spacecraft will be added at a later date to complete the constellation.

Every piece of satellite bandwidth is valuable and the military is always hungry for more

Bill Sweetman, Jane's Information Group

"It's a groundbreaking military satellite system," explained Patrick Wood, who has led the development of the spacecraft for manufacturer EADS Astrium.

"It's going to provide five times the amount of capacity that the previous system provided, and allow the military to do things they just haven't been able to do in the past," he told BBC News. 

Wednesday - March 07, 2007

Inflammatory Things Said by the Left

Or Maybe They Really Think Like That.... 

Patterico generated a list of "bad" things said by the left.  Does anyone remember the left censoring these people like the right has condemned Coulter?  Here is Patterico's list of leftist bigotry and anti-Americanism that goes unchallenged in liberal circles:

A certain intellectual fraud who goes by the name of Glenn Greenwald ( as well as a few other names) recently said that leftist hate speech is not uttered by prominent leftist figures, but rather only by anonymous blog comments and e-mailers:

[I]t is undeniably true that there are people of every ideological stripe who express profane and reprehensible sentiments. The difference is that right-wing authors, talk radio hosts and bloggers — read and listened to by millions of people — traffic in such sentiments regularly . . . . But to find such sentiments outside of right-wing circles, one must go where right-wing bloggers went today — digging into anonymous blog comments (or e-mails allegedly received). That difference is so obvious — and so meaningful — that it all ought to go without saying.

This post puts the lie to Greenwald’s ridiculous assertion.

Below I have listed more than 20 examples of hate speech by prominent leftist figures, such as politicians, journalists writing for major newspapers or radio networks, television and movie industry personalities, and the like.

I have restricted the examples to true hate speech, such as calling for (or exulting over) the beating and/or deaths of conservatives, or naked racism and anti-Semitism. I have deliberately excluded speech that simply brands conservatives as Nazis or fascists. Such speech is hateful, but I want to leave minimum room for leftists to quibble with the list.

Brace yourself for the leftist hate:

• National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg:

  [I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.

• USA Today syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux, on Clarence Thomas:

  I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.

• Washington Post syndicated columnist Richard Cohen:

  For hypocrisy, for sheer gall, [Newt] Gingrich should be hanged.

• Comedian and (former) talk show host Craig Kilborn [ Caption under footage of George W. Bush]:

  Snipers Wanted

• Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club:

  And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.

• Actor Alec Baldwin on Conan O’Brien:

  [I]f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.

• Comedian Chris Rock:

  If President Clinton would pardon me I would whip Starr’s ass right now. I will get a crew from Brooklyn and we will stomp him like, like, we’re Savion Glover. We’ll stomp him like it’s bringing da noise.

• Director Spike Lee on Charlton Heston :

  Shoot him with a .44 caliber Bulldog.

• James Carville on Ken Starr:

  He’s one more mistake away from not having any kneecaps.

• Syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn:

  There is a sound case to be made for dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami. The move would be applauded heartily by most Americans. Alas, Operation Good Riddance would require the sort of mature political courage sadly lacking in Washington, D.C., these days.

• Columnist, author, media pundit, journalist, and newspaper editor Dan Savage:

  My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. I’ll go to Bauer’s campaign office and cough on everything. Phones and pens. Staplers and staffers. I even hatch a plan to infect the candidate himself; I’ll keep a pen in my mouth until Bauer drops by his offices to rally the troops. And when he does, I’ll approach him and ask for his autograph, handing him the pen from my flu-virus-incubating mouth.

  That column also appeared on Salon.com. It was a little more than hate “speech” — the guy actually did try to give Gary Bauer the flu.

It’s racism you want?

• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd:

  There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word.

• Democrat presidential candidate Jesse Jackson on Jews:

  Hymies

  and on New York City:

  Hymietown

• During his presidential campaign, Jesse Jackson was linked with (and refused to denounce) Louis Farrakhan, who has at times been linked with the Congressional Black Caucus, which also supported his Million Man March. Farrakhan is a man of the left who has been a harsh critic of President Bush.
  • Here’s Farrakhan on Jews:

    Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn’t offer anything back to our community.

  • Farrakhan on Pope John Paul II:

    no good cracker

  • Farrakhan on white people:

    White people are potential humans - they haven’t evolved yet.

  • And again :

    Murder and lying comes easy for white people.

