It's not as if the New York Daily News is any kind of "paper of record" - actually, I don't believe such a thing exists right now - but it is very widely read in and around New York. And it is not as if Denis Hamill is any writer of note; or else his column would not be buried in the Metro section, within the middle of the Style section, filled with circulars. Nevertheless, his name is known in New York, and hopefully he will be remember for some of the traitorous words printed under his byline today:
Except for the final body count, the war in Iraq is over.
We lost.
But you support the troops, right, Denis? Wonder how good you made them feel today by announcing their unconditional surrender?
...We then turned Afghanistan over to the murderous warlords and opium merchants - whose product probably wound up in the veins of Mellie Carballo and Maria Pesantez, the two coeds who OD'd on heroin a few weeks back on the lower East Side - and declared it a victory for liberal democracy.
Well, that's a lie - maybe Denis forget that the prior government of Afghanistan killed 3,000 of his countrymen? -but only the first of many....
Give it maybe three years after we pull the last troops out - which will start before the 2006 elections for obvious political reasons - and Iraq will be Iran. Ayatollahs will rule. Civil war will rock this sandy asylum. Women will be suppressed. The courts will make decisions based on sharia, Islamic law.
Well, that's not mentioned anywhere in the Iraqi constitution, as far as I know. I do know it requires fully 25% of all parlimentary delegates to be female; which beats the 17% our Congress contains now. And of course Denis quickly forgets American history - it took quite a many year, plus numerous amendments, to make the US Constitution the document it is today. Not to mention a Civil War, alas, but some conflicts are unavoidable and better off fought. Imagine if Hamill's precious UN had been in existence in the 1860's? Two Americas, one where blacks remained slaves, seperated by foreign "peacekeepers", ever at each other's throats? Kinda like the Koreas, I guess...anyway, back to the bile; here Denis dishonors our soldier's sacrafice, telling them it was all for nothing:
None of them could have imagined when they went to Iraq that what they sacrificed - limbs, dead buddies, irretrievable time away from loved ones - was offered so that Ahmed Chalabi, who while on the CIA payroll fed us all that BS about WMD, could get richer as the new oil minister of Iraq. So that Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric whose militia is suspected in the recent execution of a New York freelancer named Steven Vincent, could become a major player in the new "democratic" Iraq assembly.
Funny how Denis was screaming for "inclusion" and "understanding" the enemy not too long ago. Remember, for the Left, everything America does is purpously malevolent.
Now a final lie, a doozy for those whom visit here often:
That's why Cindy Sheehan helped turn the tide of this war that has become President Bush's Vietnam quagmire. When Cindy Sheehan showed up in Crawford, Tex., where Bush cleared brush on the ranch, she synthesized the collective grief of a Gold Star Motherland
Hardly. She's a nut, and the media will be linked with her they way it was with the infamous National Guard Memos, and its reputation will take another deserved hit.
Back to your well-deserved obscurity, Mr. Hamill. And I am sure the troops protecting your freedom are aware of exactly how much you support them.
Link to this filth here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/341719p-291738c.html
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Cindy Sheehan: Another View
Strong words from a print columnist...
Ms. Sheehan and other appeasers around the world provide the fuel that feeds the fire of terrorism...So whether they want to admit it or not, appeasers protesting the war in Iraq are indirectly responsible for the death of the innocent. And the death of our soldiers.
In fact appeasers are directly responsible for the death of Ms. Sheehan’s son, not George W. Bush. If the whole country was united for the war in Iraq, I doubt if the terrorists would have started their suicide bombing campaign.
Using this logic Ms. Sheehan has become the biggest terrorist in the world, not George W. Bush as she so eloquently stated. And the liberal media has become her ally by spreading the word of her protest to the terrorists.
...last place I'd expect to see it is in The Arab News....
Really. Link here: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=11677794
And just for giggles, while speaking of the duplicity of the media and the Mother Sheehan story, take a gander at these pix on LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17266_How_Phony_Can_They_Get&only.
300 present; 200 from the media?
Better believe it....
Ms. Sheehan and other appeasers around the world provide the fuel that feeds the fire of terrorism...So whether they want to admit it or not, appeasers protesting the war in Iraq are indirectly responsible for the death of the innocent. And the death of our soldiers.
In fact appeasers are directly responsible for the death of Ms. Sheehan’s son, not George W. Bush. If the whole country was united for the war in Iraq, I doubt if the terrorists would have started their suicide bombing campaign.
Using this logic Ms. Sheehan has become the biggest terrorist in the world, not George W. Bush as she so eloquently stated. And the liberal media has become her ally by spreading the word of her protest to the terrorists.
...last place I'd expect to see it is in The Arab News....
Really. Link here: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=11677794
And just for giggles, while speaking of the duplicity of the media and the Mother Sheehan story, take a gander at these pix on LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17266_How_Phony_Can_They_Get&only.
300 present; 200 from the media?
Better believe it....
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Sharon's Reward
A suicide bomber blew himself up outside the central bus station in this southern Israeli city during morning rush hour Sunday, critically wounding two security guards in the first attack since Israel began its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this month.
The bombing raised pressure on Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to crack down on militant groups. Israel has said any progress in peacemaking after the Gaza withdrawal will require Abbas to disarm the militants — a step he so far has been unwilling to take.
Was it Lyndon Johnson who said, "If you let a bully into your front yard, the next day he'll be on your porch; and the following day he'll be in your bedroom raping your wife"?
Seems as if the AP's last sentence is showing a little bit of balance - must've slipped past the weekend editor...
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8931552/
The bombing raised pressure on Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to crack down on militant groups. Israel has said any progress in peacemaking after the Gaza withdrawal will require Abbas to disarm the militants — a step he so far has been unwilling to take.
Was it Lyndon Johnson who said, "If you let a bully into your front yard, the next day he'll be on your porch; and the following day he'll be in your bedroom raping your wife"?
Seems as if the AP's last sentence is showing a little bit of balance - must've slipped past the weekend editor...
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8931552/
AP Shills for Sheehan while Liberals Foot her Bills...
Oh, that liberal media! Powerline finds some deliberate lies ( I will not stoop to call them "misrepresentations") in AP reporting on kindly Mother Sheehan:
The article concludes with an outright whopper:
Sheehan and other grieving families met with Bush about two months after her son died last year, before reports of faulty prewar intelligence surfaced and caused her to become a vocal opponent of the war.
As anyone who has followed this story knows, this claim is utterly false. Sheehan has always been a "vocal opponent of the war;" her opposition had nothing to do with "reports of faulty prewar intelligence." By her own account, as we noted here, Sheehan was bitterly opposed to the war before her son Casey re-enlisted in August 2003:
I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to go to that immoral war. *** The U.N. weapon inspectors were saying there were no weapons of mass destruction. So I believed all along that this invasion was unnecessary and that there was some other agenda behind it besides keeping America safe.
So, far from having been turned into a "vocal opponent" some time after her son's death, Ms. Sheehan already considered the war "immoral" before he re-enlisted in 2003, and she never did believe the intelligence about WMDs.
Click the link here http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011455.php to see more media propoganda in support of this psycho-b*tch...
And who is paying for this non-stop anti-American media circus? The usual suspects, alas...via LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17241_Mama_Moonbats_PR_Machine&only :
...bills are being paid for by True Majority, a non-profit set up by Ben Cohen — of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream fame. Ben Cohen, True Majority: “People are willing to listen to her and we want to do as much as we can to make her voice heard.”
Cohen’s group has teamed up with Berkeley based MoveOn.org, an anti-Bush group co-founded by Joan Blades. Earlier this month, MoveOn helped organize anti-war vigils in support of Cindy Sheehan.
Current Democratic National Party Chair Howard Dean’s organization Democracy for America is also involved, as is the more radical anti-war group Code Pink organized by San Francisco’s Medea Benjamin.
Money donated through these groups and others is helping to pay for Gold Star families whose children have been killed in Iraq to attend anti-Bush protests.
This week Simi Valley California Gold Star wife Melanie House flew to Idaho for a protest and then flew to Crawford.
ABC7’s Mark Matthews: “Can you tell us if you’re getting help in airfare to come down here?”
Melanie House: “What difference does that make?”
All the difference in the world, House...and it seems as if you know it. I've predicted it before, and I'll say it again - this will blow up in the face of the Democratic Party and their flunkys in the mainstream media; and I cannot wait to see it.
