Saturday, November 18, 2006

Open Letter to the World

Hat tip to Meryl Yourish for this video. It’s an open letter to the world, from the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. Its titles are in French, because it’s directed at the French, who have recently threatened to fire on IAF jets over Lebanon.


Cool maps

Betsy Newmark blogged Here's a neat look at the election results on the red/blue map adjusted/distored for population.

These are really interesting.


Terror link probed

The Sunday Mail reported A self-proclaimed British multi-millionaire named Mohammed Islam who was arrested on the Gold Coast with almost $120,000 in cash is under investigation as to whether he has terrorist connections.
Queensland police yesterday refused to comment on their investigation into the man, 22, but at this stage there is reportedly no evidence to link him with terrorist activity.

Where he carried his phone is at least suspicious.
Islam allegedly had $118,000 in $50 notes
Which he needed to buy lots of Preparation H.
in a suitcase and a mobile phone concealed in his rectum
Doesn't everyone carry their cell phone there?
when he was arrested at a Surfers Paradise bus station on Thursday night.

Robert Spencer blogged Give the man a break. Maybe he lost the belt clip for his phone.


Huckabee says campaign laws aid McCain

Yahoo! News reported Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Friday said potential 2008 presidential rival John McCain's campaign finance reforms gives the Republican senator an advantage over other candidates by allowing him to transfer money easily. "If you're a senator, you can take the money you raise in a Senate campaign and transfer it to a presidential, but you can't take money you raise in a state campaign and transfer that to a federal campaign," Huckabee, a Republican, told The Associated Press in an interview Friday. "McCain was very smart in creating a system where he could take all of this Senate money that he had and turn it over to his presidential campaign to give him a distinct advantage over anyone else who ran," he said.

Interesting. Particularly since the American voters very rarely elect a senator for President; they prefer a Governor with executive experience. At least someone (McCain) benefited from the horrendous McCain-Feingold "Reform". It also means Hillary will enter the Dem side with a HUGE money advantage.


Interesting Points

Deb at EMIC blogged In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England ’s Prime Minister Tony Blair’s words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said:

“A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in… And how many want out.”

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Those are both very true statements, Deb.


Dutch government backs burqa ban

BBC News The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places. The burqa, a full body covering that also obscures the face, would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts. The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety. The decision comes days ahead of elections which the ruling centre-right coalition is expected to win. Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who is known for her tough policies, said it was important that all people in the Netherlands were able to see and identify each other clearly to promote integration and tolerance.

This is absolutely true. You can't even tell whether the burqa wearer is a man or a woman.


Wicked Witch Of The West

Think Progress blogged Fox News host Mort Kondracke, the “left-leaning” counterpart to Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes on Fox News’ The Beltway Boys, said last night that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) should be nicknamed the “Wicked Witch of the West.”

And in 2008 she will become the Wicked Witch of the East, when a building falls on her, unless the Dems wise up earlier and drop their own building on her.
According to Kondracke, Pelosi has already been pressuring fellow Democrats, “twisting arms and making — you know, having her aides making threats, and stuff like that.” Asked by Brit Hume if that was really happening, Kondracke said, “Supposedly.”


French UN troops prepare guns against Israeli jets in Lebanon

Yahoo! News reported French UN anti-aircraft batteries have taken "preparatory steps" to respond to Israeli jets violating Lebanese airspace,

Are you going to shoot at them? If so you should realize that the Israelis will shoot back, and French soldiers do not like to be shot at. You should have plenty of white flags ready.
despite global criticism of such incursions. "The anti-aircraft unit of the (French) battalion took initial preparatory steps to respond to these actions," Milos Strugar, spokesman for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) told AFP on Friday. He said "UNIFIL observed and reported 14 Israeli air violations this morning, on November 17, 2006, and 11 of these violations occurred in the area of operation of the French battalion with UNIFIL." UNIFIL Force Commander General Alain Pellegrini "strongly protested to the Israeli authorities and asked them to cease these actions which are unacceptable and in violation of Resolution 1701," the spokesman said.
Resolution 1701 also called for you to disarm Hezbollah, and prevent them from being rearmed. Are you doing that?
Strugar said the French battalion took action to respond "in accordance with UNIFIL rules of engagements and UN Security Council Resolution 1701." "They stipulate that in implementing their mandate, all UNIFIL troops may exercise the inherent right of self-defence and take all necessary action to protect UN personnel, facilities, installations and equipment," he said.
None of which are being threatened, nor will they be until you declare war on the Israeli planes.


