Don Singleton: 2006-03-19

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Proposed FEC Rules Would Exempt Most Political Activity on Internet

WaPo reported The Federal Election Commission last night released proposed new rules that leave almost all Internet political activity unregulated except for the purchase of campaign ads on Web sites

That seems reasonable to me.

The commission had been under court order to regulate campaign advertising on the Web. The only restrictions in the proposal require that ads for federal candidates be paid for with money regulated by federal campaign law. Campaign law restricts individual contributions to $2,000, and bars unions and corporations from donating.... A blogger who gets paid by a campaign will not have to report the money to the FEC, but the campaign will separately have to disclose the expenditures, under the proposed rules.

Will we stick our necks out for his faith?

Mark Steyn wrote in OC Register Fate conspires to remind us what this war is really about: civilizational confidence. And so history repeats itself: first the farce of the Danish cartoons, and now the tragedy - a man on trial for his life in post-Taliban Afghanistan because he has committed the crime of converting to Christianity. The cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad were deeply offensive to Muslims, and so thousands protested around the world in the usual restrained manner - rioting, torching, killing, etc. The impending execution of Abdul Rahman for embracing Christianity is, of course, offensive to Westerners,

That is right, and we should respond, not by rioting, torching, and killing, but by pulling our military out, and let the Muslims riot, torch, and kill themselves.

and so around the world we reacted equally violently by issuing blood-curdling threats like that made by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack: "Freedom of worship is an important element of any democracy," he said. "And these are issues as Afghan democracy matures that they are going to have to deal with increasingly."

The immediate problem for Abdul Rahman is whether he'll get the chance to "mature" along with Afghan democracy. The president, the Canadian prime minister and the Australian prime minister have all made statements of concern about his fate, and it seems clear that Afghanistan's dapper leader, Hamid Karzai, would like to resolve this issue before his fledgling democracy gets a reputation as just another barbarous Islamist sewer state. There's talk of various artful compromises, such as Rahman being declared unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity on the grounds that (I'm no Islamic jurist so I'm paraphrasing here) anyone who converts from Islam to Christianity must, ipso facto, be nuts.

On the other hand, this "moderate" compromise solution is being rejected by leading theologians. "We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," says Abdul Raoulf of the nation's principal Muslim body, the Afghan Ulama Council. "Cut off his head! We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left." Needless to say, Imam Raoulf is one of Afghanistan's leading "moderate" clerics.

Imam Raoulf should read the Qu'ran: Surah 88:21-22 says “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”

For what it's worth, I'm with the Afghan Ulama Council in objecting to the insanity defense. It's not enough for Abdul Rahman to get off on a technicality.

I agree.

Afghanistan is supposed to be "the good war," the one even the French supported, albeit notionally and mostly retrospectively. Karzai is kept alive by a bodyguard of foreigners. The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

That is absolutely correct.

....I can understand why the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would rather deal with this through back channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies. Abdul Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to, not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet.

That is absolutely correct. There are aspects of our Holy Bible where slavery and other vile things are described, but we do not take the position that that is what God wants. God's wishes are clear when he specifically speaks to man, like in the Old Testament, when he handed down the Ten Commandments and the many things that His son Jesus said in the New Testament. There may be places in the Qu'ran that some Muslim clerics consider an order to kill people that leave the faith, but Surah 88:21-22 says “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.” If even Muhammad himself was commanded not to carry out punishments on those who turned away from Islam, why do they think that Allah would want them to do it?

What can we do? Should governments with troops in Afghanistan pass joint emergency legislation conferring their citizenship on this poor man and declaring him, as much as Karzai, under their protection?

No. He should remain an citizen of Afganistan, but if they decide to kill him, we should pack up our bags and leave.

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" - the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gen. Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

That is a very good point.

India today is better off without suttee. If we shrink from the logic of that, then in Afghanistan and many places far closer to home the implications are, as the Prince of Wales would say, "ghastly."

Vonage 911 Caller Put On Hold While House Burns Down

Consumer Affairs News reported A Minnesota homeowner charges VoIP provider Vonage put him on hold when he called 911 to report his house was on fire. The home was a total loss. Loren Velthamp of Chanhassen, Minnesota, said he grabbed the phone and called 911 when he realized a fire has started in his home. "I called 911 using Vonage broadband and they put us on hold," Velthamp told KSTP-TV in Minneapolis. “Unbelievable… your house is burning down, and you're put on hold by Vonage.”

That is outrageous

Fire department officials say that by the time fire crews arrived on the scene, the fire had become a five-alarm blaze. No one was injured, but they described the dwelling as a total loss.

The incident has raised anew the question of how VoIP services, which provide telephone services over the Internet, interface with community 911 emergency services systems. Because the calls aren't routed through the land-line telephone system's infrastructure, there has to be way to transfer into the 911 system that serves the nation's 6,200 emergency call centers. That transfer has posed numerous stumbling blocks so far, both technical and political. As it now stands, VoIP 911 calls can be unreliable. Calls made after normal business house may be misdirected to emergency-services administrative offices, where the caller gets a recorded message. Even when the VoIP 911 call does make it to an EMS dispatcher, it sometimes lacks the information traditional phone services provide, like the caller's address and telephone number.