Does it count as “hate” speech if you say you “hate” Republicans?

• Howard Dean:

  I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for . . .

Back to assassination wishes:

• British pundit Charlie Brooker, during the presidency of George W. Bush:

  John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?

Actual elected officials have engaged in hate speech:

• Democrat Representative Pete Stark, speaking to a Republican:

  You think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me, I dare you. You little fruitcake.

Tuesday - March 06, 2007

The Chinese Boost Defense Spending

 Or How America's Dependence on Cheap Chinese Goods Isn't Helping

China has boosted its defense spending for 2007 by nearly 18%.  China is second to the United States in year defense outlays.  The Reuter's article makes an important point, in that the real amount of Chinese defense outlays is probably double its official number.

China's will boost defense spending by 17.8 percent in 2007, accelerating the emerging power's string of annual double-digit rises in money for a modern military that reflects its economic strength.

Jiang Enzhu, spokesman for the National People's Congress, said on Sunday that the planned budget for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) this year was 350.92 billion yuan, or about $44.94 billion, an increase of 52.99 billion yuan on 2006.

China's rising military spending since the 1990s followed many years of slimmed budgets and would not threaten other countries, Jiang said.

"In recent years, China has steadily increased defense spending based on its economic development," Jiang told a news briefing. "China has neither the wherewithal nor the intention to enter into an arms race with any country, and China won't constitute a threat to any country."

But his assurances appeared unlikely to comfort Washington, which has repeatedly criticized China's military spending as opaque, nor neighboring powers India and Japan, which have been lifting their own defense spending.

Vice President Dick Cheney said on a recent visit to Asia that China's anti-satellite test and military buildup were "not consistent with Beijing's stated goal of a peaceful rise".

The PLA's 17.8 percent rise is the biggest recorded in the past decade, and was announced two months after China test-fired an anti-satellite missile, drawing claims of military brashness from Washington and regional capitals.

Jiang said China's defense outlay was dwarfed by the Pentagon's budget.

The Bush administration has requested $484.1 billion for the Defense Department in the next fiscal year starting from October 2007. That figure does not cover military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Compared to other countries, especially major powers, China's defense spending is relatively low, whether measured in absolute terms, proportion of gross national product, or proportion of fiscal outlays," Jiang said.

China's 2007 increase comes after a 14.7 percent increase in China's defense spending in 2006, when the official defense outlay reached 283.8 billion yuan ($36.6 billion).

But international experts have estimated that China's true military spending may be three times or more the official figure, with much money involving weapons development and purchases, secret programs and businesses, and paramilitary forces not shown in the public books.

If China, which according to the CIA, spends 4.3% of its GDP on defense, that will be in the neighborhood of $90 billion.  The U.S. is in a new arms race with a totalitarian enemy.  Too bad our allies, which have similar gross domestic product numbers, spend only one half the amount on their defenses, leaving the United States to once again shoulder the burden.

Tuesday - March 06, 2007

What is going on in Russia?

Or the Russian Bear Seems Hungry 

There were two new incidents in Russia this past week.  First, a reporter critical of Putin, jumped from his fifth flow window:

A journalist who plunged to his death from his apartment building window faced threats while reporting on a highly sensitive story that Russia planned to sell sophisticated missiles to Syria and Iran, his newspaper reported Tuesday.

Ivan Safronov, a military affairs writer for the daily Kommersant, died Friday after plunging from a stairwell window between the fourth and fifth stories.

Kommersant reported Tuesday that Safronov had told his editors he was working on a story about Russian plans to sell weapons to Iran and Syria via Belarus.

The deals, if concluded, could upset the balance of power in the Middle East and strain Russia's relations with Israel and the United States, which have strongly objected to earlier Russian weapons sales to the two countries.

Kommersant reported that Safronov, 51, had recently told colleagues he was warned he would face a criminal investigation for possibly releasing state secrets if he reported allegations that Russia had struck a deal to supply Iskander missiles to Syria.

"Ivan Safronov said he was not going to write about it for a while because he was warned that it would create a huge international scandal and the FSB (Federal Security Service) would launch a criminal case on charges of breaching state secrets," the newspaper said.

Safronov did not say where the warning came from, according to Kommersant, but he had repeatedly been questioned by the FSB — the KGB's main successor agency — which suspected him of divulging state secrets.