Friday, November 17, 2006

Bionic hornet

Reuters reported Israel is using nanotechnology to try to create a robot no bigger than a hornet that would be able to chase, photograph and kill its targets, an Israeli newspaper reported on Friday.

Hezbollah thought they were hightech having a couple of UAVs, even though they wewe intercepted, but this is fantastic.
The flying robot, nicknamed the "bionic hornet", would be able to navigate its way down narrow alleyways to target otherwise unreachable enemies such as rocket launchers, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth said. It is one of several weapons being developed by scientists to combat militants, it said. Others include super gloves that would give the user the strength of a "bionic man" and miniature sensors to detect suicide bombers.


Radical Islamists Happy

Amir Taheri wrote in NYP Radical elements across the Middle East see last Tuesday's defeat of President Bush's Republican Party as their victory.

They don't know America.
Calling the election "the beginning of the end for Bush," Ayatollah Imami Kashani told a Friday congregation in Tehran that the Americans were learning the same lesson that last summer's war in Lebanon taught the Israelis.

Tehran decision-makers believe that the Democrats' victory will lift the pressure off the Islamic Republic with regard to its nuclear program. "It is possible that the United States will behave in a wiser manner and will not pit itself against Iran," says Ali Larijani, Tehran's chief negotiator on the nuclear issue. His view is echoed by academics with ties to "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei. "The Democrats will do their best to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through negotiations, rather than resorting to threats," says Yadallah Islami, who teaches politics at Tehran University.
He is right, but the negotiations will be done by Bush, who will still be here for another two years.
"Bush will be forced to behave the way all U.S. presidents have behaved since Richard Nixon - that is to say, get out of wars that the American people do not want to fight." Nasser Hadian, another academic with ties to Khamenei, goes further. "With the return of a more realistic view of the world, the United States will acknowledge the leading role that the Islamic Republic must play," he says.
It should be bombed until it glows in the dark, providing illumination even in the night, to everyone in the middle east.
"There is no reason for our government to make any concessions on the nuclear issue."

Arab radical circles are even more hopeful that Bush's defeat will mark the start of an historic U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. They draw parallels between the American election and Spain's 2004 vote, days after the Madrid terrorist attacks, which led to an unexpected change of government.
America and Spain are very different countries.
The radicals expect U.S. policies to change on three issues:

Iraq: The assumption is that America will cut and run.

Salafist groups linked to al Qaeda believe that this will mean a stampede of those Iraqis who worked with the Americans. Iraq's Shiite leaders would flee to Iran, where most had been in exile before Saddam Hussein's fall. Kurdish political and business elites will flee to the three provinces they have held since 1991. This would enable the Salafists, in alliance with the remnants of Saddam Hussein's Presidential Guards, to enter Baghdad and seize power.
That would never happen. If we are forced to cut and run (and I dont think we will be), the Shiites would stay and wipe out all of the Sunnis
Absent in that calculation is the role Iran might play: Will the mullahs sit back as Salafists and Saddamites lay the foundations of a new Arab regime that would turn against Shiite-dominated Iran?
Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Radical Shiites have their own vision of Iraq after the Americans have fled. They believe that, backed by Iran, they'll be able to move into the four Arab Sunni provinces that have been restive since 2004 - and crush the Saddamites and al Qaeda. This ignores the certainty that any Iranian intervention in Iraq will provoke a massive Arab reaction - with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (now an Iranian ally) forced to back Sunni Arabs in Iraq.
Absolutely. It would be a very bitter and very long civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias.
In other words, any hasty American withdrawal from Iraq could lead to either a long and bloody civil war or an even longer and bloodier regional conflict.

Iran: Radical circles are unanimous in their belief that Iran can now proceed with its nuclear program without fear of U.S. and allied retaliation. They expect Democrats to revert to Clinton-era policy and seek a "Grand Bargain" with the Islamic Republic - acknowledging Iran as the major regional power and recognizing its right to the full cycle of nuclear technology.
Even Clinton realizes North Korea took him to the cleaners. I don't think the Dems will be fooled.
This perception has boosted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cause in next month's crucial elections. Ahmadinejad argues that Bush's defeat vindicates his own policy of "standing firm against the Great Satan he hopes to see his faction win control of the Assembly of Experts - a body that can elect and dismiss the "Supreme Guide." Ahmadinejad would thus control all levers of power in Tehran.
This is good news. It says that there may be a revolt within the leadership in Iran, since I feel sure the Mullahs dont want to turn their control over to Ahmadinejad.
Yet the expected U.S. retreat on Iran may not materialize - or, if it does, produce the results Tehran desires. Why should Democrats be less worried about a rogue state armed with nuclear weapons than the vilified "neocons"?