I'll veer off of Sheehan and stick with my media-bashing for a moment; click to Ann Althouse here http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/08/about-roberts-states-rights-and-that.html and see how the New York Times turns this comment by future Supreme Court Justice John Roberts -
" a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California."
-into the following conclusion:
It suggests that Judge Roberts - who broke with even a majority of the conservative judges on his court - may hold extreme states' rights views, the kind that could sharply limit Congress's power to protect ordinary Americans...
Quite a leap; one that can only be made by our intellectual superiors on the Left, of course...
The article concludes with an outright whopper:
Sheehan and other grieving families met with Bush about two months after her son died last year, before reports of faulty prewar intelligence surfaced and caused her to become a vocal opponent of the war.
As anyone who has followed this story knows, this claim is utterly false. Sheehan has always been a "vocal opponent of the war;" her opposition had nothing to do with "reports of faulty prewar intelligence." By her own account, as we noted here, Sheehan was bitterly opposed to the war before her son Casey re-enlisted in August 2003:
I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to go to that immoral war. *** The U.N. weapon inspectors were saying there were no weapons of mass destruction. So I believed all along that this invasion was unnecessary and that there was some other agenda behind it besides keeping America safe.
So, far from having been turned into a "vocal opponent" some time after her son's death, Ms. Sheehan already considered the war "immoral" before he re-enlisted in 2003, and she never did believe the intelligence about WMDs.
Click the link here http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011455.php to see more media propoganda in support of this psycho-b*tch...
And who is paying for this non-stop anti-American media circus? The usual suspects, alas...via LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17241_Mama_Moonbats_PR_Machine&only :
...bills are being paid for by True Majority, a non-profit set up by Ben Cohen — of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream fame. Ben Cohen, True Majority: “People are willing to listen to her and we want to do as much as we can to make her voice heard.”
Cohen’s group has teamed up with Berkeley based MoveOn.org, an anti-Bush group co-founded by Joan Blades. Earlier this month, MoveOn helped organize anti-war vigils in support of Cindy Sheehan.
Current Democratic National Party Chair Howard Dean’s organization Democracy for America is also involved, as is the more radical anti-war group Code Pink organized by San Francisco’s Medea Benjamin.
Money donated through these groups and others is helping to pay for Gold Star families whose children have been killed in Iraq to attend anti-Bush protests.
This week Simi Valley California Gold Star wife Melanie House flew to Idaho for a protest and then flew to Crawford.
ABC7’s Mark Matthews: “Can you tell us if you’re getting help in airfare to come down here?”
Melanie House: “What difference does that make?”
All the difference in the world, House...and it seems as if you know it. I've predicted it before, and I'll say it again - this will blow up in the face of the Democratic Party and their flunkys in the mainstream media; and I cannot wait to see it.
I'll veer off of Sheehan and stick with my media-bashing for a moment; click to Ann Althouse here http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/08/about-roberts-states-rights-and-that.html and see how the New York Times turns this comment by future Supreme Court Justice John Roberts -
" a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California."
-into the following conclusion:
It suggests that Judge Roberts - who broke with even a majority of the conservative judges on his court - may hold extreme states' rights views, the kind that could sharply limit Congress's power to protect ordinary Americans...
Quite a leap; one that can only be made by our intellectual superiors on the Left, of course...
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Climate Change Extremists
Just what we need on a panel discussing "global warming":
A scientist who has long disagreed with the dominant view that global warming stems mainly from human activity has resigned from a panel that is completing a report for the Bush administration on temperature trends in the atmosphere.
The scientist, Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climatologist at Colorado State University, said most of the other scientists working on the report were too deeply wedded to particular views and were discounting minority opinions on the quality of climate records and possible causes of warming.
Dr. Pielke contends that changes in landscapes like the spread of agriculture and cities could explain many of the surface climate trends, while most climate experts now see a clear link to accumulating emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
So climate-change theory has become another victim of politically correct orthodoxy. The ONLY reason for global warming can be us humans, primarily the Westernized types whom have dared to improve their lifestyles through machinary. Think outside the box, and be forced out.
And by the way, the JerseyNut is in no way, shape, or form even convinced that global warming is anything except a natural phenomenon. Remember after the tsunami last Christmas, when undersea villages rose from the deep with the new landscape? What caused the ocean levels to rise 10,000 years ago? The nasty SUV's that the natives were driving? Or in late 13th century Europe, where 100 years of unprecedented warmth led to greater harvests and livestock herds than had ever been previously seen - what the heck "caused" that? Or the 100 years of cold weather that followed? Where was the human causation factor?
The answer is - there was none! In a planet over 4 billion years old, even a warming trend that lasts a century may only be a blip; not a trend at all but just part of the natural cycle of life for the Earth. But to our left wing media/politicians/scientists, there must be a human, or a civilization, to blame. What hubris!
I miss the '70's; when as a boy I remember all the talk was about the expanding polar ice caps and the coming of a new Ice Age. Harmless weekly magazine fodder then, but now, the latest climatological craze has left-wing fervor and legislative power behind it; and may actually be dangerous to the population; albiet for different reasons...
If this is the best our science has to offer- politically correct results with dissenters 'frozen' out- than we face a greater danger than that of all the 'creationists ' combined.
Link to above story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/science/earth/23clim.html
A scientist who has long disagreed with the dominant view that global warming stems mainly from human activity has resigned from a panel that is completing a report for the Bush administration on temperature trends in the atmosphere.
The scientist, Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climatologist at Colorado State University, said most of the other scientists working on the report were too deeply wedded to particular views and were discounting minority opinions on the quality of climate records and possible causes of warming.
Dr. Pielke contends that changes in landscapes like the spread of agriculture and cities could explain many of the surface climate trends, while most climate experts now see a clear link to accumulating emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
So climate-change theory has become another victim of politically correct orthodoxy. The ONLY reason for global warming can be us humans, primarily the Westernized types whom have dared to improve their lifestyles through machinary. Think outside the box, and be forced out.
And by the way, the JerseyNut is in no way, shape, or form even convinced that global warming is anything except a natural phenomenon. Remember after the tsunami last Christmas, when undersea villages rose from the deep with the new landscape? What caused the ocean levels to rise 10,000 years ago? The nasty SUV's that the natives were driving? Or in late 13th century Europe, where 100 years of unprecedented warmth led to greater harvests and livestock herds than had ever been previously seen - what the heck "caused" that? Or the 100 years of cold weather that followed? Where was the human causation factor?
The answer is - there was none! In a planet over 4 billion years old, even a warming trend that lasts a century may only be a blip; not a trend at all but just part of the natural cycle of life for the Earth. But to our left wing media/politicians/scientists, there must be a human, or a civilization, to blame. What hubris!
I miss the '70's; when as a boy I remember all the talk was about the expanding polar ice caps and the coming of a new Ice Age. Harmless weekly magazine fodder then, but now, the latest climatological craze has left-wing fervor and legislative power behind it; and may actually be dangerous to the population; albiet for different reasons...
If this is the best our science has to offer- politically correct results with dissenters 'frozen' out- than we face a greater danger than that of all the 'creationists ' combined.
Link to above story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/science/earth/23clim.html
Monday, August 22, 2005
Cindy Sheehan Speaks; Media stays Mum...
The "Mother Sheehan" saga is going to do for the media and the Democrats what CBS's forged national Guard memos did for...the media and the Democrats. 'Ol Ms. Sheehan spoke again the other day, and for some strange reason, it didn't make headlines. Maybe because she sounded...completely batsh*t? Via LGF:
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Rumsfeld is a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation’s security and to peace on our beloved earth?
...As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks?
Our country has been overtaken by murderous thugs....gangsters who lust after fortunes and power; never caring that their addictions are at the expense of our loved ones, and the blood of innocent people near and far. We’ve watched these thugs parade themselves before the whole world as if they are courageous advocates for Christian moral values....and for the spread of democracy. Yet we all know that they are now putting in place, all across this country, a system of voting that provides no way to validate the accuracy of the counting of the votes.
OoooooooooKaaaaaaaaay....so our Secretary of Defense is "Stilter"; Wolfowitz is the Wolfman, and the government is comprised of gangsters conspiring to fix the vote. Not to mention, at least in this rant, that it is really all Israel's fault; but at least there is some Christian-bashing thrown in for good measure..the whole thing sounds like something one might hear on Air America (or NPR).