The second incident involved two American visiting Moscow who were poisoned by thallium:

Two American women were hospitalized for treatment of thallium poisoning, the Interfax news agency said Tuesday, citing the Russian consumer watchdog agency Rospotrebnadzor.

The women became ill Feb. 24 and were being treated at Moscow's Sklifosovsky clinic, the city's top emergency medicine hospital, the report said.

Russian media reports said the women -- identified as Maria Kovalensky and her daughter, Yana -- had come to Moscow for a relative's wedding and were staying in a Moscow hotel when they became ill.

Rospotrebnadzor's Moscow office reported that the women were in ''moderately serious'' condition, Interfax said.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing is Russia's slow, but certain slide back to an authoritarian, if not totalitarian state.

Tuesday - March 06, 2007

On Ann Coulter

Or Late to the Party 

What should the right do about Ann Coulter?  Her remarks at CPAC last week, which are highlighted here, were out of bounds.

When she said, right after 9-11, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", the left about had a unanimous hissy fit.  But that is because, in general, the only outrage the left can muster is against the United States.  They never can seem to find any hatred towards our enemies.

Last year she raised the hackles of the left again, when she said, "I think our motto should be, post-9-11: raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."  Once again, the left is outraged, because they direct their hatred for Bush the Nazi or the American soldier as baby killer.  Heaven forbid the left calls our enemies a bad name or two.

Unfortunately, this year, Ann crossed the line of good taste.  I know what she was trying to say, but she said it poorly.  This was her John Kerry moment.  She choose the wrong words.  What she said wasn't funny, witty, or biting.  Additionally, she was a guest at CPAC, and she decided to embarrass her hosts.

What to do with Ann Coulter?  Machiavelli wrote:

And the reason for this is, that no well-ordered republic should ever cancel the crimes of its citizens by their merits; but having established rewards for good actions and penalties for evil ones, and having rewarded a citizen for good conduct who afterwards commits a wrong, he should be chastised for that without regard to his previous merits.

Ann needs to apologize for her comments.  If she won't do it on her own, then her friends and colleagues need to impress upon her the need for her to apologize.  And if she won't apologize, then she needs to be marginalized until she realizes her mistake.

Why should she apologize?  Because the right is not like the left.  We hold our own to account.  For instance, has the left chastised  Bill Maher for saying that it was too bad Cheney wasn't killed by the suicide bomber in Afghanistan?  Or did the Democrats, opponents of the "culture of corruption" force, William Jefferson, who had $90,000 in bribes in his freezer to resign?  No, New Orleans reelected him and Speaker Pelosi gave him a committee on Homeland Security.  I could fill twenty pages on things the left has said that should cause moral outrage that the left has let pass.  But that is part of the defining difference between the right and left.  We don't let this things pass.

Allowing Ann to skate on this one would make us just the like left.  Do you want a Cindy Sheehan hanging around your movement?

Thursday - March 01, 2007

Caught a Big One in Paksitan

Or Pakistan Presents a Peace Offering 

It seems Pakistan had a present all wrapped up for Vice President Dick Cheney's Monday visit.

The Taliban’s former defense minister, Mullah Obeidullah, who has remained one of the most senior leaders in the insurgent movement, was arrested in Pakistan on Monday, the day of Vice President Dick Cheney’s visit, two government officials said Thursday.

Mullah Obeidullah is the most important Taliban member to be arrested since the invasion of Afghanistan by American forces in 2001. He is one of the inner core of the Taliban leadership around the Mullah Muhammad Omar who are believed to operate from the relative safety of Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan Province, where Mullah Obeidullah was arrested.

It was not clear whether he was picked up before, during or after Mr. Cheney’s visit. But the timing may be significant since Pakistan has come in for rising criticism for not doing enough to stem the Taliban insurgents who have used Pakistan as a sanctuary.

While the detention may be a sign of new commitment by Pakistan to move against the Taliban leadership, it also seems to confirm Western and Afghan intelligence that the Taliban is indeed using Pakistan, and particularly Quetta, to organize their insurgency against American and NATO force, something Pakistani officials have strenuously denied.

There has been no official announcement of his detention, but two government officials confirmed his arrest on condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to talk to the press. The NATO spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Tom Collins, said he was not aware of any arrest.

Wednesday - February 28, 2007

What's Missing From This Story?