Does anyone know whether this same problem applies to the digital phones that Cox is pushing, offerring for $4.95 a month for 6 months (originally for a year) to get your phone business?

Iraq Qaeda Chief Seems to Pursue a Lower Profile

NYT reported Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist and the head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, has sharply lowered his profile in recent months,

Things were getting a little scary for him, since he was almost caught several times, and he decided he better hide. He may be in Saddam's spider hole.

and his group claims to have submitted itself to the leadership of an Iraqi.

Hoping those pursueing him will now turn their attention to the Iraqi.

In postings on Web sites used by jihadi groups, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the terrorist network's arm in Iraq, claims to have joined with five other guerrilla groups to form the Mujahedeen Shura, or Council of Holy Warriors. The new group, whose formation was announced in January, is said to be headed by an Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi. Since then, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has stopped issuing its own proclamations.

Not a problem. The troops should try to kill both Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi ANDAbu Musab al-Zarqawi

Mood hardens against Afghan convert

BBC News reports Increasing international pressure over the case of Christian convert Abdul Rahman is forcing the Afghan government to play a careful balancing act between its Western allies and religious conservatives at home. Under the interpretation of Islamic Sharia law on which Afghanistan's constitution is based, Mr Rahman faces the death penalty unless he reconverts to Islam.

Why should he fear death? He has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal saviour, and he is guaranteed to go to Heaven. And he does not even have to blow himself up to get there, unlike the false teaching of some Muslim Clerics, that encourage people to do so, killing innocents, and hiding from them the fact that Surat an-Nisa,093 (Quran 4.93) says "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

Really? It also says several times that they should not be:
Surah 2:256 – “There is no compulsion in religion…”
Surah 16:82 – “Then, if they turn away, your duty (O Muhammad) is only to convey (the Message) in a clear way.”
Surah 42:48 – “But if they turn away (from Islam). We have not sent you as a Hafiz (watcher, protector) over them (to take care of their deeds and to recompense them). Your duty is to convey (the Message)…”
Surah 88:21-22 – “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”
If even Muhammad was commanded not to carry out punishments on those who turned away from Islam, how much less should Afghanistan’s courts prosecute anyone who decides freely to convert to a different religion?

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him,"

But he does not regret doing it. He learned about Jesus from the Qu'ran, for example Surat aal-E-Imran, 45 (Qur'an 3:45) says Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; and he knew that the Qu'ran said Surat al-Baqara, 136 (Qur'an 2:136) says Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them. And the Qu'ran speaks highly of Christians: (Surat al-Ma'ida, 82 (Qur'an 5:82) ) "You will find the people most affectionate to those who believe are those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because some of them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant." Therefore he studied more to find out who Jesus was, and he learned that Jesus said (John 14:6) "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

he told the BBC News website.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Looney Muslim Clerics

Michelle Malkin blogged WAKE-UP CALL (via AP/WaPo):

Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."
Do you not believe the Qu'ran? Surah 2:256 says “There is no compulsion in religion…”
"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated.
God will not be humiliated. Surat al-Baqara, 136 (Qur'an 2:136) says Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them:
This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

...On Wednesday, authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial. But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane. "He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed," Hamidullah said.
If that happens they will have been encouraged to do so by clerics that have ignored the Qu'ran. Surah 42:48 says “But if they turn away (from Islam). We have not sent you as a Hafiz (watcher, protector) over them (to take care of their deeds and to recompense them). Your duty is to convey (the Message)…”
Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."
You have fooled them a lot of times. Surah 88:21-22 says “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”
"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."
Surat aal-E-Imran, 3 (Qur'an 3:3) says It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
...Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country. "If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said.
We don't want him to live in the west. We want him to be able to live freely in Afganistan, and practice whatever religion he chooses, as the Afganistan constitution permits.
"We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."
Maybe it is the clerics that should be hanged.
..."We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

Read More...

Summary only...

Some Readers See Red Over Post.com's New Blogger

WaPo The Washington Post Co.'s Web operation has touched off an online furor by hiring as a blogger a 24-year-old former Bush administration aide who co-founded a conservative site and recently referred to Coretta Scott King as a "communist."

The left is upset when the right gets any voice, anywhere. They know that people will only believe their lies if they are the only voice people hear.

Ben Domenech, an editor at the conservative Regnery Publishing, said he regrets the King reference, which he insists was tongue-in-cheek, and that the reaction to his new "Red America" blog is "a little meaner" than he expected. More than 1,000 people and a Democratic member of Congress have sent the newspaper letters of complaint. The decision to hire Domenech was made by Washingtonpost.com, an Arlington-based division that works with the newspaper but is editorially independent.

Jim Brady, executive editor of Washingtonpost.com, said Domenech was hired because "we were completely unrepresented by a social conservative voice." He said his goal "is to provide voices from as many perspectives as possible" and that Domenech is not intended to balance anyone in particular on his staff.

No one in particular, but rather the entire left wing staff.

Domenech is "controversial" and the fact that liberals object to his hiring "shouldn't really be a shock to anybody," Brady said. Said Domenech: "I'm there to do opinion. That's what I do. I'm not a journalist."