Shouldn't the media be reporting this while they are begging us to "just feel her pain"? No, the truth cannot conflict with the storyline...Meanwhile, who's got a list with the names of the politicians who have stood by Nutty Cindy's side? I wanna see it!!!
From LGF, link to Sheehan's insanity here {lovingly entitled "MSM's Anti-War Heroine"}: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17158_MSMs_Anti-War_Heroine&only
UPDATE: Mark Steyn has a blistering column; I'll steal his conclusion:
(Sheehan) has now left Crawford, officially because her mother has had a stroke, but promising to return. I doubt she will. Perhaps deep down she understands she's a woman whose grief curdled into a narcissistic rage, and most Americans will not follow where she's gone -- to the wilder shores of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Iraq, anti-Afghanistan, anti-Israel, anti-American paranoia. Casey Sheehan's service was not the act of a child. A shame you can't say the same about his mom's new friends.
Link here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn21.html
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Rumsfeld is a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation’s security and to peace on our beloved earth?
...As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks?
Our country has been overtaken by murderous thugs....gangsters who lust after fortunes and power; never caring that their addictions are at the expense of our loved ones, and the blood of innocent people near and far. We’ve watched these thugs parade themselves before the whole world as if they are courageous advocates for Christian moral values....and for the spread of democracy. Yet we all know that they are now putting in place, all across this country, a system of voting that provides no way to validate the accuracy of the counting of the votes.
OoooooooooKaaaaaaaaay....so our Secretary of Defense is "Stilter"; Wolfowitz is the Wolfman, and the government is comprised of gangsters conspiring to fix the vote. Not to mention, at least in this rant, that it is really all Israel's fault; but at least there is some Christian-bashing thrown in for good measure..the whole thing sounds like something one might hear on Air America (or NPR).
Shouldn't the media be reporting this while they are begging us to "just feel her pain"? No, the truth cannot conflict with the storyline...Meanwhile, who's got a list with the names of the politicians who have stood by Nutty Cindy's side? I wanna see it!!!
From LGF, link to Sheehan's insanity here {lovingly entitled "MSM's Anti-War Heroine"}: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17158_MSMs_Anti-War_Heroine&only
UPDATE: Mark Steyn has a blistering column; I'll steal his conclusion:
(Sheehan) has now left Crawford, officially because her mother has had a stroke, but promising to return. I doubt she will. Perhaps deep down she understands she's a woman whose grief curdled into a narcissistic rage, and most Americans will not follow where she's gone -- to the wilder shores of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Iraq, anti-Afghanistan, anti-Israel, anti-American paranoia. Casey Sheehan's service was not the act of a child. A shame you can't say the same about his mom's new friends.
Link here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn21.html
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Cindy Sheehan's Ratings Dip; Cancellation on the Horizon?
Every time President Bush's approval ratings take a dip (even if it is based on a poll taken at a Young Democrat ice-cream social), the media put it on the front page, with banner headlines declaring the end of W. So you wouldn't think they would take a woman with an approval rating of less than 35% and declare her a national hero, right? Well, Cindy Sheehan's numbers are in, and they ain't pretty:
Cindy Sheehan... is viewed favorably by 35% of Americans and unfavorably by 38%.
Sheehan is viewed favorably by 34% of men and 35% of women. Forty-two percent (42%) of men and 34% of women have an unfavorable view.
In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see. Opinion about her is largely based upon views of the War, rather than views about the woman herself. Democrats, by a 56% to 18% margin, have a favorable opinion. Republicans, by a 64% to 16% margin, have an unfavorable view. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided...
Among those with family members who have served in the military, Sheehan is viewed favorably by 31% and unfavorably by 48%.
"People see in Sheehan what they want to see"...well, based on the media's lionization of this left-wing, anti-semetic hatemonger, I guess we know what the media wants to see...
Welcome to the dustbin of history, Mother Sheehan!
UPDATE: You want confirmation of the media bias involved in the reporting of this story? Check this out from NRO http://media.nationalreview.com/073715.asp:
During a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Cindy Sheehan told reporters:
Well I believe that my son was killed by the policies of George Bush, you know, that none of those kids should be in Iraq at all...The person who killed my son, I have no animosity for that person at all. You know, I many Iraqi mothers who have been destroyed by our invasion and occupation which is illegal and immoral what we are doing over there. I have no animosity towards that person.
I'd like to remind you that she said this during a phone call with a group of reporters, and I can't find a single instance of this remark reported anywhere. Perhaps that's because, reading the transcript, it becomes evident that the reporters are on Sheehan's side.
Need more evidence? Check out this piece of wishful thinking http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/337924p-288568c.html from NY Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin, entitled "An Army of One", which opens with -
George Bush has met his match. He has twice vanquished Democratic opponents, brought down Saddam Hussein and is the straw that stirs the world's drink.
All that was before Cindy Sheehan showed up on his doorstep.
Cindy Sheehan... is viewed favorably by 35% of Americans and unfavorably by 38%.
Sheehan is viewed favorably by 34% of men and 35% of women. Forty-two percent (42%) of men and 34% of women have an unfavorable view.
In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see. Opinion about her is largely based upon views of the War, rather than views about the woman herself. Democrats, by a 56% to 18% margin, have a favorable opinion. Republicans, by a 64% to 16% margin, have an unfavorable view. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided...
Among those with family members who have served in the military, Sheehan is viewed favorably by 31% and unfavorably by 48%.
"People see in Sheehan what they want to see"...well, based on the media's lionization of this left-wing, anti-semetic hatemonger, I guess we know what the media wants to see...
Welcome to the dustbin of history, Mother Sheehan!
UPDATE: You want confirmation of the media bias involved in the reporting of this story? Check this out from NRO http://media.nationalreview.com/073715.asp:
During a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Cindy Sheehan told reporters:
Well I believe that my son was killed by the policies of George Bush, you know, that none of those kids should be in Iraq at all...The person who killed my son, I have no animosity for that person at all. You know, I many Iraqi mothers who have been destroyed by our invasion and occupation which is illegal and immoral what we are doing over there. I have no animosity towards that person.
I'd like to remind you that she said this during a phone call with a group of reporters, and I can't find a single instance of this remark reported anywhere. Perhaps that's because, reading the transcript, it becomes evident that the reporters are on Sheehan's side.
Need more evidence? Check out this piece of wishful thinking http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/337924p-288568c.html from NY Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin, entitled "An Army of One", which opens with -
George Bush has met his match. He has twice vanquished Democratic opponents, brought down Saddam Hussein and is the straw that stirs the world's drink.
All that was before Cindy Sheehan showed up on his doorstep.
Only in your liberal dreams, Goodwin...
Link to Rasmussen survey here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Cindy%20Sheehan.htm
And in case you missed it, post regarding under-reported (surprise!) anti-semetic remarks made by Cindy Sheehan here: http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-sheehan-anti-semite.html
Spitting in the Well
Paul Krugman's piece today in the New York Times was filled with laughable distortions of the truth; but it is the more sinister purpose behind it that needs to be examined. I'll link to some sites that do a more thorough fisking of it below; here's a quick sample of his work - first, a simple lie:
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
Truth: Actually, both consortiums found the opposite. From USA TODAY:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.
But Paul ignore these troublesome facts, and insinuates a conspiracy of silence has deluded us poor Americans:
But few Americans have heard these facts....
....the whitewash of what happened in Florida in 2000...
{Only the most talked about story for months, Paul - where were you? Under a rock on Mars with your fingers in your ears?}
Then it's a racial issue:
But both reports show that votes were suppressed by long lines at polling places...and that these lines occurred disproportionately in areas likely to vote Democratic.
So according to the Paul Krugman and the New York Times (implicated because their fact-checkers allowed this to pass), the 200o election was stolen, whitewashed by a media conspiracy which allowed voter suppression in Ohio during the 2004 election to pass unnoticed; thus allowing the Republicans to steal yet another election. And we, meaning the media, "the people", and the Democrats, must stop the Republicans from striking at our democracy again.
What is the purpose of this obvious nonsense? The JerseyNut has a theory, all right...
The Democratic party has been reeling since 2000. They may whine about stolen elections until the cows come home, but it was the American people whom increased the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as within the Governer's houses across the nation. The Democratic party, full of intellectual conceit, cannot, cannot fathom that their ideas are being rejected by "the people", since, after all, it is a bengin liberal leadership that is best for them.
So there must be other reasons, opine the Democrats:
-Bush stole the election
-A religious cult of uneducated Americans are attempting to take over the country
- The media is covering for Bush; and/or too many damned people are believing what they see on FOX instead of in the Times!