Or If It Isn't Christian or American.... 

The following story fails to mention one little fact.  Of course, this fact would be the religion of the person in question.  Now the left would argue that religion has nothing to do with this story.  On the contrary, it certainly does.

Islam, from its very core, views and treats women as objects.  Christianity, unless it is some obscure cult, does not require women to wear burqas, or to be escorted by male family members, or inhibit their ability to drive a car.  So when a Muslim does something to a woman, it is a required part of the story, so that it makes sense.  But, when you write from a leftist perspective of moral equivalence, the most important part of the story is ignored.  Once again, what is missing from this story:

Italian police arrested a jealous husband in the north of the country who forced his young wife to stay at home for two years because she was "too lively" to be let outside.

"She was too lively. She absolutely had to be locked up otherwise who knows what she might have done," Egyptian immigrant Emad Zied, 31, was quoted as saying in Corriere della Sera daily newspaper on Wednesday.

His 20-year-old bride, Rasha, was rescued by local police and firemen who forced open the door of their apartment in the Italian city of Crema after a tip off from Rasha's family.

The report said that Rasha rarely ever saw the light of day, but was "escorted" outside by her husband on occasion. Zied is being held in jail on suspicion of kidnapping.

Of course, the left will argue, that these type of things happen all the time in non-Muslim countries.  And of course, they would be correct to a point.  Incidents like this happen in the U.S. frequently.  It happens though,  because the man involved hates women, is deranged, or is just plain evil.  It doesn't happen though, because a religion taught them to view women as less than human.  Islam does, yet that isn't mentioned.  The Koran and Islamic law are rather straight forward on the role of women.

Friday - February 23, 2007

When is A Republican not a Republican?  When is a Republican not a Conservative?

 Or Do We Really Want an Umbrella Party?

My firmly held belief is that America is a conservative country at heart.  I know this will make the left either laugh in an uncontrollable fit or fly into an ugly little fit, but the center of America politics is what defines the conservative movement in this country.  

With that said, in an interview, Governor Arnold Schwarenegger described his centrist policies.

•He wants a deadline for American troops to be out of Iraq.

•He favors abortion rights.

•He supports stem-cell research.  I'm assuming fetal stem cells, as otherwise this isn't an issue.

•He supports gay rights.

•He favors gun control.

This isn't the center.  This is the left.  A time table for America withdrawal from Iraq would simply court disaster.  I truthfully don't care about abortion, but if that is your cause, the killing of the unborn, then you are on the left.  Fetal stem cell research is an abomination.  Adult stem cells have proven many times more successful.  Ending a life for medical research is immoral.  As for gay rights, individuals have rights, but society has always sanctioned certain actions and lifestyles.  Supporting the homosexual rights agenda is once again a leftist cause.  And of course gun control is an issue that is mainly supported by the effeminate left.

So why is Schwarzenegger a Republican?  So Arnold has bought into the death culture of the left.  He has bought into immorality of the left and he has bought into the effeminacy of left.  So I will ask again, why is he a Republican?

Thursday - February 22, 2007

Britain is Still in the Game

Or Out of the Pan, into the Fire 

When Britain announced it was withdrawing troops from Iraq the other day, I swear you could hear the left go into an orgasmic orgy of anticipation.  This was the beginning of the end they thought.  Sorry, it seems the British, who pacified southern Iraq more quickly than U.S. forces have their corner of Iraq, are moving their troops to where they are more urgently needed, Afghansitan.

Britain is expected to announce the deployment of more than 1,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to help combat an anticipated offensive by Taliban insurgents in coming months, the Guardian newspaper reported on Friday.

The deployment, if confirmed, will come just days after British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain would begin withdrawing soldiers from Iraq, another key battleground.

Defense Minister Des Browne was due to announce the increase in forces and equipment in Afghanistan on Monday after the plan was presented to Blair's cabinet on Thursday, the Guardian said.

Wednesday - February 21, 2007

Italy's Prodi Resigns

 Or is This the Definition of Bittersweet?

Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi resigned today, after only nine months in office.  While short lived governments in Italy are not unusual, that a Socialist/Communist government would be brought down because it was promoting American interests is.

Two of his own far-left coalition members abstained amid tensions over whether Italy should continue to provide troops to Afghanistan and Mr. Prodi’s support of an expansion of an American military base in Vicenza, in northern Italy.