Neither are many that work at WaPo

In a letter yesterday, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) said: "Balanced coverage and ideologically diverse editorials have long been hallmarks of responsible journalism. If The Post would like to appear evenhanded, I strongly suggest the Web site launch a similarly partisan liberal blog, 'Blue America.' "

If they would hire a bunch of conservative editors and reporters, to be evenhanded in the paper, then I would agree with Pete

Why did Yale slam the door on Afghan women?

OpinionJournal writes A statement from Yale University, defending its decision to admit former Taliban spokesman Ramatullah Hashemi, explained that he had "escaped the wreckage of Afghanistan." To anyone who is aware of the Taliban's barbaric treatment of the Afghan people, such words are offensive--as if Mr. Hashemi were not himself part of the wrecking crew. It is even more disturbing to learn that, while Mr. Hashemi sailed through Yale's admissions process, the school turned down the opportunity to enroll women who really did escape the wreckage of Afghanistan.

They were not interested in people that escaped the wreckage in Afganistan. The liberals at Yale hate the US, like most liberals do, and they wanted someone who would say bad things about this country, rather than people who were thankful for what we did.

Afghan Judge in Convert Case Vows to Resist Foreign Pressure

NYT reports Despite growing international concern, the judge presiding over the prosecution of an Afghan man facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity said today that international pressure would not affect his rulings in the case. Ansarullah Mawlavi Zada, the head of the public security tribunal here in the Afghan capital, said he had received no international pressure to date, but vowed to resist it.

Will he allow the Koran to influence his decision? Surah 2:256 – “There is no compulsion in religion…”
Surah 16:82 – “Then, if they turn away, your duty (O Muhammad) is only to convey (the Message) in a clear way.”
Surah 42:48 – “But if they turn away (from Islam). We have not sent you as a Hafiz (watcher, protector) over them (to take care of their deeds and to recompense them). Your duty is to convey (the Message)…”
Surah 88:21-22 – “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”

If even Muhammad was commanded not to carry out punishments on those who turned away from Islam, how much less should Afghanistan’s courts prosecute anyone who decides freely to convert to a different religion?

"There is no direct pressure on our court so far, but if it happens we will consider it as an interference," said Mr. Zada. He added that he expects to rule in the case in the next several days.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Cutting the budget

Betsy Newmark (a history and civics teacher in Raleigh, NC) blogged So, would you like Congress to exercise more fiscal discipline and cut the deficit? My students in AP Government would too. They're working right now on trying to balance the budget using this budget simulation. Their task was to try the simulation first only making reasonable cuts that they thought they might be able to get through Congress and get reelected having done. To no one's surprise, they weren't able to cut much from the deficit. Then I let them have their fun and cut what they'd like to cut. They're having a good ol' time. I just heard one kid say, "The old people are getting nothing! And I'm glad." Another kid cut all militiary expenditures 100%. They found out that they could get a surplus if they cut Social Security entirely or if they eliminated all military spending. But, otherwise, if they tried to be reasonable, guess what? It is very hard to cut the deficit.

Try it yourself. Figure out your own ideal budget and then see what that does overall to spending. And then try to figure out if you could get any of those cuts through Congress. You'll probably echo one of my students who said "Cutting the deficit is hard, Mrs. Newmark." Yup. Lesson learned.

This is very interesting.

So who did Harvard get?

The Shekel blogged The Instapundit reports on the troubling story of Yale University accepting the propaganda Minister for the Taliban as a special student. The reason Yale apparently gave for its accepting Mr. Hashemi is as follows:
Richard Shaw, Yale's dean of undergraduate admissions until he took the same post at Stanford last year, told the New York Times that Yale had another foreigner of Mr. Hashemi's caliber apply but "we lost him to Harvard" and "I didn't want that to happen again." Mr. Shaw won't return phone calls now, but emails he's exchanged with others offer insights into his thinking. . . .
Ok, its bad enough and an amazing showing of a lack of critical thinking skills among academia that Yale took in "Mr. Taliban" as a special student. But, the interesting question is who was the other "foreigner of Mr. Hashemi's caliber" that Yale lost to Harvard?

Glenn Reynolds blogged Maybe we've been looking for Zarqawi in the wrong place. . . .

ROF, LMAO

Kill Afghan Christian, some clerics say

MSNBC. Senior Muslim clerics said Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity should be killed regardless of whether a court decides to free him.

They must be clerics that do not believe in following the Qu'ran. Surah 2:256 – “There is no compulsion in religion…”
Surah 16:82 – “Then, if they turn away, your duty (O Muhammad) is only to convey (the Message) in a clear way.”
Surah 42:48 – “But if they turn away (from Islam). We have not sent you as a Hafiz (watcher, protector) over them (to take care of their deeds and to recompense them). Your duty is to convey (the Message)…”
Surah 88:21-22 – “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”

If even Muhammad was commanded not to carry out punishments on those who turned away from Islam, how much less should Afghanistan’s courts prosecute anyone who decides freely to convert to a different religion?

Abdul Rahman, a 41-year-old former medical aid worker, faces the death penalty for becoming a Christian under Afghanistan's Islamic laws.

His trial, which began last week, has caused an international outcry. U.S. President Bush said Wednesday he was "deeply troubled" by the case and expects the country to "honor the universal principle of freedom." Diplomats say the Afghan government is searching for a way to drop the case, and on Wednesday authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.