By venting their impotent, childish fury this way, they are, purposely, spitting in the well of American democracy. By attempting to portray the current Administration as illicit, to convince blacks and poor Americans that their voices are being intentionally squelched, by intentionally feeding them factually incorrect information (see above!), the Democrats and the media are poisioning the political atmosphere. They are creating an undercurrent of rage that they hope to ride to election victory in 2008, but win or lose, the carnage will be great. Media outlets will be free, as the Times apparently is, to create any facts that fit their editorial desires, rendering facts meaningless in a discussion. Any election outcome can be labeled as a fraud, if "long lines" become evidence of racial voter supression. And discourse is no longer the give and take of ideas, but it becomes simply belittling the intelligence, birthplace, or religion of the other party's supporters. Hate, rather than disgareement, becomes the currancy of the politcal realm...
The bulk of America is disgusted by the left-wing's hijacking of the Democratic party by the like of Howard Dean and MoveOn, and will have no quarter with this type of devastating slash-and burn technique of electioneering.
But does the Times, Krugman, and Democrats like Howard Dean and Maxine Waters even realize the damage their demogouging can do to the body politic? Or are they so deluded they believe this is a winning technique?
All this, while they actively campaign for the defeat of America forces in Iraq (calling it a "withdrawal").
How can a political party whom so actively despoils the country it claims to represent ever expect to regain power?
Maybe they can't.
And maybe they know it.
So they Spit in the Well.
Krugman here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/opinion/19krugman.html
Three different links to studies by media outlets (including one endorsed by the Times!) refuting Krugman's claim can be found here: http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2005/08/19/krugman
Instapundit links to a few good fiskings of Krugman's trash here: http://instapundit.com/archives/025003.php
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
Truth: Actually, both consortiums found the opposite. From USA TODAY:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.
But Paul ignore these troublesome facts, and insinuates a conspiracy of silence has deluded us poor Americans:
But few Americans have heard these facts....
....the whitewash of what happened in Florida in 2000...
{Only the most talked about story for months, Paul - where were you? Under a rock on Mars with your fingers in your ears?}
Then it's a racial issue:
But both reports show that votes were suppressed by long lines at polling places...and that these lines occurred disproportionately in areas likely to vote Democratic.
So according to the Paul Krugman and the New York Times (implicated because their fact-checkers allowed this to pass), the 200o election was stolen, whitewashed by a media conspiracy which allowed voter suppression in Ohio during the 2004 election to pass unnoticed; thus allowing the Republicans to steal yet another election. And we, meaning the media, "the people", and the Democrats, must stop the Republicans from striking at our democracy again.
What is the purpose of this obvious nonsense? The JerseyNut has a theory, all right...
The Democratic party has been reeling since 2000. They may whine about stolen elections until the cows come home, but it was the American people whom increased the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as within the Governer's houses across the nation. The Democratic party, full of intellectual conceit, cannot, cannot fathom that their ideas are being rejected by "the people", since, after all, it is a bengin liberal leadership that is best for them.
So there must be other reasons, opine the Democrats:
-Bush stole the election
-A religious cult of uneducated Americans are attempting to take over the country
- The media is covering for Bush; and/or too many damned people are believing what they see on FOX instead of in the Times!
By venting their impotent, childish fury this way, they are, purposely, spitting in the well of American democracy. By attempting to portray the current Administration as illicit, to convince blacks and poor Americans that their voices are being intentionally squelched, by intentionally feeding them factually incorrect information (see above!), the Democrats and the media are poisioning the political atmosphere. They are creating an undercurrent of rage that they hope to ride to election victory in 2008, but win or lose, the carnage will be great. Media outlets will be free, as the Times apparently is, to create any facts that fit their editorial desires, rendering facts meaningless in a discussion. Any election outcome can be labeled as a fraud, if "long lines" become evidence of racial voter supression. And discourse is no longer the give and take of ideas, but it becomes simply belittling the intelligence, birthplace, or religion of the other party's supporters. Hate, rather than disgareement, becomes the currancy of the politcal realm...
The bulk of America is disgusted by the left-wing's hijacking of the Democratic party by the like of Howard Dean and MoveOn, and will have no quarter with this type of devastating slash-and burn technique of electioneering.
But does the Times, Krugman, and Democrats like Howard Dean and Maxine Waters even realize the damage their demogouging can do to the body politic? Or are they so deluded they believe this is a winning technique?
All this, while they actively campaign for the defeat of America forces in Iraq (calling it a "withdrawal").
How can a political party whom so actively despoils the country it claims to represent ever expect to regain power?
Maybe they can't.
And maybe they know it.
So they Spit in the Well.
Krugman here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/opinion/19krugman.html
Three different links to studies by media outlets (including one endorsed by the Times!) refuting Krugman's claim can be found here: http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2005/08/19/krugman
Instapundit links to a few good fiskings of Krugman's trash here: http://instapundit.com/archives/025003.php
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Cindy Sheehan, Anti-Semite!
French-kiss the far left, Mother Sheehan, and you're gonna wind up with some nasty lipstick smeared on you...from the mouth of the heroine of the far-left:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.
Swallowed that whole Move-on, Jew-hating, left-wing bile without missing a drop, Mrs. (soon to be Miss) Sheehan? I'm sure your son, would he be alive, would be very proud of your behavior today, right? I'm sure he would have wanted you to honor his memory by spouting the same hatreds that his killers espoused while doing their dirty work by attempting to weaken his Commander-in-Chief. But then, it's not really about your son, is it, Mother Sheehan?
It's about you.
Want to see the real Cindy Sheehan? Cox & Forkum capture her perfectly here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17062_Show_of_Grief&only
"Show of Grief", indeed...the media shares the blame, making this misguided woman into some type of a folk hero. Nice try, traitors, but you failed here, too...but I'm sure she'll be tossed aside as soon as there is someone to exploit, in an attempt to find the "tipping point" that has eluded you (remember those National Guard "memos"? I do!) so far...
Link to Christopher Hitchen's article containing Sheehan quote here: http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.
Swallowed that whole Move-on, Jew-hating, left-wing bile without missing a drop, Mrs. (soon to be Miss) Sheehan? I'm sure your son, would he be alive, would be very proud of your behavior today, right? I'm sure he would have wanted you to honor his memory by spouting the same hatreds that his killers espoused while doing their dirty work by attempting to weaken his Commander-in-Chief. But then, it's not really about your son, is it, Mother Sheehan?
It's about you.
Want to see the real Cindy Sheehan? Cox & Forkum capture her perfectly here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17062_Show_of_Grief&only
"Show of Grief", indeed...the media shares the blame, making this misguided woman into some type of a folk hero. Nice try, traitors, but you failed here, too...but I'm sure she'll be tossed aside as soon as there is someone to exploit, in an attempt to find the "tipping point" that has eluded you (remember those National Guard "memos"? I do!) so far...
Link to Christopher Hitchen's article containing Sheehan quote here: http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Schroeder Going with What Works...
...in a German election - "Bush-Bashing, Anti-American Sentiment and Pacifist Fear", according to David Mendienkritik's blog. In particular, he is referring to Shroeder's declaration, in response to President Bush's comment that "no options are off the table" in Iran:
... Mr Schroeder said diplomacy was the answer.
"I've read that military options are also on the table," he said. "My answer to that is: 'Dear friends in Europe and America, let's develop a strong negotiating position towards Iran, but take the military option off the table'...We have seen it doesn't work," Mr Schroeder told Social Democrats at the rally in Hanover, to rapturous applause from the crowd.
Mr Schroeder's speech will also revive memories of the last election campaign three years ago, when he strongly opposed the idea of attacking Iraq.
Then, as now, his Social Democratic Party (SPD) was far behind in the opinion polls, and the position on Iraq is generally believed to have been a factor in helping him win the election.
I could go on for hours, but I'll limit myself to two points:
1) WE HAVE SEEN IT DOESN'T WORK??? Was it a "strongly worded communique" from the EU that drove the hated Taliban out of Afghanistan? How many years of UN sanctions failed to drive Saddam out of Iraq (while enriching parasites at the UN and within the EU)? How much German diplomacy was needed to convince Libya's Khaddafi to give up his WMD program?
None of the above, stupid Kraut - only American moral clarity and superioir strength were capable of doing that.