With only a razor-thin majority, the abstentions killed the measure, aimed at gaining Senate support for Italy’s foreign policy, and unexpectedly doomed the government.

“I can’t in any way give my vote to this government with this foreign policy,” said Fernando Rossi, a senator from the Italian Communist Party and one of the dissenters. 

But foreign policy remained a particular weak spot. Essentially, Mr. Prodi and his ministers have sought to walk a difficult line, echoing much of the skepticism in Europe about President Bush and the war in Iraq while maintaining Italy’s traditionally strong ties with America.

The government’s far-left members, however, have strongly resisted the presence of nearly 2,000 Italian troops in Afghanistan. And last weekend, tens of thousands of people rallied against the expansion of the American-staffed NATO base in Vicenza, which Mr. Prodi’s government reluctantly supported.

The splits grew deeper, and on Tuesday in Spain, Italy’s foreign minister, Massismo D’Alema, himself a former prime minister, called for the Senate to endorse Italy’s foreign policy. If it did not, he said, the government should “go home,” or step down.

In a long and impassioned speech before the vote on Wednesday, Mr. D’Alema defended his government’s position on Afghanistan and the Vicenza base, in terms that he hoped would win the left’s support.

“We have not supported the neo-conservative politics of the American administration and we have not sent soldiers to Iraq,” he told his colleagues. “There is a profound difference between the military operations in Afghanistan, approved by the United Nations, and those in Iraq.”

He added that the support of expanding the Vicenza base was essential to good relations with America. “To change course would be a hostile act against the United States,” he said.

In the end, the government needed 160 votes, but only got 158 with the two abstentions. Opposition senators roared at the result, shouting immediately: “Resign! Resign!”

Many experts said they believed Mr. D’Alema, one of the most powerful and experienced members of the government, would resign. And as Italy’s leaders search for a broader solution in the next few days, there are several alternatives to a mere shuffling of the current cabinet. 

So who would have thought that Prodi's government, anti-American in tone, would fall because it was standing fast, fulfilling its obligations to its ally?  Maybe some American politicians should learn from this example that there are more important things than just staying in office.

Monday - February 19, 2007

I Almost Agree with McCain

Or Rumsfeld Was Wrong 

John McCain, today, argued that Donald Rumsfeld was one of the worst Secretary of Defense in our history.

"We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement - that's the kindest word I can give you - of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war," the Arizona senator told an overflow crowd of more than 800 at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C. "The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously."

McCain makes a bit of an overstatement, but he is half-right.  Rumsfeld's victory in Afghanistan, with only tens of thousands of troops, is unparalleled.  He used only minimal forces and succeeded where the great British and Soviet empires failed miserably.  Even the military victory in Iraq was impressive.

Where I agree with McCain, is that, in hindsight, Rumsfeld was not the right man for the occupation and reconstruction of Afghanistan or Iraq.  In both cases, the occupation has been badly fumbled.  Truthfully, I expected something on the scale of the reconstruction of Japan or Germany after World War Two, lead by the likes of a MacArthur.  Instead, we have witnessed a reconstruction that had no planning or direction.

With that said, the midterm elections certainly gave George Bush a needed kick in the pants.  His appointment of Robert Gates (see a this list of news articles that chronicle all the things Gates is doing right) has put someone in charge that understands the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, who has real world working solutions to those problems.  Additionally, with General Petraeus in charge in Iraq, we have another clear minded individual who has the practical knowledge to make the right things happen on the ground.

In essence, Rumsfeld was the right man to conduct the war, but he definitely was the wrong man to manage the peace.  I'll give the left that point.  But why won't they admit that President Bush has made positive steps to fix the problems in both Afghanistan and Iraq? 

Trackposted to Rightlinx, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, and Shadowscope, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Monday - February 19, 2007

Two Great Reads on the Folly of the Democrats

Did you notice how gleeful Nancy Pelosi was after the passing of the non-binding resolution of defeat?  Well, Blue Star Chronicles did.

Nancy Pelosi Smiles While Telling the World America Can Not Be Trusted.  Yes, it’s true. The message that was sent to the world in the 1960s is being reinforced by the democrats in Congress.

Please read the entire post.  At least the Pelosi could have looked sullen after this vote, just as if a teenager in her district had been denied access to an abortion.