Iran's entry into the nuclear club, even if not opposed by Washington, would provoke opposition in the region. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies - all would be forced to seek nuclear weapons. And the ensuing arms race would be a heavy burden on the Islamic Republic's ailing economy.

Israel: Radical Islamists in both Iran and the Arab countries believe that the Democrats' victory indicates "growing American lassitude." They believe that, once it becomes clear that Americans don't want to fight for the Middle East, many in Israel would emigrate to America and Europe to escape the constant daily pressure from Islamist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
They do not understand the Jewish desire for a homeland of its own, in the place promised by God.
In visits to more than a dozen countries in the past few months, Ahmadinejad has been vigorously promoting his "one state" formula for Israel-Palestine. He claims to have won the support of Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Sudan's Gen. Hassan al-Bashir, and believes that, once it becomes clear that America wouldn't fight a war in support of Israel, most Arab states would rally along.
While they might be adverse to war, Dems are not going to turn their back on the Jews, who vote predominately Democrat.
His "one state" plan turns on a referendum in which Palestinians, including those outside the region, will vote along with those Israelis who have chosen to stay to create a single state in which Jews and Arabs live together.

This euphoria, too, may prove problematic. There is evidence that a majority of Palestinians wish to have a state of their own as quickly as possible, and see outsiders' quest for a single state as a chimera. Nor is there any reason why many Israelis would choose to flee, as Ahmadinejad expects, rather than stay to defend their country.

Also, most Arab states remain committed to the Bush "road map," a fact underlined last week by Saudi Arabia's call for a new peace conference based on the two-state formula.

The mullahs and al Qaeda may soon find out that their celebration of "the end of Bush" was premature. Some Democrats may have promised cut-and-run. But, once in power, the party as a whole may realize (to its horror) that, this time, those from whom Americans run away will come after them.

One more fact for the mullahs and al Qaeda to take into account: Their nemesis, the reviled Bush, is around for another two years, and unlikely to dance to their tune, even if the new Congress demanded it. And two years is a long time in politics.


Should House Democrats dump their new speaker?

Timothy Noah wrote in Slate Magazine I'll admit my timing could be better, since the incoming House Democrats, on a unanimous voice vote, just made Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaker of the House. But I think her party should give serious thought to dumping her.

It is nice to see the Dems are as upset at the selection of their party's leaders as I am upset at the Republican's choices.
The proximate reason, of course, is that she tried (and, thankfully, failed) to install as House majority leader Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. It's bad enough that Pelosi promoted Murtha (over the perfectly acceptable Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who won the caucus vote) in spite of Murtha's having once been named an unindicted co-conspirator in Abscam, a 1980 FBI sting operation in which G-men posing as representatives of an Arab sheikh offered $50,000 bribes to members of Congress. Even worse is that Pelosi persisted even after a videotape of Murtha's Abscam performance ("I'm not interested … at this point") turned up on the Web, and Democrats began fretting that they were about to erase all distinctions between themselves and the Abramoff-tainted Republicans from whom they'd only just wrenched a House majority.
Maybe that is why she was pushing Murtha, who had said that her proposal to get rid of earmarks was a "load of crap". Maybe she really did not mean it, but thought it maked her look good by saying they were going to dump earmarks in the first 100 hours.
Almost before it began, Pelosi's honeymoon is over.
Probably just as good. Who would want to take her on a honeymoon?
As a preview of the sort of instincts Pelosi will display as House speaker, her steadfastness in supporting Murtha was discouraging on two levels. Most obviously, it suggested that Pelosi lacks a sincere interest in maintaining ethical standards. On a more Machiavellian level, it suggested that Pelosi harbors the crude and entirely false notion that in order to lead, she must demonstrate an ability to prevail even after she realizes, or ought to realize, that her initial judgment was faulty.
Her initial judgement is faulty frequently.
This is the same infantile notion about power embraced by President Bush when he pretended, prior to the midterm elections, that he would keep Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense.
Not at all. He just thought that dumping him prior to the elections would hurt Republican chances, and we will never know whether he was right or not.
One plausible interpretation of the midterm-election results is that voters find it terrifying when a leader is unable, even implicitly, to admit error.
The main thing is they were tired of the Republican overspending on earmarks (and now they will have Democratic overspending on earmarks), and they were tired of Republican scandals (and now they will have Democratic ones)/
Hoyer's victory is already being portrayed as a humiliating defeat for Pelosi, which it was. But it would have been an even greater defeat for Pelosi to push Murtha through and then suffer the consequences of her own idiotic decision. I doubt she understands that.