That is not enough. If he is killed or if he is declared insane, the we should pull our troops out.

But four senior clerics interviewed by The Associated Press in their mosques in Kabul said Rahman deserved to be killed for his conversion.

Maybe those clerics are the ones who should be killed.

"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque. "The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."

Then we should remove our troops.

"He is not mad. The government are playing games. The people will not be fooled," said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. "This is humiliating for Islam. ... Cut off his head." Raoulf is considered a moderate cleric in Afghanistan.

Then we need a new definition of moderate. Perhaps require a cleric to read and understand the Qu'ran

He was jailed three times for criticizing the Taliban's policies before the hardline regime was ousted by U.S.-led forces in 2001.

Talk About Ungrateful

Michelle Malkin blogged Our troops teamed with British forces to rescue three left-wing, anti-war activists kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq. Those freed were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32; and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The men, who were members of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams, were kidnapped on Nov. 26 along with their American colleague, Tom Fox, 54, whose body was found earlier this month.

Reader Jen M. took at look at the Christian Peacemaker Teams website for the group's statement on the rescue and she e-mailed me her observations:

Not once do they thank or even reference the fact that a Special Forces team rescued these guys. In fact, the only reference to military at all is blaming them for the kidnapping in the first place. Nice!
We should ask CPT if they would prefer that we turn the three back over to the kidnappers, and apologize for freeing them.
Also on their home page is a long statement about how terribly treated terrorists are when detained by evil soldiers.

Read the full statement for yourselves here.

For crying out loud.

Many readers note that the CPT statement refers to the hostages' "release" instead of their rescue. Reader Matt L. writes to CPT:
Congratulations on the safe return of your activists. I'm sorry they did not all make it home safely. I read your press release relating the "release" of the activists; please note that they were not released, they were rescued. The term release implies that their captors let them go. You know that is not true, they were rescued by a team of American and British soldiers who risked their lives to free people whom apparently have no gratitude for their actions. It is one thing to be against war and the actions of our military (I'm not justifying that position, just acknowledging your right to it), but another to deny when they SAVED YOUR ASS!!!! Are you so insecure in your position that you think even acknowledging your people were rescued, not "released" would undermine your whole message that the military serves no useful purpose? Actually, I think you are correct in your assumption, so I guess you should stick to your story lest any of your supporters start to use logic and reason to dissect your beliefs. Where would you be then? I guess you might have to begrudgingly join the rest of society who realizes that a strong military is the best defense of a free nation against tyrants and terrorists who are out to destroy us and our way of life. God bless you, and I hope you quit sending your hippies to WAR regions risking not only their lives but the lives of the soldiers who end up having to secure their "release" by RESCUING them.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

USArabia?

Abigail R. Esman wrote in JWR In February, I attended a conference in the Netherlands featuring experts on the concepts of dhimmitude, a word based on the Arabic word "dhimmi," or "protected," and Eurabia, a word created by scholar Bat Ye'or to describe a Euro-Arab solidarity that is leading gradually (though ever faster) to the Islamization of our European friends and allies. In essence, Europeans, says Ye'or, have acquiesced to the powers and demands of the Arab world, cooperating and collaborating in areas of foreign policy, economy, and culture, in return for which Europe will be — in principle — safe from the violent conquest by Islam.

If they allow the Moslems to take over, the Moslems won't kill them. Sounds like something the French would agree to, but unfortunately all of Europe seems to be doing it.

If this sounds like crazy conspiracy theory, in fact, it isn't really all that different from the politics we're used to in America. Countries that behave according to Western, Euro-American standards can count on Euro-American investment and military support; those who do not can expect repercussions.

The difference is that we do it financially. We don't resort to violence.

The difference here is simply one of a marriage between church and state: for Islamic nations, they are one and the same. Follow their religion, submit to their socio-economic demands, and their governments will not persecute or attack.

Consider, too, the central premise of Bat Ye'or's argument: that according to the principles of jihad, non-Muslims must be brought to convert — preferably through peaceable means, but if necessary, through violence.

The word jihad means struggle. For moderate Muslims, this means the internal struggle a man goes through as he attempts to follow God's (Allah's) wishes. For the Islamoterrorists it means killing anyone that opposes you.

In an interview with John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, the Egyptian born Bat Ye'or explains: "According to the jihadic doctrine, the world is divided into two parts: Muslims and Infidels, the latter living in the dar al-harb, the land of war, because their land must be Islamized by peaceful means, or by war if they resist. Before attacking the Infidels, Muslims must first call them to convert; if they refuse, they are asked to pay a ransom; if they refuse again, Muslims have the duty to wage war on them. Truce is accepted on condition that the Infidels pay a regular ransom and put no obstacle to the spread of Islam in their own countries.

Remember that Osama offerred the US a "truce".

There are other conditions also, like sending soldiers to fight for Islamic interests. A truce should not last more than 10 years, and it is allowed only when the Muslim ruler is weak. Otherwise, war against the Infidels is mandatory."

If they want war, then war they will get.