2) Germans have changed not at all in the last century. Always blaming their problems on outsiders, Shroeder plays to the audience he knows so well by substituting "America" for "Jews", albiet with the same results. He knows what he's doing; he knows to whom he's preaching, and he is playing to their basest hatred. Way to lead, Gerhard ! But I guess he's perfect for the Germans, a people whose moral depravity seems like a bottomless well...
And while Shroeder tries to tie American hands (John Kerry should be at his side), what are the mullahs in Iran up to? Via Pejmanesque:
Iran's ultra-conservative President has announced a hardline cabinet, signalling a tougher line in negotiations with the West and sounding the death knell for the reform movement in Iran.
Despite promising a Government of moderation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave key posts to prominent religious conservatives and new faces from the ideological Right, many of whom are former military commanders.
Although hailing from different right-wing political factions, which analysts say could lead to political in-fighting, the cabinet is united in believing that Iran must not bow to international pressure over its nuclear ambitions.
Remember, dear mullahs, Bush's statement on Israeli TV on Friday that "all options are on the table" in dealing with Iran. If you beards think Bush is gonna knuckle under to a couple of cowardly Euro-weenies, well, you haven't been paying much attention lately...
Link to Medienkritik here (with links to BBC aticle quoted): http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/08/no_surprise_sch.html
Link to Pejmanesque here: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/011164.html
... Mr Schroeder said diplomacy was the answer.
"I've read that military options are also on the table," he said. "My answer to that is: 'Dear friends in Europe and America, let's develop a strong negotiating position towards Iran, but take the military option off the table'...We have seen it doesn't work," Mr Schroeder told Social Democrats at the rally in Hanover, to rapturous applause from the crowd.
Mr Schroeder's speech will also revive memories of the last election campaign three years ago, when he strongly opposed the idea of attacking Iraq.
Then, as now, his Social Democratic Party (SPD) was far behind in the opinion polls, and the position on Iraq is generally believed to have been a factor in helping him win the election.
I could go on for hours, but I'll limit myself to two points:
1) WE HAVE SEEN IT DOESN'T WORK??? Was it a "strongly worded communique" from the EU that drove the hated Taliban out of Afghanistan? How many years of UN sanctions failed to drive Saddam out of Iraq (while enriching parasites at the UN and within the EU)? How much German diplomacy was needed to convince Libya's Khaddafi to give up his WMD program?
None of the above, stupid Kraut - only American moral clarity and superioir strength were capable of doing that.
2) Germans have changed not at all in the last century. Always blaming their problems on outsiders, Shroeder plays to the audience he knows so well by substituting "America" for "Jews", albiet with the same results. He knows what he's doing; he knows to whom he's preaching, and he is playing to their basest hatred. Way to lead, Gerhard ! But I guess he's perfect for the Germans, a people whose moral depravity seems like a bottomless well...
And while Shroeder tries to tie American hands (John Kerry should be at his side), what are the mullahs in Iran up to? Via Pejmanesque:
Iran's ultra-conservative President has announced a hardline cabinet, signalling a tougher line in negotiations with the West and sounding the death knell for the reform movement in Iran.
Despite promising a Government of moderation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave key posts to prominent religious conservatives and new faces from the ideological Right, many of whom are former military commanders.
Although hailing from different right-wing political factions, which analysts say could lead to political in-fighting, the cabinet is united in believing that Iran must not bow to international pressure over its nuclear ambitions.
Remember, dear mullahs, Bush's statement on Israeli TV on Friday that "all options are on the table" in dealing with Iran. If you beards think Bush is gonna knuckle under to a couple of cowardly Euro-weenies, well, you haven't been paying much attention lately...
Link to Medienkritik here (with links to BBC aticle quoted): http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/08/no_surprise_sch.html
Link to Pejmanesque here: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/011164.html
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Over There? Well, maybe over here...
Previous post, towards the bottom, takes on FX's Iraqi War series "Over There"; exposing some of the glaring inaccuracies (intetnional?) presented in this 'docucu-drama'. If I may quote myself:
...for this show's three airings, the ratings have declined 40% from each previous episode. The American public knows pro-terrorist, anti-American propoganda when they see it. Of course, Bochco and his ilk will claim the people "were not ready for a drama about the Iraqi war". No, we are ready, we just want to see an honest one.
Well, we didn't have to wait long; USA Today has an article about the declining ratings:
Did last week's second episode of FX's Over There lose 37% of its premiere audience because it was too gory? Does the series , which follows an Army unit in Iraq and their families in the USA, hit too close for viewers still digesting news from the real Iraq war? Has news coverage tapped out interest in many viewers for a fictional drama?
Or did the drop - from 4.1 million viewers for the July 27 premiere to 2.6 million last week - result from more common reasons: lack of interest in the subject and characters, or erratic summer viewing patterns?
After just two episodes, it's far too early to determine why the audience declined or whether that will reflect future viewing patterns, FX's John Solberg says.
We could've wrote this script ourselves....nothing, of course, about the fact that the left-leaning worldview of Bochco incorporated into this series could have anything to do with the viewer's rejection. But since the film and media communities share the same liberal lens as Bochco, of course they are incapable of discerning this possibility. Like most blue-staters, they cannot fathom that someone would dare have a different philosophical/political worldview than theirs; and should they, well, it is simply because they are red-necked dumbasses, just like W....
Lest you think I am simply another ranting wingnut (and I am OK with that); here's a link to a U.S. Marine's take on "Over There" http://www.facesfromthefront.com/content/view/104/3.
From the blog Faces From the Front, a quick excerpt:
To show that the soldiers and commanders on the ground made the right decision would make the MSM and the anti-war left look bad and Hollywood will not allow the press to look bad. But the writers don't seem that interested in reality, so they create an internal double standard
Read it all; FX should feel shame for allowing Bochco to foist this type of leftist, pro-insurgent propoganda on America. Looks like, with the continuing defection of viewers, "Over There" will be over soon enough over here, but will the network learn its lesson?
Based on the comments in USA Today, that seems unlikely...expect the blind spot to hold, as long as they can make excuses for it.
Link to "Hollywood Loves Terror!" post: http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/08/hollywood-loves-terrorism-again.html
Link to USA Today article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050810/en_usatoday/warishellforfxsoverthere
...for this show's three airings, the ratings have declined 40% from each previous episode. The American public knows pro-terrorist, anti-American propoganda when they see it. Of course, Bochco and his ilk will claim the people "were not ready for a drama about the Iraqi war". No, we are ready, we just want to see an honest one.
Well, we didn't have to wait long; USA Today has an article about the declining ratings:
Did last week's second episode of FX's Over There lose 37% of its premiere audience because it was too gory? Does the series , which follows an Army unit in Iraq and their families in the USA, hit too close for viewers still digesting news from the real Iraq war? Has news coverage tapped out interest in many viewers for a fictional drama?
Or did the drop - from 4.1 million viewers for the July 27 premiere to 2.6 million last week - result from more common reasons: lack of interest in the subject and characters, or erratic summer viewing patterns?
After just two episodes, it's far too early to determine why the audience declined or whether that will reflect future viewing patterns, FX's John Solberg says.
We could've wrote this script ourselves....nothing, of course, about the fact that the left-leaning worldview of Bochco incorporated into this series could have anything to do with the viewer's rejection. But since the film and media communities share the same liberal lens as Bochco, of course they are incapable of discerning this possibility. Like most blue-staters, they cannot fathom that someone would dare have a different philosophical/political worldview than theirs; and should they, well, it is simply because they are red-necked dumbasses, just like W....
Lest you think I am simply another ranting wingnut (and I am OK with that); here's a link to a U.S. Marine's take on "Over There" http://www.facesfromthefront.com/content/view/104/3.
From the blog Faces From the Front, a quick excerpt:
To show that the soldiers and commanders on the ground made the right decision would make the MSM and the anti-war left look bad and Hollywood will not allow the press to look bad. But the writers don't seem that interested in reality, so they create an internal double standard
Read it all; FX should feel shame for allowing Bochco to foist this type of leftist, pro-insurgent propoganda on America. Looks like, with the continuing defection of viewers, "Over There" will be over soon enough over here, but will the network learn its lesson?
Based on the comments in USA Today, that seems unlikely...expect the blind spot to hold, as long as they can make excuses for it.
Link to "Hollywood Loves Terror!" post: http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/08/hollywood-loves-terrorism-again.html
Link to USA Today article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050810/en_usatoday/warishellforfxsoverthere
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Hollywood Loves Terrorism (again)!