Pelosi is about to go through an almost-identical test once more. As my friend Ruth Marcus, an op-ed columnist at the Washington Post, outlined earlier this month—she can also take credit for jumping early on the Murtha story—Pelosi has apparently decided not to allow her fellow Californian Rep. Jane Harman to become chairman of the House intelligence committee, even though Harman is in line to do so. (In the cases of both Hoyer and Harman, the reasons for Pelosi's animus are cloudy and in all likelihood personal, which is discouraging in itself.)
Not cloudy at all. Both are moderates, and as an extreme Lefty she wants to take the Democratic party far left, where it will fall off the cliff.
The problem is that next in line for the job is Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge who, though acquitted in a criminal trial, was impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate of conspiring to extort a $150,000 bribe while he sat on the bench. (Hastings won election to the House after all this happened.) Pelosi, reportedly, has promised the post to Hastings, who is African-American and therefore has the backing of the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. The danger now is that Pelosi will honor that promise, creating precisely the same impression that she threatened to create with Murtha, i.e. that House Democrats who engage in bad behavior but manage to escape indictment or beat the rap in court are welcome to positions of high responsibility. In the case of Hastings, we lack videotape, and the evidence is circumstantial. Nonetheless, it is still, as Marcus wrote, "too much to explain away"

Perhaps Murtha and Hastings should start a caucus of their own for House members who can't seem to close the deal.

Here's what I propose. Let Pelosi remain speaker for now. But let her know that, before the new Congress even begins, she has placed herself on probation. If she chooses Hastings to chair House intelligence, that's two strikes. One more strike—even a minor misstep—and House Democrats will demonstrate that they, unlike Speaker-elect Pelosi and President Bush, know how to correct their mistakes. If this scenario strikes you as unrealistic, I will only say this: Remember Bob Livingston.


How Conservatives Can Set The Agenda For The GOP

Captain's Quarters blogged The ascension of Trent Lott as Minority Whip seems especially significant in this regard. Many tried to excuse this by saying that the GOP needs infighters,

We do need infighters, and Lott does know how to schmooze and count votes, but we need someone who can do that AND is a true Conservative Republican.
or that Lott somehow was less egregious than Lamar Alexander on pork, but those are just excuses. Lott has attacked people who want to reform government abuses of taxpayer money and derailed reform legislation intended on exposing the use of earmarks by individual members in order to show taxpayers how influence is bought and sold on Capitol Hill.
Just as Palosi's choice for Majority Leader. But the Dems were smart, and they ignore her.
It's a sorry display of expediency over principle, and every Senator who voted for Lott has underscored the cluelessness of the post-midterm GOP. If Lott truly was the lesser of two evils -- and I don't think he was in this race -- then the GOP has a personnel problem that needs fixing immediately.... Right now, though, here's your task: find viable candidates for House and Senate seats. That process has to start now. We waited too long to develop and champion challengers in the midterm cycle; we need to start finding the men and women who will follow the First Principles and use them to build broad coalitions and charge into office in 2008. I'm hoping to set up a new clearinghouse for these potential candidates where CQ readers can get to know them and their positions and start supporting them early enough to make a significant difference. I'm hoping to partner with other bloggers on this project.


Speaker Pelosi Tempts Disaster

NYT reports Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt.

Josephine Hearn wrote in The Hill Eighteen members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative House Democrats, wrote Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Thursday imploring her to choose Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) to chair the House Intelligence Committee next year. "Congresswoman Harman has served as Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee with skill and distinction. ... She has helped lead the bipartisan reorganization and reform of our intelligence community and has served as a strong voice for Congressional oversight of the Administration and its national security policies," wrote Reps. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.), Mike Ross (D-Ark.), Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.), Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and others. "Both our Caucus and Party have counted on Congresswoman Harman to answer forcefully and credibly to partisan critics who have questioned Democrats’ commitment to protecting our nation." Harman currently serves as the top Democrat on the panel. Yet, Pelosi has all but said she will select another member as chair. Is Pelosi smart enough to do that? I doubt it.
And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.
If the Democratic Caucus had any sense, they would have made Hoyer the Speaker, and given the Majority Leader position to some other Moderate, rather than leaving Pelosi in the position with most power.
But Ms. Pelosi’s damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see — from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago. The resurrected tape — feasted upon by Pelosi enemies — shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator, admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer: “I’m not interested — at this point.” Mr. Murtha would have been a farcical presence in a leadership promising the cleanest Congress in history. Ms. Pelosi should have been first to realize this, having made such a fiery campaign sword of her vows to end Capitol corruption.
When she said she wanted to totally remove all earmarks I had hope she might not be that bad, but by pushing Murtha, the king of Democratic earmarks, who said the reform legislation was crap, shows me she really does not mean it.
Instead, she acted like some old-time precinct boss and lost the first test before her peers. As incoming speaker, Ms. Pelosi will be dogged by skepticism — from within the party and without — about her political smarts and her ability to deliver a galvanized agenda. It was a no-brainer for the caucus to end the misguided fight for Mr. Murtha, who belittled the need for reform. Now the pressure is even greater for Speaker-elect Pelosi to recover by leading the House to something actually worth fighting for — starting with credible anticorruption strictures. For this she needs gaffe-wary advisers, among them Mr. Hoyer, who has his own questionable record of flourishing in big-money politics. The new majority — led by a presumably wiser speaker — must realize by now that intramural vendetta is hardly a substitute for productive government.