The words "put no obstacle to the spread of Islam in their countries" explain, for instance, the establishment of Saudi-run mosques throughout Europe (the largest of which is based in Rotterdam — home to Europe's major port) and of Saudi-owned schools and bookstores where anti-Western texts are taught and sold, where one finds books like The Muslim Way, a bestseller in the Dutch Muslim community that advises its readers that it is often necessary to beat women, that women are obliged to submit to their husbands' sexual desires on demand, and that homosexuals should be burned, stoned, or thrown from the highest available building, head first.

In the US, they get mad if we don't let them marry each other; should we tell them what the Muslims plan for them?

In exchange for this openness, Europe receives Arab oil, Arab investment, and a "truce" of sorts by which, as Muslims become the majority in many countries (which some believe could take place within decades), Jews and Christians will be safe to practice their religions, just as they were permitted to do — as dhimmis — in the 7th century, when, writes Bat Ye'or, "the infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership on their land, submit to Islamic (i.e. Sharia) law, and accept payment of the poll tax. In return they were granted the effective protection of Islamic law, which gave them security, limited religious rights, and self administration in religious and civil law." On her web site (dhimmitude.org) she further notes, "Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognized only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."

She goes on to suggest that something similar is happening in America, through Arab investments. She may be right about that, but she is definitely right about Europe.

More teachers' union myth

John Stossel wrote in Townhall I hope the teachers in America's public schools are more candid than their union officials and some of the public-education advocates and leftist smear groups who are criticizing my TV special "Stupid in America." They are promoting myths:....

Some of them probably are. There are certainly good teachers, but since the school system does not reward good teachers with extra (merit) pay, and since their union may punish them if they stand up for what is right, they are intimidated into silence.

MediaMatters, a liberal media watchdog group, claimed we fudged per-pupil spending numbers when we said per-pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, has doubled to "more than $10,000 per pupil per year." They point to the "most recent" 2003 U.S. Census figure of $8,019 per pupil as a "gotcha." In fact, the estimates for 2004-05 from the U.S. Department of Education are well over $10,000 per pupil. Even using MediaMatters' own number, it is irrefutable that per-pupil spending has doubled over the last 30 years.

And what have we gotten for that doubling of money? POORER SCHOOLS. Kids are learning less and less, despite the money being spent to teach them keeps growing.

The NSBA claims "America's public schools outperform private schools when variables ... are controlled." This must refer to the recent study done at the University of Illinois, comparing fourth- and eighth-grade math scores. That study actually showed that public school students performed worse, but after the researchers used regression analysis to "control" for race/ethnicity, gender, disability, limited English proficiency, and school location, they manage to conclude that public school students outperform private and charter school students....

If you are free to "control" and "adjust" the figures, you can get them to show whatever you want.

Perhaps the most fundamentally flawed idea is this all-too-common one: "Public schools were created to provide a 'public good': education for all, regardless of a family's ability to pay ...

Then why don't they do that?

By contrast, under a voucher system that gives public dollars to completely unmonitored private schools, there is no such right to expect or demand accountability for student performance or how tax dollars are spent." They don't get it. Competition brings accountability.

Precisely. A parent will not use their voucher money to send their child to a school if they don't think that school will teach their child better than another school.

Private schools may be "unmonitored" by bureaucrats, but they face the most demanding kind of supervision our society provides: a market full of freely choosing individuals. Parents' desire for a good education for their children is a much more powerful check on schools than any politician's law or union rule. The people who want to control every young American's education like to talk about accountability, but what they want is to make schools accountable to anointed bureaucrats who think they know what's best for all of us. They evade real accountability -- the kind of accountability where if a student or parent realizes a school isn't doing its job, he can find another one.

I could go on; there are plenty of myths. But the most important point to remember is quite simple: If public schools are good, they have nothing to fear from school choice. Students and parents will choose them.

They realise that, but they know that their schools are so bad that given a choice parents would send their children anywhere but the public school system.

U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for years, Bush says

KR Washington Bureau reported President Bush said Tuesday that U.S. troops will be in Iraq until after his presidency ends almost three years from now.

We still have troops in Germany and Japan, since WWII. We still have troops in South Korea, left from the Korean War. We still have troops in the Balkins. Of course we will have troops in Iraq for a long time, because we are not going to pull out, with our tails between out legs, like we did in Vietnam.

Asked at a White House news conference whether there'll come a time when no U.S. forces are in Iraq, he said "that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq." Pressed on that response, the president said that for him to discuss complete withdrawal would mean he was setting a timetable, which he refuses to do.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Pachyderms in the Mist: Red America and the MSM

The WashingtonPost launched a new Conservative Blog. Red AmericabloggedThis is a blog for the majority of Americans.

It's about time the Left Wing WaPo did something for conservatives.

Since the election of 1992, the extreme political left has fought a losing battle. Their views on the economy, marriage, abortion, guns, the death penalty, health care, welfare, taxes, and a dozen other major domestic policy issues have been exposed as unpopular, unmarketable and unquestioned losers at the ballot box.

ROF, LMAO

Democrats who have won major elections since 1992 have, with very few exceptions, been the ones who distanced themselves from the shrieking denizens of their increasingly extreme base, soft-pedaled their positions on divisive issues and adopted the rhetoric and positions of the right -- pro-free market, pro-business, pro-faith, tough on crime and strongly in favor of family values.

