Saturday, December 31, 2005

Second Holocaust? Europe Shrugs...

Who would you believe, an EU diplomat or Israel's chief of military intelligence ? Yea, me too; actually, I am sure even the hardest-core jihadi would take the word of an Isreali over a European; for even those lowlives know whom is strong and who is fallow...
So I believe this report, fully:

'IRAN will not stop with one nuclear bomb," the chief of Israel's Mossad spy agency, Meir Dagan, warned legislators this week.
The secretive retired major general, who restored the Mossad to its heyday of operational ability, hates to appear before the Knesset's defense and foreign affairs committee because his testimony is often leaked by headline-seeking politicians.
But Dagan had to appear before it Tuesday to present his annual intelligence report — and much of it concerned Tehran's drive to join the nuclear club.
"Without external intervention, Iran will arrive within several months to the point of nuclear technology independence," he said.

Nothing too surprising so Dagan takes a diplomatic tact:

The bottom line, said Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset committee, is "Iran is capable of getting a bomb in a year or two.
"And if it does, there will be a new Middle East — black, dangerous and threatening the world over."
So what can be done?
Dagan stressed the importance of intensifying international diplomatic pressure on Iran because past efforts managed to delay its nuclear efforts by two years.

So the best idea is to continue these diplomatic efforts, correct? Er, maybe not:

...the hard-liners in Tehran detect an erosion in the international diplomatic pressure on them.
Aharon Zeevi, Israel's chief of military intelligence — whose efforts to monitor Iran's nuke program rivals Dagan's — said the lack of pressure is partly due to the Europeans.
"I had meetings with senior officials in Europe," he said. "And their position is, number one — why should we fear Iran's nuclear weapons? After all we lived under the nuclear threat after World War II?"
"Number two," he added, is the Europeans respond, "And besides, either you or the Americans will solve the problem."

Un-freakin'-believable. I spit on these so-called "allies"; these posturing moral snobs...but ultimately, they are right - it will fall to America or Israel to do this dirty work, while Europe wags a finger of disapproval, whips up venomous anti-Americanism, and investigates us for war crimes.

Fine. If that is what you are going to do, admit your cowardice, and just bite our ankles like the dirty poodles that you are...just don't play the morality card with us, because it ain't washing any more.

The EU as a modern-day version of Grima Wormtounge...yuk.

Link to story above at the NY Post here:

Bush Stares Down The Traitors

They may not use the word "treason"; but they are finally going after the traitors...The Justice Department is going to find out who at the New York Times, as well as within the government, has access to, and is releasing, critical classified information regarding the stratagies employed in the war on terror. Via Pajamas Media:

The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President George W. Bush's secret domestic spying program.
The inquiry focuses on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, officials said.
The Times revealed the existence of the program two weeks ago in a front-page story that acknowledged the news had been withheld from publication for a year, partly at the request of the administration and partly because the newspaper wanted more time to confirm various aspects of the program.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Justice undertook the action on its own, and the president was informed of it on Friday. "The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is that al-Qaida's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Bush was spending the holidays.
Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said the paper will not comment on the investigation.

I cannot wait until the ties are revealed between the Times and their sources - my guess is a disgruntled CIA employee, or a Democrat with national security clearance. This is going to be interesting; will the Times (hand in hand with a key Democrat?) be exposed as essentially fighting for al-Qaeda?

Protein Wisdom frames the upcoming tempest perfectly:

What we are witnessing here is a battle that was a long-time in coming between a Republican leadership and the press. Leaks by unelected and entrenched foreign policy and intelligence bureaucrats meant to undermine the President in a time of war must carry with them consequences. Attempts by an adversarial press to supercede their mandate and actively work against a sitting administration while claiming neutrality and pretending to objectivity should have consequences.

Which is not say we need to round people up and throw them in jail—but rather to suggest that we need not keep up the pretense that such actions are laudable and de facto “patriotic,” particularly when they do damage to the lawful exercise of executive powers meant to protect our national security and, as unobtrusively as possible, allow us to maintain our way of life even during a time of war.

Bring it on, MSM...bring it on...

Protein Wisdom here:
Link to Pajamas Media at top:

Friday, December 30, 2005

George Bush: Best Economic Steward Ever?

Data presented via Econopundit:

Using readily available BLS data
Arnold Kling has annualized five-year average annual productivity growth for all half-decades between 1955 and 2005 and arrived at this striking result:

1955-1960 - 2.03
1960-1965 - 2.79
1965-1970 - 2.09
1970-1975 - 2.31
1975-1980 - 1.55
1980-1985 - 1.38
1985-1990 -1.65
1990-1995 - 1.59
1995-2000 - 2.28
2000-2005 - 3.39

The numbers show the average rate of growth of United States productivity during the past five years is the highest it has been for the past fifty years.

Why does it matter? Follow Econopundit's link to Mr. Kling's article and see:

"[P]roductivity is the best single measure of what leads to differences in economic performance. Even though GDP per capita is the all-encompassing measure, GDP per capita is determined primarily, almost entirely, by productivity.