Moderate Muslims???

A new report released yesterday by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, The Militant Ideology Atlas, says Finally, a word about “moderate” Muslims. The measure of moderation depends on what type of standard you use. If by “moderate” one means the renouncement of violence in the achievement of political goals, then the majority of Salafis are moderate. But if by “moderate” one means an acceptance of secularism, capitalism, democracy, gender equality, and a commitment to religious pluralism, then Salafis would be extremists on all counts. Then again, there are not many Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East that would qualify as moderates according to the second definition.

What this means is while only some of the Islamists want to kill to achieve their goal, the goal of most Muslims is not just to live in peace, practicing their religion, and willing to do so by whatever community standards exist in the country they are living in, they want to change the community standards to conform with what their religion calls for, and that is total subjigation of women, where a woman is not able to leave her home without a male relative escorting her, and covered from head to toe, and with practically no rights.
Until there are, the international community should focus on alienating Jihadis from the broader Salafi Movement. While it may be distasteful to work with non-violent Salafi leaders, they are best positioned to delegitimize Jihadi violence and monitor the activities of the more militant elements of their movement.

Dr. Rusty Shackleford blogged Most, but not all, Salaafi reject democracy out of hand. The participation of Salafi groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt should be seen in much the same way the the Nazis participated in German politics under the Weimar Republic--it is a means to an end.

Jihadis may be either subsets of Salafism or of Khomeinism. Al Qaeda is a Salafist jihad organization. Hizbollah are Khomeinists.

Which brings up a broader point about the roots of two very different problems that we face, and which are often mixed up.

a) The threat of violence from jihadis.
b) The threat of oppression from Islamists.

When we speak of a threat from Muslim quarters of the world, we are usually referring to the threat of violence by jihadis. The authors of this paper seem to suggest that this violence is inspired by Salaafism. But if Salaafism is the inspiration, how does one explain radical Shia jihadis who would reject Qutb (the philisophical founder of modern Saalafism)?

Lest we forget, it was the Khomeinist jihadis of Hezbollah that killed 220 American Marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers in 1983.

Since both major branches of Islam have both Islamists and jihadis, then the inspiration must lie in Islam itself. At least, in Islam as it has been traditionally interpretted..... And if it is the case that Islam is the root of the problem, then the problem is much bigger than most are willing to admit. Because even if one rejects violence as the means to the end of Sharia law, isn't the end the real problem?.... And if the Taliban or the Iranian Mullahs are any example, then we have much to fear from all of political Islam, and not just the most radical aspects of it.


Thursday, November 16, 2006

Iran complains, "Israel is threatening us"

Reuters reported Iran, whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, complained to the United Nations on Wednesday that the Jewish state was repeatedly threatening to bomb it.

Maybe if Iran stopped vowing to wipe Israel off the map, the little country of Israel would not feel it necessary to threaten the large country of Iran.
The threats were "matters of extreme gravity" and the U.N. Security Council should condemn them and demand that Israel "cease and desist immediately from the threat of the use of force against members of the United Nations," Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said.
And should Israel also make the same demands about Iran? Or should they just blow up the nuclear plants.
His comments came in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan dated Nov. 10 and circulated at the United Nations on Wednesday.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, has been aggressively pursuing a nuclear program that it says is meant only to produce electric power.
Actually its purpose is to produce POWER, i.e. make Iran the strongest country in the region, so that it can be the seat of the new caliphate.


Afghan women seek death by fire

BBC News reported Increasing numbers of Afghan women are committing suicide by setting fire to themselves to escape difficult lives, according to NGOs based in the country. They say women forced into marriage or suffering chronic abuse are killing themselves out of desperation.

Do we need any better example that Arab Culture and Islam need serious changes to bring them into the 21st century.