{originally posted 8/11; updated at bottom}
From an article emailed to me by a gentle reader; we can see Hollywood has gone completely over the edge, with a slate of big-budget blockbusters on the horizon promoting their twisted, anti-American worldview. Here’s a sample:
"V For Vendetta." From Warner Brothers and the creators of "The Matrix" comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a 'fascist state.' A masked 'freedom fighter' named V uses terror tactics (including bombing the London Underground) to undermine the government - leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up. Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to 'the revolution' after doing time as a Guantanamo-style prisoner.
- "Munich." Steven Spielberg directs this film about the aftermath of the 1972 Olympic terror attacks that killed eleven Israeli athletes. "Munich"'s screenplay is written by playwrite Tony Kushner ("Angels in America"), who has been quoted as saying: "I think the founding of the state of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity ... I wish modern Israel hadn¹t been born." The film focuses on the crisis of conscience undergone by Israeli commandos tasked with killing PLO terrorists - rather than on the barbarity of the terrorists themselves.
"Syriana." Starring George Clooney and Matt Damon, this Warner Brothers film - set during the first Bush administration - features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering. The film even depicts a handsome, 'tragic' suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company! The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on.
"No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah." Universal has attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis - in this story blaming the White House for the deaths of fifty Marines in one of the Iraq war's deadliest battles.
The last may be the most offensive, and the one most reflective of the media’s take on the war on terror: Turn every victory into a defeat. Win a battle in a heavily fortified city against animals breaking every rule of warfare with about a 15 to 1 kill ratio; and watch the media focus on how a dead civilian or a chipped wall in a mosque “turned the population against us” or “created more terrorism”.
Hollywood, stunned by America’s deaf ear to their advice on the 2004 elections, will now more aggressively use their medium as a propaganda tool for their cohorts in the mainstream media, and their allies on the America- hating left. Sickening, it is…
My prediction: Many flops, some movies eking out a marginal profit, and a revulsion at the film industry by the American public that may tarnish it for a generation. Will a Mel Gibson of the Right appear, making movies about American heroes? My prediction: Yes, and Hollywood and its lackeys in the film criticism industry will profess “shock” at its success…
Stay tuned; I’m going to stay on top of this one.
Link to article here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Apuzzo20050810.shtml
From an article emailed to me by a gentle reader; we can see Hollywood has gone completely over the edge, with a slate of big-budget blockbusters on the horizon promoting their twisted, anti-American worldview. Here’s a sample:
"V For Vendetta." From Warner Brothers and the creators of "The Matrix" comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a 'fascist state.' A masked 'freedom fighter' named V uses terror tactics (including bombing the London Underground) to undermine the government - leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up. Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to 'the revolution' after doing time as a Guantanamo-style prisoner.
- "Munich." Steven Spielberg directs this film about the aftermath of the 1972 Olympic terror attacks that killed eleven Israeli athletes. "Munich"'s screenplay is written by playwrite Tony Kushner ("Angels in America"), who has been quoted as saying: "I think the founding of the state of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity ... I wish modern Israel hadn¹t been born." The film focuses on the crisis of conscience undergone by Israeli commandos tasked with killing PLO terrorists - rather than on the barbarity of the terrorists themselves.
"Syriana." Starring George Clooney and Matt Damon, this Warner Brothers film - set during the first Bush administration - features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering. The film even depicts a handsome, 'tragic' suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company! The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on.
"No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah." Universal has attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis - in this story blaming the White House for the deaths of fifty Marines in one of the Iraq war's deadliest battles.
The last may be the most offensive, and the one most reflective of the media’s take on the war on terror: Turn every victory into a defeat. Win a battle in a heavily fortified city against animals breaking every rule of warfare with about a 15 to 1 kill ratio; and watch the media focus on how a dead civilian or a chipped wall in a mosque “turned the population against us” or “created more terrorism”.
Hollywood, stunned by America’s deaf ear to their advice on the 2004 elections, will now more aggressively use their medium as a propaganda tool for their cohorts in the mainstream media, and their allies on the America- hating left. Sickening, it is…
My prediction: Many flops, some movies eking out a marginal profit, and a revulsion at the film industry by the American public that may tarnish it for a generation. Will a Mel Gibson of the Right appear, making movies about American heroes? My prediction: Yes, and Hollywood and its lackeys in the film criticism industry will profess “shock” at its success…
Stay tuned; I’m going to stay on top of this one.
Link to article here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Apuzzo20050810.shtml
UPDATE August 13th: First example of the above phenomenon is FX's "Over There"; an Iraqi war drama by Stephen Bochco. An article by Michael Fumento tears him a new one:
Bochco claims it’s politically neutral. Unfortunately, “Over There” puts reality in a body bag and is as unbiased as if scripted by a guy named Allen Queda.
If “Over There” has a true military advisor, he deserves the firing squad.
An example of an anti-troop lie told to further Bochco's :storyline":
Particularly appalling to me was a slam against Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD). It simply fails to show up to disarm a vehicle packed with enough explosives to blow up Rhode Island. I was embedded with the EOD unit of the 8th Engineer Support Battalion at Camp Fallujah. They react to calls with the speed of firefighters (or Domino’s pizza) and coolly and professionally carry out some of the most dangerous jobs of the war.
There's worse; read it all here -http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Fumento20050811.shtml
There is a positive note - for this show's three airings, the ratings have declined 40% from each previous episode. The American public knows pro-terrorist, anti-American propoganda when they see it. Of course, Bochco and his ilk will claim the people "were not ready for a drama about the Iraqi war". No, we are ready, we just want to see an honest one.
This bodes ill for the movies in production above...!
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
File under: That'll Show 'em!
UN watchdog to urge Iran to resume nuclear freeze
Top nations of the U.N. nuclear watchdog will call on Iran Thursday to halt sensitive nuclear work it resumed this week but will stop short of calling on the U.N. Security Council' name to take action, diplomats said.
I'm sure the mullahs are shaking in their turbans right about now....
File under: Deceitful Liberal Headlines
Parties Ask if More Roberts Surprises Wait
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts didn't disclose that he once lobbied for cosmetics makers, or mention that he'd once given a TV interview about justices' independence. And questions about his connections with the conservative Federalist Society have lingered for weeks.
Wow! A TV interview about his profession? Political Dynamite! Curious, though, how this article does not mention the fact that:
A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a Colorado referendum that would have allowed discrimination against gays
Why ruin a hateful, fear-mongering headline with such troublesome things as the facts?
Iran link here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050810/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc
"Surprises" link here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050810/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts
Roberts link from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2005-08-05-robertsgayrights_x.htm
UN watchdog to urge Iran to resume nuclear freeze
Top nations of the U.N. nuclear watchdog will call on Iran Thursday to halt sensitive nuclear work it resumed this week but will stop short of calling on the U.N. Security Council' name to take action, diplomats said.
I'm sure the mullahs are shaking in their turbans right about now....
File under: Deceitful Liberal Headlines
Parties Ask if More Roberts Surprises Wait
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts didn't disclose that he once lobbied for cosmetics makers, or mention that he'd once given a TV interview about justices' independence. And questions about his connections with the conservative Federalist Society have lingered for weeks.
Wow! A TV interview about his profession? Political Dynamite! Curious, though, how this article does not mention the fact that:
A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a Colorado referendum that would have allowed discrimination against gays
Why ruin a hateful, fear-mongering headline with such troublesome things as the facts?
Iran link here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050810/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc
"Surprises" link here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050810/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts
Roberts link from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2005-08-05-robertsgayrights_x.htm
EU waffles; Iran builds Nukes...
Iran gets ready to use its petro-dollars to build nuclear weapons ;with the avowed purpose of using them on "the infidels", and from France, we get this:
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy urged Tehran to reconsider, saying it wasn't too late to turn back. "I call on Iran one more time, tonight, to listen to the voice of reason," he said.
Didn't they say the same thing in 1938 when the Nazis marched into the Rhineland? Switch "Germany" for "Iran", and you hear the clarion call of history about to repeat itself. No backbone seventy years ago; no backbone today. And speaking of the Germans, they got really feisty:
"I think Iran should really bear in mind that this step is a step in the wrong direction," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said, according to ZDF television. But he suggested negotiations could continue, saying: "We are trying to prevent a negative trend with fatal consequences."