Yet even in a climate where Republicans hold command of every branch of government, and advocate views shared by a majority of voters, the mainstream media continues to treat red state Americans as pachyderms in the mist - an alien and off-kilter group of suburbanite churchgoers about which little is known, and whose natural habitat is a discomforting place for even the most hardened reporter from the New York Times.

Needless to say, the left side of the blogosphere did not appreciate it.

Atrios blogged The Washington Post adds a conservative blogger to balance the liberal blogger they don't actually have.

Tapped blogged Via Atrios, the Washington Post has apparently granted a column to conservative blogger Ben Domenech. The name of the column is "Red America."

Why Domenech? It seems likely that the Post hired Domenech mainly as a sop to the paper's right-wing critics. Recall that the right went berserk over writer Dana Milbank's TV appearance mocking Dick Cheney's accidental disfigurement of a friend's face with a shotgun. And the right has long hurled Molotov cocktails at Bush critic Dan Froomkin. Recall that Deborah Harris recently wrote that Froomkin's column is "highly opinionated and liberal," adding that Web executive editor Jim Brady was "considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger."

We would rather have some conservative editors and reporters.

So, is Domenech that conservative blogger whose role is to offset Dan Froomkin and, in the process, placate the Post's right-wing critics? It looks that way. We've emailed Post spokesperson Eric Grant, asking if Domenech's hiring is related to the Froomkin and Milbank flaps. We also asked if the Post has any liberal bloggers, and if not, are there any plans to hire one.

WaPo is filled with Left Wing editors and reporters. Try for a Fair and Balanced news room, and you can have your token right wing blogger.

Grant didn't immediately get back to us. If an answer is forthcoming, you'll be the first to know.

Chris Bowers blogged There Is No Right-Wing Blogosphere Anymore

You wish.

In our August 2005 paper the Emergence of the Progressive Blogosphere, Matt and I wrote the following (emphasis in original):

Conservatives use the same tactics on blogs that they do in mainstream politics - attack the media and attack progressives. The right wing tends not to build independent online communities, using their existing offline communities to generate web sites that reinforce their politics and their ideology.
By online communities he is referring to the Looney Left building "diaries" in an environment controlled by their master Kos, where he can keep an eye on them, tell them what to think, and who to hate, and where he can strip them of their blog if they stray too much to the right.
Their web presence is nurtured by institutions and is part of the conservative, right-wing media machine. The Drudge Report, for instance, is one of the largest conservative sites and frequently receives its information from Republican operatives.
The Drudge Report is not a blog. It does not support comments or trackbacks, and it does not have an RSS feed.
Most right-wing blogs reiterate talking points that are generated from inside formal conservative institutions; conversations center on feeling victimized for being right-wing, attacking and hating progressives, and attacking and hating the media.
He assumes that, because that is what the left wing blogs do, and he cannot imagine conservatives thinking for themselves.
The political successes of this community have been largely founded in manipulating media coverage. The two clearest examples are the John Thune bloggers in South Dakota, and the Dan Rather scandal.

I still believe this, only now I feel it has developed to such a degree that the right-wing blogosphere itself has been all but annihilated.

Wishful thinking.

Most major right-wing bloggers have now been incorporated into the established news media apparatus. Glenn Reynolds is a columnist for MSNBC. Andrew Sullivan is a columnist for Time. Michelle Malkin is a frequently published columnist in a number of offline outlets. And now, RedState co-founder Ben Domenech has a regular column in the Washington Post.

A few Conservative bloggers have shown they have something to say, so the MSM occasionally consults them. And he finds that unacceptable. But their blogs have not disappeared, and there are many conservative bloggers that have never appeared on TV.

Despite being the latest in a long line of conservative bloggers to achieve "mainstream" status with the established news media, his first column was, predictably, an attack on the same institutions that just hired him and gave him space.

In short, there is almost nothing in the way of an independent right-wing blogosphere operating outside of existing, established news media outlets.

He could not be any more wrong.

The days of the rise of Free Republic have long passed. The right-wing is not building new institutions online anymore. To quote again from the report Matt and I produced:

Progressive blogs build communities of activists and generate new political activity online.
Training their minions to think what the Dems want them to think, and hating who the Dems want them to hate.
Blogs and online organizations offer forums where people can actively engage in progressive politics - real involvement from people talking about politics, policy, organizing, their lives, etc. The degree to which progressive blogs encourage active engagement in political dialogue has fueled their rapid growth over the past several years.

The single most important difference between the blogospheres is this: the progressive blogosphere is introducing new actors into the political scene. The right-wing blogosphere is facilitating further organization of what was already a fairly coherent political world.

"The blogs," as they are known in many media outlets and circles and DC, are now almost exclusively the realm of progressives.

What he is saying is tthat the left wing MSM usually talks to left wing bloggers, and only occasionally tries to be balanced by bringing in Right Wing Bloggers.

The entire term "the blogs" implies a new institution operating independently of established centers of news distribution and political power. That no longer exists on the right. The right-wing blogosphere, as it is now constituted, is simply an extension of a larger message machine that developed long before the blogosphere ever existed. The right-wing blogosphere no longer holds any promise to produce new leaders within the conservative movement, or to alter the balance of power within the conservative movement in any way, shape or form.