John Conyers and Islamofascism

John Conyers, Jr,, D-MI, likely to become new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is in the pocket of the Islamists. ConyersBlog says Text of My Resolution Regarding Religious Intolerance

I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both..

This is a Christian country, that is tolerant of other faiths. If you are going to be proposing any Resolution about Religious Intolerance, it should focus on the efforts of the Secular Humanists to disparage Christianity, and not focus on some third level faith like Islam.
I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both those supporting and opposing my actions. I continue to believe that given recent events, it is worthwhile for the Congress to actually express its support for the freedom of religion.
Does this include returning to Prayer in School, display of the 10 commandments, and lessons from the Holy Bible?
The resolution was drafted to oppose all religious intolerance. To the extent it mentions the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion.
The Islamists have hijacked that faith. If we are to discuss what they are up to, we must be free to show what the Quran says, and to discuss whether that is the sort of society we would like America to be.
Anyway, below in the extended entry is the full text of H. Res. 288. I hope you agree that read in its totality, it is a fair and appropriate resolution.
No it is not. It just pushes a special exemption for the Quran.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.
Only to the extent that that religion treats others with dignity and respect. What do Muslims do if one of their members wants to embracce Judaism or Christianity? They kill them?
Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;

Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;
And whereas the writer of the Quran was a warlord who attacked other countries and imposed the Muslim faith by the sword, certainly not a man of peace, and where submission meant other religions had to submit to Islam.
Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;
And whereas many of them should be sent back to the country they come from, if they preach or practice violence.
Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
And taking other countries by force.
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;
No reason to single out the Quran.
Daled Amos blogged The problem is that there is no reason to single out Islam as being especially deserving of respect and tolerance.... If anything the resolution--with its call that "it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form" implies a chilling effect on open discussion and debate.

How odd that Congressman Conyers, who stages a mock impeachment of the current President of the United States, should suddenly get cold feet when it comes to discussing a religion whose more extremist followers have declared war on the West.

PJM blogged Soccer Dad takes a look at Rep. John Conyers, (D-MI) who is set to become the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Conyers—whose constituency includes the heavily Muslim-populated city of Dearborn—sponsored at bill “seeking religious tolerance for all religions while placing a heavy emphasis on protection of Islam” even though, according to FBI data, Muslims are not, by far, the most attacked religious group in the US.

Atlas Shrugs, blogged Dhimmicrats: Embracing Your Killers - America, wake up!

Robert Spencer wrote CAIR's Congress - With the Democratic victory in the midterm elections, one big winner was the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The American Islamic pressure group now has a chance to advance its agenda in numerous ways, with energetic water-carrying by, among others, the Speaker of the House, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and the first Muslim member of Congress.

Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who is likely to be the next House Speaker, has announced her intention to “correct the Patriot Act”
If you are going to correct it, make it stronger, not weaker.
and wants to criminalize scrutiny of Muslims at airports and elsewhere:
Don't criminalize it, increase scrutiny of them.
“Since September 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin. We must make it illegal.” Since religion is the one factor that the jihadists themselves invariably point to as the motivation for their violent actions, Pelosi is calling upon investigators to ignore the single most important key to understanding jihadist strategy and goals. If she gets her way, any Muslim who is searched at an airport at any time will be able to claim that he is being illegally profiled; a law criminalizing searches of Muslims at airports would have a chilling effect upon any effort to investigate jihad terror activity in the Muslim community.

Helping pass such a law will be John Conyers, D-MI, the probable new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “The policies of the Bush administration,” he has declared, “have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors.”

Freedom Fighter blogged Conyers is one of those congressmen who consistently votes aginst Israel on every occassion, even on fairly inocuous resolutions of support.... It's also quite enlightening to google Conyers and Islam and or Muslim and observe how beloved he is of organizations like the MPAC and CAIR. I wonder how homosexuals, Jews and feminists who voted en masse for Conyers and his part feel about his shilling for jihadis?


Pelosi Splits Democrats With Push For Murtha

WaPo A showdown over the House majority leader's post today has Democrats bitterly divided only a week after their party took control of Congress and has prompted numerous complaints that Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and her allies are using strong-arm tactics and threats to try to elect Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.) to the job.

Maybe the mistake is in electing Nanci Pelosi to be Speaker. If the Dems are going to have a snowball's chance in hell of holding both houses they need to elect centrists to their leadership positions, so perhaps Steny Hoyer should be Speaker.


Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Pakistan votes to amend rape laws

BBC News reported Pakistan's national assembly has voted to amend the country's strict Sharia laws on rape and adultery. Until now rape cases were dealt with in Sharia courts. Victims had to have four male witnesses to the crime - if not they faced prosecution for adultery.