Fatal for whom, Joschka? For the millions who will die when Iran's mullahs unleash a nuclear holocaust in the name of Islam? Or are you saying the Germans might actually undertake a phsyical act to prevent these "fatal consequences"? No, I didn't think so... It will probably be left to America to save the world (again, sigh...) whilst you and your French compadres heap scorn upon us for lacking nuance...
Link to above quotes here: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1021143&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy urged Tehran to reconsider, saying it wasn't too late to turn back. "I call on Iran one more time, tonight, to listen to the voice of reason," he said.
Didn't they say the same thing in 1938 when the Nazis marched into the Rhineland? Switch "Germany" for "Iran", and you hear the clarion call of history about to repeat itself. No backbone seventy years ago; no backbone today. And speaking of the Germans, they got really feisty:
"I think Iran should really bear in mind that this step is a step in the wrong direction," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said, according to ZDF television. But he suggested negotiations could continue, saying: "We are trying to prevent a negative trend with fatal consequences."
Fatal for whom, Joschka? For the millions who will die when Iran's mullahs unleash a nuclear holocaust in the name of Islam? Or are you saying the Germans might actually undertake a phsyical act to prevent these "fatal consequences"? No, I didn't think so... It will probably be left to America to save the world (again, sigh...) whilst you and your French compadres heap scorn upon us for lacking nuance...
Link to above quotes here: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1021143&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Monday, August 08, 2005
Bibi's Prophecy, echoed...
...in today's New York Daily News, by Mort Zuckerman:
The sad fact is that everything is going wrong. Terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are using the relative calm to rearm and regroup for the next intifadeh. They smuggle longer-range missiles through dirt tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, for use after disengagement against Israelis now across the fence.
And remember this, from the mouth of the animals:
In Gaza, Hamas still fires scores of rockets and mortar shells at Israeli homes while Islamic Jihad defies the agreement for a "calm," saying, "We joined the tahdiya [calm] to give the combatants rest....As far as we are concerned, the intifadeh has not ended; it is still going on."
If the Palestinians use the gift of Gaza simply to attack mainland Isreal, then there should be no mercy for them, no "process" any longer. If they do not choose the way of peace, they must be delivered a crushing defeat, so that the illusions of a winnable war against Isreal is shattered. Should Isreal choose to engage in a tit-for-tat with an enemy now entrenched in Gaza, it can be defeated simply by attrition; citizens will leave reather than have their families face a future of eternal low-level warfare.
But this is what the international community wants; the death of the Jews by attrition, by making an illusary "peace process" more important than the death of innocents. Once the attacks are launched from Gaza, it will still be the Isreal's fault in the eyes of the EU/UN/Liberal Media/Democratic Party, for not surrendering the West Bank as well. If the Jews buy into this, they are a dead people walking.
I cannot imagine Ariel will allow this to happen; and yet...
Link to Daily News article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/335252p-286412c.html
The sad fact is that everything is going wrong. Terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are using the relative calm to rearm and regroup for the next intifadeh. They smuggle longer-range missiles through dirt tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, for use after disengagement against Israelis now across the fence.
And remember this, from the mouth of the animals:
In Gaza, Hamas still fires scores of rockets and mortar shells at Israeli homes while Islamic Jihad defies the agreement for a "calm," saying, "We joined the tahdiya [calm] to give the combatants rest....As far as we are concerned, the intifadeh has not ended; it is still going on."
If the Palestinians use the gift of Gaza simply to attack mainland Isreal, then there should be no mercy for them, no "process" any longer. If they do not choose the way of peace, they must be delivered a crushing defeat, so that the illusions of a winnable war against Isreal is shattered. Should Isreal choose to engage in a tit-for-tat with an enemy now entrenched in Gaza, it can be defeated simply by attrition; citizens will leave reather than have their families face a future of eternal low-level warfare.
But this is what the international community wants; the death of the Jews by attrition, by making an illusary "peace process" more important than the death of innocents. Once the attacks are launched from Gaza, it will still be the Isreal's fault in the eyes of the EU/UN/Liberal Media/Democratic Party, for not surrendering the West Bank as well. If the Jews buy into this, they are a dead people walking.
I cannot imagine Ariel will allow this to happen; and yet...
Link to Daily News article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/335252p-286412c.html
Bibi's Prophecy
Well, it could certainly be said that Israel's now ex-Finance Minister, Benjiman Netanyahu, does not have much faith in the results of his nation's pending withdrawal from Gaza:
Not only is Hamas getting stronger in front of our very eyes, and not only are they openly announcing that they will move their missiles from Gaza to Judea and Samaria in order to rain them onto the suburbs of Tel Aviv. There exists an additional problem of outside terrorists and deadly weapons far worse than what we have seen so far that are liable to stream in from the Sinai to Gaza the minute we abandon our control of the boundaries of the Strip.
and worse...
No one can say, with their hand on their heart, that the situation in Gaza will be better after we leave than it is today from a security perspective, from the perspective of terrorism. Because of this it isn't just our problem. It's the West's problem as well, because forces that are controlled by, deployed by and cooperate with Iran, and today Hizbullah and Hamas are controlled in a significant way by Iran, will receive an additional base of operations not only in close proximity to Israel's cities, but also on the coast of the Mediterranean not far from Europe.
Pin-point prognostication or fear-mongering? Time will tell, I'd like to have faith in the Palestinians and mankind in general, but I fear the worse...
But be assured that when trouble beginst to brew in Gaza, the first thing the UN and Left will scream is that for Isreal to have true security, they must give up their entire Western border to their enemies, as well...
Link to J-Post column here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/P/FrontPage/FrontPage&cid=1002116796299
Not only is Hamas getting stronger in front of our very eyes, and not only are they openly announcing that they will move their missiles from Gaza to Judea and Samaria in order to rain them onto the suburbs of Tel Aviv. There exists an additional problem of outside terrorists and deadly weapons far worse than what we have seen so far that are liable to stream in from the Sinai to Gaza the minute we abandon our control of the boundaries of the Strip.
and worse...
No one can say, with their hand on their heart, that the situation in Gaza will be better after we leave than it is today from a security perspective, from the perspective of terrorism. Because of this it isn't just our problem. It's the West's problem as well, because forces that are controlled by, deployed by and cooperate with Iran, and today Hizbullah and Hamas are controlled in a significant way by Iran, will receive an additional base of operations not only in close proximity to Israel's cities, but also on the coast of the Mediterranean not far from Europe.
Pin-point prognostication or fear-mongering? Time will tell, I'd like to have faith in the Palestinians and mankind in general, but I fear the worse...
But be assured that when trouble beginst to brew in Gaza, the first thing the UN and Left will scream is that for Isreal to have true security, they must give up their entire Western border to their enemies, as well...
Link to J-Post column here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/P/FrontPage/FrontPage&cid=1002116796299
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Iran, The E.U., and the New York Times...
No surprise here, (as I have been displaying quotes by the Iranian officials announcing their intent to build nukes) but the EU's package of bribes and appeasement offered in exchange for a suspension of Iranian nuclear activities was rejected:
Iran rejected Europe's proposal for ending the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, saying Saturday it was "unacceptable" because it did not give the country the right to enrich uranium.
How much clearer could the Iranians make it? They are going to build nukes, and nobody is going to stop them...unless we (or Isreal) does. Again, my nagging belief is that the left actually wants Iran to build nuclear weapons, because -
- if they use them, it will be all our fault, you know....our colonialism, globalism, etc..
- if we destroy them, then it's that horrible US, trying to maintain its global dominance, in cahoots with the Jews, etc...
It plays into their handbook; and that's the most important thing, not how many people die in the process. The left wants us to leave Iraq for the same reasons - they know it will fall into a carnage house if we quit early; and they want proof of our defeat, and our evil...an Iraq that succeeds turns their theories on their heads.
Anyway, I'm off-track. The New York Times printed an editorial this morning about the negotiations, before the Iranian rejection, and talk about cluelessness! In an editorial titled "A Glimmer of Hope", we "learn":
It may be only a few more days before the world finds out whether Iran and North Korea are willing to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for broad economic incentives and firm security guarantees
No, geniuses, it took only minutes to find out they were unwilling!
The Bush administration, in a welcome change from the days when John Bolton ran its nonproliferation policies, is now making a serious diplomatic effort to achieve fair and realistic deals with both countries. It is time for Tehran and Pyongyang to show diplomatic seriousness as well, by recognizing that any agreement must apply not just to the making of nuclear bombs, but also to the capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.