Additionally, Blue Star Chronicles, caught this great public letter addressed to Reid and Pelosi from Charlie Daniels.  Now I usually make sport of the intellectual prowess of celebrities, but this letter is right on target:

An Open Letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Dear Sir and Madam,

You have said often enough that you don't believe in the war in Iraq and

that you want to bring the troops home. Yet all you do is talk and sign

non-binding resolutions which only goes to show that you really don't mean

what you say about ending the war or that you're just playing political

games and in doing so giving aid and comfort to a dedicated enemy.

Now if you're serious about ending the war you have the means and the votes to do just that. Simply cut off the funding for the troops, bring them all home and the American people can transfer the deed to this war and the

ramifications of what you do to the Democrat party and you can live with the results.

You say you support the troops, but that has to be a lie. If you supported

them and you truly think the war is wrong, you'd bring them home or either

dispense with the poisonous rhetoric and get in behind them and help them

get the job done.

You can't have it both ways. If you support the troops do something. Your

party won a majority in both houses, so you have control so take the

responsibility.

Of course, I think you should remember that when the terrorists follow us

home from Iraq and start their attacks on American soil it's too late, so

you'd better have a plan to deal with it. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran goes into Iraq and makes it a staging ground for Al Qaida to

plan and carry out attacks all over the western world you'll need to deal

with that. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran decides to go into Kuwait and cut off the oil flow from the

Persian Gulf, you'll need a way to make up for the shortfall. Do you have a

plan?

The world would look at us as a country that has not finished a commitment to war since 1945.  Do you have a plan for dealing with that?

The purpose of this letter is to call your bluff. I don't believe you have

the guts to do anything but talk and talk is cheap.  Oh you have no shortage of words but I seriously doubt the amount of backbone you have.

Do you really think that signing a non binding resolution is really fooling

anybody into thinking you're anything less than career politicians trying to tip the scales of the O08 Presidential Election.

What you're doing is silly and dangerous. If you really don't like what's

going on, change it, do something about it. You've got the power but have

you got the guts?

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

February 16, 2007

Saturday - February 17, 2007

The Effeminate Left

Or Peace Through Prostration? 

The leader of the cowardly left, Jack Murtha, has associated himself with a group called MoveCongress.org.  If you want, you can listen to Murtha call a retreat a redeployment.  What is more interesting, is the mindset of this groups and its "partners."

MoveCongress.org's talking points suggest the following:

There is no military solution, only a political solution

The United States needs to work with regional governments, including Iran and Syria, to achieve reconciliation in Iraq. In a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland, 82% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans said we should directly engage with Syria and Iran to establish a political solution in Iraq, as was unanimously recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Negotiations work with friendly nations.  Thus we have things like NAFTA, or NATO.  Successful agreements require that both sides are willing to adhere to the bargain.  Yet the left would have you believe that nations like Syria or Iran, first would bargain in good faith and secondly, if they did agree to a treaty, that they would follow it.  And if we run from Iraq, wouldn't these nations think that the consequences for violating a treaty with the U.S. would be negligible?

Let's look at the groups partnered with Murtha's friends.  WinWithoutWar, thinks:

We are patriotic Americans who are committed to a U.S. foreign policy that embodies our nation's highest ideals. We oppose the militarization of our foreign policy and its effects at home and abroad. We share the commitment to countering terrorism and weapons proliferation, but oppose the doctrine of unilateral military preemption. We believe that international cooperation and enforceable international law provide the greatest security for the United States and the world, and the greatest opportunity for people to live in free, healthy, and just societies.

So let's get this straight, they oppose terrorism, but think talking them to death is the answer?  No nation can long exist if its citizens are unwilling to defend it.  And it seems they are unwilling to defend for any reason.  Apparently this "mythical" international community will keep us safe.  By the way, you aren't patriotic if you call for national defeat.  That would be traitorous.

Women's Action for New Directions is another member of this leftist movement against American vigor in foreign policy.  Here is their motto found at the top of their website:

WAND empowers women.

To take political action.

To change our culture and our national priorities:

Toward peace and real security.

Away from militarism and violence.

If other countries around the world were like us, there might not be a need to retain a vigorous national defense.  If we allow leftist such as this to direct our foreign policy, we would be at the mercy of our enemies.  The left, blinded by t