This just shows how bad it is to live under Sharia law, and the Democrats with their heads stuck in the sand need to realize that, before the USA has the same problem Europe is facing now, and that is Muslims demanding Sharia law in the part of the country where they live.
Now civil courts will be able to try rape cases, assuming the upper house and the president ratify the move. The reform has been seen as a test of President Musharraf's stated commitment to a moderate form of Islam. "It is a historic bill because it will give rights to women and help end excesses against them," Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told parliament after the vote. Religious parties boycotted the vote, saying the bill encouraged "free sex"
That does not make sense. The sex is free now; a man is free to rape any woman he wants. They new law, allowing a woman to seek to have the rapist punished means that free sex now becomes very costly sex.
A woman is raped every two hours and gang-raped every eight hours in Pakistan, according to the country's independent Human Rights Commission.
Do they know who she is?


Toys for Tots rejects talking Jesus dolls

CNN reported A talking Jesus doll has been turned down by the Marine Reserves' Toys for Tots program. A Los Angeles company offered to donate 4,000 of the 1-foot-tall dolls, which quote Bible verses, for distribution to needy children this holiday season. The battery-powered Jesus is one of several dolls manufactured by one2believe, a division of the Valencia-based Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co., based on biblical figures.

I wonder if they accept Jihadi dolls?
But the charity balked because of the dolls' religious nature. Toys are donated to kids based on financial need and "we don't know anything about their background, their religious affiliations," said Bill Grein, vice president of Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, in Quantico, Virginia. As a government entity, Marines "don't profess one religion over another," Grein said Tuesday. "We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family."
Would you give them a stuffed pig like Porky Pig, or a stuffed dog like Pluto. That would offend a Muslim. And is it just the Jesus doll you are blocking? They also have a Moses doll, and Moses is key in Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam.


Now It’s Hugs for Lieberman

NYT reported Senator Joseph I. Lieberman strode into a Democratic caucus gathering like he owned the place or, at the very least, like someone who is a flight risk and could leave at any minute, taking the Democrats’ new majority with him.

Laughing 3

If the Dems lurch too much to the left, they may slide right out from under him.
In other words, everyone was extra-special nice to the wayward Democrat on Tuesday. “It was all very warm, lots of hugs, high-fives, that kind of stuff,” said Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado.


Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities in America

I got this in the mail, and always try to check out things on the net. InfoPlease shows Safest and Most Dangerous U.S. Cities, 2005 and the data in this post is from 2005. The ultimate authority for this information is a paid site, and they have this info, plus a lot more, and both current and previous year. Much of the information on 2006 is at CNN.

The list, according to Morgan Quitno, is based on a citys rate for six basic crime categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft. All cities of 75,000+ populations that reported crime data to the FBI for the six crime categories were included in the rankings.

In 2005 the survey considered 371 cities, using final 2005 FBI statistics that were released Sept. 18, 2006, and the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities in America were:

1.St. Louis, Mo. Mayor in 2005: Francis G. Slay, Democrat
U.S. Representatives: William Lacy Clay, Democrat, and Russ Carnahan, Democrat
2.Detroit, Mich. Mayor in 2005: Kwame M. Kilpatrick, Democrat
U.S. Representatives: Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Democrat, and John Conyers, Democrat
3.Flint, Mich. Mayor in 2005: Donald Williamson, Republican
U.S. Representative: Dale Kildee, Democrat
4.Compton, Calif. Mayor in 2005: Eric J. Perrodin, Democrat
U.S. Representative: Juanita Millender-McDonald, Democrat
5.Camden, N.J. Mayor in 2005: Gwendolyn A. Faison, Democrat
U.S. Representative: Robert Andrews, Democrat
6.Birmingham, Ala. Mayor in 2005: Bernard Kincaid, Democrat
U.S. Representative: Artur Davis, Democrat
7.Cleveland, Ohio Mayor in 2005: Jane L. Campbell, Democrat
U.S. Representatives: Dennis Kucinich, Democrat, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat
8.Oakland, Calif. Mayor in 2005: Jerry Brown, Democrat
U.S. Representative: Barbara Lee, Democrat
9.Youngstown, Ohio Mayor in 2005: George M. McKelvey, Democrat
U.S. Representative: Tim Ryan, Democrat
10.Gary, Ind. Mayor in 2005: Scott King, Democrat (became independent in April 2005)
U.S. Representative: Peter Visclosky, Democrat
I ask the question: "Just a coincidence?"


Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Al-Qaida plotting nuclear attack on UK

Guardian British intelligence officials believe that al-Qaida is determined to attack the UK with a nuclear weapon, it emerged yesterday. The announcement, from an officially organised Foreign Office counter-terrorism briefing for the media, was the latest in a series of bleak assessments by senior officials and ministers about the terrorist threat facing Britain.

We should work with the Brits to see who attack iran, and who goes for North Korea.
UK officials have detected "an awful lot of chatter" on jihadi websites expressing the desire to acquire chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons.


Florida's Martinez tapped for RNC chief

Washington Times reported Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, co-author of a bill to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, has been picked by White House strategist Karl Rove to be general chairman of the Republican National Committee, RNC officials confirmed yesterday.... While the chairman is elected by the 165-member RNC -- which next meets in Washington in January -- the committee traditionally acts as a rubber stamp for a Republican president when the party controls the White House.

They should have named Steele and Martinez as co-chairs.
The surprise Martinez appointment, leaked yesterday to selected TV outlets and wire services, cut off a move by conservative Republicans to have Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele take over the national party chairmanship. Current Chairman Ken Mehlman announced last week he would step down at the January meeting

CQ blogged Conservatives have problems with Martinez over his moderate position on immigration most of all. Martinez supported the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive reform plan, as did Bush. For those who see that as a major problem in energizing the base, choosing him as RNC chair seems like putting out a fire with gasoline. Even his decision to remain in the Senate irritates them, because a resignation would allow Jeb Bush or Charlie Crist to nominate a replacement, one more inclined to champion the conservative cause on immigration.

This makes Steele more likely to get an offer to join the Bush Cabinet, perhaps in Martinez' old job at HUD. It still seems like a bad choice for Steele, who might want to keep his options open in Maryland instead. Spending two years in a lame-duck Cabinet hardly seems to be a career-builder, especially at HUD.

Blogs Of War blogged The choice is drawing mixed overwhelmingly negative reviews

A. Mocny blogged Steele knows what the country is feeling right now, and how to reform the Republican party in a manner which shall speak to that sentiment. Senator Martinez would make a fine GOP chairman, but he has work to do on his constituents' behalf. LTG Steele will be done serving the citizens of Maryland around the same time Mehlman will be stepping aside. Why the RNC would choose to pass up a more qualified candidate who is willing and able to dedicate his time to leading the party would be beyond me.

Hot Air blogged Hot Air commenters agree: it’s an awful pick, transparently aimed at appealing to pro-amnesty Hispanic voters. If the GOP goes ahead and puts Boehner and Blunt back in place in the minority leadership, you’re looking at a very dire electoral situation in 2008.


Severely disabled babies to be killed at birth

Daily Mail reported The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

Has the Church of England abandoned what Christ taught.
Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die. And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
Is it all about money?
The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.


BBC frightened of criticising Islam

Telegraph reported The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has accused the BBC of bias against Christianity and says the broadcaster fears a terrorist backlash if it is critical of Islam. The archbishop, the second most senior figure in the Church of England's hierarchy, said Christians took "more knocks" than other faiths at the hands of the BBC."They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims," he said. "We are fair game because they can get away with it. We don't go down there and say, 'We are going to bomb your place.' That is not in our nature."

Maybe Christians need to bomb a few media outlets like the BBC, so they will considered on an equal footing with the Muslims


Monday, November 13, 2006

Lieberman Leaves GOP Door Open

Courant. reported Four days after calling his party affiliation a "closed issue," U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman said Sunday he was "not ruling it out" that he could turn Republican.

So the Dems should be very very careful and not lurch too far left
He told NBC's "Meet the Press" he will return to Washington as an "Independent Democrat" - "capital I, capital D." But the R is lurking. "I'm not ruling it out," he said, "but I hope I don't get to that point. And, I must say, and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut, nobody ever said, `We're doing this because we want you to switch over.'"


Democrats: Identify pork sponsors

USAToday reported Democrats aim to open the next Congress in January with a new rule that identifies lawmakers who use legislative "earmarks" to help special interests — a change Republicans promised but didn't implement.

I support that, but I hope she eliminate all earmarks, and not just Republican ones.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said her first agenda item after being elected House speaker will be a vote to require sponsors of earmarks to be identified. Currently, lawmakers can remain anonymous in sponsoring an earmark, which is language in a bill that directs funds or tax benefits to a business, project or institution. "There has to be transparency," the California congresswoman told USA TODAY last week. "I'd just as soon do away with all (earmarks), but that probably isn't realistic."
Why not. Are you afraid supporters of pork will oppose you.
Pelosi said some earmarks "are worthy," and they can be a legitimate way for Congress to force fiscal priorities on the White House.
I doubt you would say that if you had a Democratic President.