Maybe if Bolton was in charge on nonproliferation, the Iranians would see we meant business....no,no, he's too much a bully, better to be nice, and die.
And I believe Tehran has shown it seriousness by rejecting the EU offer; but not the seriousness that the Times was hoping for
The administration's new nuclear diplomacy has produced a remarkable show of international unity. Europe's major powers have joined Washington in insisting on an end to Iran's uranium enrichment programs. Asia's major powers agree with Washington that a deal with North Korea should ban the capacity to make bomb fuel as well as bombs.
How will that unity hold up, now that diplomacy has failed? By the time the EU finishes its endless progressions of resolutions, condemnations, and bargins, the Iranians will be chucking nukes left and right...will any US action be seen as unilateralism, or sanity? Not hard to guess what the Times would say...
Seeing this editorial, today, just as the Times-lauded diplomatic efforts have failed, demonstrates that paper's complete divorce from reality. Consider any dinner guest that smugly quotes from that left-wing reactionary rag to be equally lost as well...
Times editorial link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/opinion/06sat1.html?
Article on Iran's rejection of EU package here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear
Iran rejected Europe's proposal for ending the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, saying Saturday it was "unacceptable" because it did not give the country the right to enrich uranium.
How much clearer could the Iranians make it? They are going to build nukes, and nobody is going to stop them...unless we (or Isreal) does. Again, my nagging belief is that the left actually wants Iran to build nuclear weapons, because -
- if they use them, it will be all our fault, you know....our colonialism, globalism, etc..
- if we destroy them, then it's that horrible US, trying to maintain its global dominance, in cahoots with the Jews, etc...
It plays into their handbook; and that's the most important thing, not how many people die in the process. The left wants us to leave Iraq for the same reasons - they know it will fall into a carnage house if we quit early; and they want proof of our defeat, and our evil...an Iraq that succeeds turns their theories on their heads.
Anyway, I'm off-track. The New York Times printed an editorial this morning about the negotiations, before the Iranian rejection, and talk about cluelessness! In an editorial titled "A Glimmer of Hope", we "learn":
It may be only a few more days before the world finds out whether Iran and North Korea are willing to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for broad economic incentives and firm security guarantees
No, geniuses, it took only minutes to find out they were unwilling!
The Bush administration, in a welcome change from the days when John Bolton ran its nonproliferation policies, is now making a serious diplomatic effort to achieve fair and realistic deals with both countries. It is time for Tehran and Pyongyang to show diplomatic seriousness as well, by recognizing that any agreement must apply not just to the making of nuclear bombs, but also to the capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.
Maybe if Bolton was in charge on nonproliferation, the Iranians would see we meant business....no,no, he's too much a bully, better to be nice, and die.
And I believe Tehran has shown it seriousness by rejecting the EU offer; but not the seriousness that the Times was hoping for
The administration's new nuclear diplomacy has produced a remarkable show of international unity. Europe's major powers have joined Washington in insisting on an end to Iran's uranium enrichment programs. Asia's major powers agree with Washington that a deal with North Korea should ban the capacity to make bomb fuel as well as bombs.
How will that unity hold up, now that diplomacy has failed? By the time the EU finishes its endless progressions of resolutions, condemnations, and bargins, the Iranians will be chucking nukes left and right...will any US action be seen as unilateralism, or sanity? Not hard to guess what the Times would say...
Seeing this editorial, today, just as the Times-lauded diplomatic efforts have failed, demonstrates that paper's complete divorce from reality. Consider any dinner guest that smugly quotes from that left-wing reactionary rag to be equally lost as well...
Times editorial link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/opinion/06sat1.html?
Article on Iran's rejection of EU package here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear
Warned, again...
...this time not by the Iranian president, but by Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefihat, that he's gonna build his nukes, and that the West better remember its place. From a press conference in Iran:
Reporter: What will the scope of the (UCF) activity in Esfahan be at the beginning? Will it have full or partial capacity?
Asefi: What do you care?
Female reporter: I’ll repeat my colleague’s question...
Asefi: Go ahead, please...
Female reporter:... regarding the UCF in Esfahan. Will its activity start at full or partial capacity, in order to show that the suspension...
Asefi: He asked, and I already said it is of no interest to you.
Female reporter: Please tell us, it might interest us.
Asefi: No. I know it is of no interest to you.
Reporter: Regarding the IAEA inspectors stationed in Tehran, when the UCF activity starts in Esfahan, will the inspectors be there, or did the Iranians plan a special ceremony to mark the start of activity?
Asefi: No. If by “special ceremony” you mean handing out cake and candy, then we have no such thing.
What are we waiting for? For the bombs to drop, for millions to die, so that the liberals can tell us, again, that it was all our fault?
Via LGF: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16940_Iranian_Spokesman_to_Reporters-_What_Do_You_Care&only
Reporter: What will the scope of the (UCF) activity in Esfahan be at the beginning? Will it have full or partial capacity?
Asefi: What do you care?
Female reporter: I’ll repeat my colleague’s question...
Asefi: Go ahead, please...
Female reporter:... regarding the UCF in Esfahan. Will its activity start at full or partial capacity, in order to show that the suspension...
Asefi: He asked, and I already said it is of no interest to you.
Female reporter: Please tell us, it might interest us.
Asefi: No. I know it is of no interest to you.
Reporter: Regarding the IAEA inspectors stationed in Tehran, when the UCF activity starts in Esfahan, will the inspectors be there, or did the Iranians plan a special ceremony to mark the start of activity?
Asefi: No. If by “special ceremony” you mean handing out cake and candy, then we have no such thing.
What are we waiting for? For the bombs to drop, for millions to die, so that the liberals can tell us, again, that it was all our fault?
Via LGF: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16940_Iranian_Spokesman_to_Reporters-_What_Do_You_Care&only
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Ambassador Bolton!
...and the New York Times' lead editorial commences with this beauty:
President Bush's appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations is terrible news for the U.N.
And they are right! The UN is a corrupt den of thieves, where nations whom perpetrate genocide are given seats of power on the UN's "Human Rights Committee", fallow men trade oil deeds in exchange for protecting despots, and most of the debate centers on how to destroy the one tiny democracy in the Middle East. Bolton's appointment is terrible news for the UN, for he will not let this vile behavior stand. The organization will now have to change its ways to survive.
Appalling, of course, to the editorial board of the Times...
Laugh here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/opinion/02tue1.html
President Bush's appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations is terrible news for the U.N.
And they are right! The UN is a corrupt den of thieves, where nations whom perpetrate genocide are given seats of power on the UN's "Human Rights Committee", fallow men trade oil deeds in exchange for protecting despots, and most of the debate centers on how to destroy the one tiny democracy in the Middle East. Bolton's appointment is terrible news for the UN, for he will not let this vile behavior stand. The organization will now have to change its ways to survive.
Appalling, of course, to the editorial board of the Times...
Laugh here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/opinion/02tue1.html
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Don't Say He Didn't Warn Us...
The new President of Iran, the honorable Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, formerly one of the hostage-taking terrorists that stormed the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979, spoke freely about his (and all of the Islamic Fundamentalists') dream of world domination:
Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity. Those who wish to undermine this principle undermine the foundations of our independence and national security. They undermine the foundation of our eternity.
The message of the (Islamic) Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. It is a human message, and it will move forward.
Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.
Hey! I just got an idea! Let's turn a blind eye while this guy openly arms himself with nuclear weapons!
Hitler wrote very precisely and clearly on what he intended to do in Mein Kampf; now Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, leader of the worlds' foremost terrorist state, lays out his strategems for all to see as well.
Will history repeat itself?
Via LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16906_Iranian_President-_Islam_Will_Conquer_All_the_Mountain_Tops&only , with a link to MEMRI translation.
Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity. Those who wish to undermine this principle undermine the foundations of our independence and national security. They undermine the foundation of our eternity.
The message of the (Islamic) Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. It is a human message, and it will move forward.
Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.
Hey! I just got an idea! Let's turn a blind eye while this guy openly arms himself with nuclear weapons!
Hitler wrote very precisely and clearly on what he intended to do in Mein Kampf; now Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, leader of the worlds' foremost terrorist state, lays out his strategems for all to see as well.
Will history repeat itself?
Via LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16906_Iranian_President-_Islam_Will_Conquer_All_the_Mountain_Tops&only , with a link to MEMRI translation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)