Dell to Double India Work Force

NYT reports Dell, the world's largest maker of personal computers, plans to double the size of its work force in India, to 20,000, and is looking for a site for its manufacturing unit in the country, the company's chairman, Michael S. Dell, said on Monday.

What is wrong with Austin, Texas, where you got started?

"There is a fantastic opportunity to attract talent," Mr. Dell said, referring to the country's workers, many of whom are educated in technological fields and speak English.

They don't speak English that well.

"We will ensure a major recruitment push in engineering talents," he said at a news conference during a visit to Bangalore, India's outsourcing capital.

Dell has four call centers in India, where the bulk of its 10,000 employees work, as well as software development and product testing centers.

And if you have ever called one of those call centers asking for help, you will know why I did not buy my new computer from Dell (even though I my previous machine was a Dell)

Another FEMA catastrophy?

Deb from elephantinmycoffee blogged This text is from a county emergency manager out in the western part of South Dakota after the recent snow storm.

BULLETIN

Up here in the Northern Plains we just recovered from an historic event may I even say a “weather event” of “biblical proportions” — with an historic blizzard of up to 44″ inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities, and cut power to 10’s of thousands.

FYI: George Bush did not come…. FEMA did nothing…. No one howled for the government…
No one blamed the government No one even uttered an expletive on TV… Neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton visited; Our Mayor’s did not blame Bush nor anyone else;

Our Governor did not blame Bush nor anyone else; CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC did not visit - nor report on this category 5 snow storm; Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards; No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House; No one looted; Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something; Nobody expected the government to do anything either;

And that is the way it should be. People in the other 49 states should not be expected to pay for acts of God that hit a state.

No Larry King, No Bill O’Reilly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews, and No Geraldo Rivera; No Sean Penn, No Barbara Streisand, No Hollywood types to be found;

It was too cold for them. They did not want to freeze their liberal a$$s off

Nope, we just melted the snow for water; sent out caravans of SUV’s to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars; The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn’t ask for a penny; Local restaurants made food, and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snow bound families. Families took in the stranded people…total strangers.

South Dakotans took care of South Dakotans

We fired up wood stoves; Broke out coal-oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns; We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is “Work or Die”.

Christian Under Death Sentence for Apostasy

ICC Calls on Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai to Pardon The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) is calling on Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai to defend religious freedom and freedom of conscience in his country by pardoning Abdul Rahman. Rahman is facing the death penalty for apostasy (rejecting Islam).

I hope he will listen to them.

Rahman, who is about 41 years old, converted from Islam to Christianity over 16 years ago.

This is not a new conversion, so the new Constitution should not call for his death. I would hope that they would be even more accepting than that, and that even recent converts to Christianity should be free to practice their new faith.

He was turned in to authorities last month by his own family for rejecting Islam. Afghanistan’s new constitution declares that no law can be contrary to the religion of Islam, which radical Muslims say demands the death penalty for any Muslim who abandons their faith.

There must be something very wrong with the Muslim faith if the only way they can keep people is to kill those who leave the faith.

However, Afghanistan’s constitution also demands that the state protect the liberty and dignity of all people, and affirms the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 18:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
As we do not believe the people of Afghanistan would have ratified a constitution that contradicts itself, ICC urges the government of Afghanistan to consider that Islam is not in conflict with this portion of the UN’s Declaration on Human Rights. In fact, the Qur’an itself supports freedom of conscience in view of Allah’s absolute authority as judge:

Surah 2:256 – “There is no compulsion in religion…”
Surah 16:82 – “Then, if they turn away, your duty (O Muhammad) is only to convey (the Message) in a clear way.”
Surah 42:48 – “But if they turn away (from Islam). We have not sent you as a Hafiz (watcher, protector) over them (to take care of their deeds and to recompense them). Your duty is to convey (the Message)…”
Surah 88:21-22 – “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”

If even Muhammad was commanded not to carry out punishments on those who turned away from Islam, how much less should Afghanistan’s courts prosecute anyone who decides freely to convert to a different religion?

Danny Carlton blogged When you are willing to kill people who leave your "religion" and are willing to kill yourself in an attempt to kill people who are not of your "religion" then perhaps it's not a religious you're following—but a maniacal, insane delusion.

Europe hands over Palestinian aid

BBC New reported The European Union has handed over 64m euros (£44m) in aid to help the poorest Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

You can always count on Europe to back down and weasel out.

But it said that future aid depended on the incoming Hamas government showing a commitment to work for peace, saying the group was "at a crossroads".

And if they don't they will get a very cross letter with the next bag of cash.

The EU is due to give another 60m euros to cover official salaries and energy expenses for the Palestinian Authority.

I'm boss, Hil tells Bill

New York Daily News reported After being surprised by her husband's role in the Dubai ports deal, Sen. Hillary Clinton has insisted that Bill Clinton give her "final say" over what he says and does, well-placed sources said.

Does that include which interns he has sex with?

The former President agreed to give his wife a veto to avoid his habit of making controversial headlines that could hurt her chances of returning to the White House, multiple sources told the Daily News.

He does not mean it, of course.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Women at war with the mullahs

Sunday Timese reported It would be hard to imagine a place more remote from the violence and turmoil of the Middle East than this quiet cul-de-sac in the southern suburbs of Los Angeles. But as David Sultan opens the front door of his home he glances up and down the street anxiously. He has good reason to be nervous: ever since Dr Wafa Sultan, his wife, appeared on Al-Jazeera, the Arabic television network, last summer she has been receiving death threats.

That is because she said something the Islamofascists did not like, and they are not intelligent enough to debate her; they only know how to kill anyone they disagree with.

During that and a second broadcast in February Dr Sultan, who was brought up as a Muslim in Syria, denounced the teachings and practice of Islam as “barbaric” and “medieval”.

She is a smart lady.

“The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilisations,” the impassioned 47-year-old told Al-Jazeera’s stunned audience across the Arab world. “It is a clash between civilisation and backwardness, between the civilised and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between human rights on the one hand and the violation of these rights on the other, between those who treat women like beasts and those who treat them like human beings.”

Absolutely.

The broadcasts have caused an unholy stir in the Muslim world and virtually overnight have turned Sultan, previously known only to a few for her writings on www.annaqed.com, a small Arab-American website, into one of the most controversial figures in the international debate about Islam. The broadcasts have been downloaded more than 1m times from the internet and she has been interviewed on CNN and profiled by The New York Times and Le Monde.

While some acclaim her as “a voice of reason”

She is exactly that, and more moderate Muslims should speak out in support of what she says.

others have denounced her as a “heretic” and insist that she deserves to die.

If the Islamofascists kill her, they will go to Hell. Surat an-Nisa,093 (Quran 4.93) says "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."

What seems to have most infuriated many Muslims were Sultan’s comparisons between how Jews and Muslims have coped with the tragedies that have befallen them.

“The Jews have come from tragedy and forced the world to respect them,” she said, “with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling.

“We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches,

According to their faith God has pointed out in the Qur'an (Surat al-Ma'ida, 82 (Qur'an 5:82) ) "You will find the people most affectionate to those who believe are those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because some of them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant." and they should respect our places of worship, as commanded in Surat al-Hajj, 40 (Qur'an 22:40): "if God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. God will certainly help those who help Him - God is All-Strong, Almighty."

killing people and destroying embassies. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

Precisely. If you want respect, you must first respect others.

Rumsfeld's Iraq-Germany analogy disputed

CNN reported "Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," Rumsfeld wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday -- the third anniversary of the beginning of the U.S.-led war in Iraq -- in the Washington Post. The anniversary came as officials from Iraq and the United States differed on whether there is all-out civil war there.

Henry Kissinger, who served with U.S. forces in Germany at the end of World War II and who served as secretary of state under Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford, said the situations are not analogous. "In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement," the German-born diplomat told CNN's "Late Edition."

They may not have been able to fight us while we were there, but we could have turned the government over to the remaining Nazis, rather than having a DeNazification process, and if we had, it would have been a mistake, as Rummy said.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under President Carter, a Democrat, was less charitable.

Dems usually are less charitable.

"That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," he said. "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

Someone is demagoguing, but I think it is you and Henry, who want your 15 minutes of fame again, and know that CNN would not run what you said if you agreed with Rummy.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Afghan Man Faces Execution After Converting to Christianity

VOA News reported An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and democratic government. The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity. Under Afghanistan's new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws. And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity. Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian. He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."

Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Koran. Surat aal-E-Imran, 45 (Qur'an 3:45) says Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; Surat aal-E-Imran, 3 (Qur'an 3:3) says It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

We are all "People of the Book" (or ahl al Kitâb) Surat Al 'Imran, 64 (Qur'an 3:64) says "O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." Surat al-Ankaboot, 46 (Qur'an 29:46) says And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit.

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities. On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam. Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime. He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed.

The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney. Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts. This is the first case in which the defendant has admitted to converting and is refusing to back down, even while facing the death penalty.

If convicted, the case could ultimately force President Hamid Karzai's direct intervention. The president would have to sign the papers authorizing Rahman's execution, a move that could jeopardize Mr. Karzai's standing with human rights groups and Western governments.

If he signs them, we should pull our forces out of Afganistan.

So far, President Karzai has not commented on the case. But political analysts here in Kabul say he will be under significant pressure from the country's hard-line religious groups to make an example of Rahman.

Michelle Malkin blogged This story deserves much more attention than it's getting.

Gore vs. Hillary

Robert Novak wrote in Townhall.com Democratic insiders take seriously a possible new try for the presidency by Al Gore and say he is capable of raising more money than the presumptive front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Kerry also thinks he should have been elected, and will probably make a run at it too. The Democratic Primary season should be interesting.

Clinton's team has attempted to foreclose conventional Democratic money sources, drying up funding for her potential presidential rivals. She has $17.1 million cash on hand, more than any other possible candidate. Her current fund-raising tour is aimed at an additional $40 million.

She probably thinks she can drain some of it off for personal use.

However, party operatives believe former Vice President Gore can outdo Clinton through unconventional fund-raising on the Internet. By campaigning left of Clinton, Gore appeals to ardent anti-war Democrats. Gore's first presidential run in 1988 positioned him as the centrist candidate, to the right of eventual nominee Michael Dukakis.

Dems always pretend to be centrists, but with the growth of the extreme left wing of the blogosphere, they are going to find it harder and harder to do it, and not lose their base

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)