What the table [above] says is that the economy today is in great shape. The average productivity growth in the last five years is the highest over the past half century.

So where's the accolades from the professional economists and the mainstream media? While Kling gives Bush little credit for these stats, the media tends to heap lavish praise on Presidents who oversee a positive economic climate, even if they may have little to do with it...Bill Clinton was worshiped as an fiduciary god for overseeing an economic explosion based upon the stock speculation and manipulation of emerging internet/telecommunications companies; for which he had nothing to do with whatsoever (oh, wait, Al Gore did invent the thing, right?). Productivity is a much higher moral/economic production value, so again, where's the credit?

Personally, I hope there is still a rock to carve on Mt. Rushmore...

Link to Econopundit here:

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Public Ignores MSM, Wisely...

So the media (the New York Times most aggressively), has been bashing the public repeatly with the "domestic spying" stick, hoping once again (vainly) to try to find that "tipping point" to turn the populace against Bush (and the Republican party) once and for all. Seems like they're still stuck on stupid:

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.
Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

As this psuedo-scandal gets thrown in the trash with Valerie Plame and Cindy Sheehan, what fantasy crime with the yellow media come up with next? Whatever it is, it'll be the one to push the president's approval rating to that 60% mark for sure...

And please read Michelle Malkin's column printed today nationally entitled Treasonous Times: News Fit to Print? :

2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper of record, The New York Times....The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review...

In New York, The Post has been running multiple article/editorials (most recent - The Gray Lady Toys With Treason - is linked below) on the Times' run-amok viciously anti-American journalism. Are we about to reach a different kind of tipping point?

Rasmussen Poll link here:
Malkin here:
NY Post "Grey Lady..." editorial here:

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Spielberg: Dhimmi Gets his Due!

The Hollywood Left's latest wannabe-peacemaker learned firsthand that being a good dhimmi does not earn you brownie points with the terrorists; it only makes you a larger target. You see, while Speilberg bent over backwards to find some type of moral equivalence between the terrorists of "Munich" and the Israeli hit squads sent to execute justice, all he got in return was an old-fashioned Islamist beat-down...via LGF:

The Palestinian mastermind of the Munich Olympics attack in which 11 Israeli athletes died said on Tuesday he had no regrets and that Steven Spielberg’s new film about the incident would not deliver reconciliation.
The Hollywood director has called “Munich,” which dramatises the 1972 raid and Israel’s reprisals against members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), his “prayer for peace.”
Mohammed Daoud planned the Munich attack on behalf of PLO splinter group Black September, but did not take part and does not feature in the film. He voiced outrage at not being consulted for the thriller and accused Spielberg of pandering to the Jewish state.
“If he really wanted to make it a prayer for peace he should have listened to both sides of the story and reflected reality, rather than serving the Zionist side alone,” Daoud told Reuters by telephone from the Syrian capital, Damascus.

Spielberg twisted history to make an evenhanded film about one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in history (wonder what he'll do with 9/11?), and what does he get when he presents his wagging tail to the Islamists? The usual buzzwords: "No regret", "Outrage", "Zionist" - all delivered from the belly of the beast - Damascus.

Will Spielberg learn anything about the nature of our Islamist enemy through this exchange with his movie's real-life protagonist? Unlikely; rare is the lefty who sees the folly of his ways...but I wonder if Senor Spielbergo is suprised to see a focal point of his movie act, well, character? Did he expect real life to be a "coda", where Daoud will become repentent, tears will flow, hugs will be exchanged, and peace will quickly follow (while the theme music of "Munich" plays in the backround)?

Well, maybe if he had done a little research, he would have known better. Gateway Pundit does the research, and links to a 2002 Sports Illustrated article, which contains this line by Daoud:

"...The operation brought the Palestinian issue into the homes of 500 million people who never previously cared about Palestinian victims at the hands of the Israelis..."

Slaughtering innocents to make a statement...and Spielberg attempts a "cry for peace", by equating Israel's attempt at pinpoint reprisals with the mass murders carried out by Palestinian terrorists?

He's a classic "useful idiot" here, giving moral cover for scum like Daoud to continue sprewing their bile on a international stage. My only satisfaction is that I am sure he will lose a nice bit of his studio's change on this liberal rewrite of history, which may teach him more of a lesson than anything he is currently absorbing in his newfound status as a dhimmi...

Link to Gateway Pundit here:
LGF here:

Monday, December 26, 2005

Blue State Blues...

I'm linking to this little revealing tidbit; it relates to one blue-stater's frustration with the rising cost of living in his Democrat-controlled homeland:

Successful Democratic Blogger Can't Afford Blue State
Markos Moulitsas ZĂșniga the man that runs the most successful political blog in America can't afford the Blue state of California:

So I'm getting a little frustrated with the Bay Area real estate market, and for the first time in years I'm casting about the rest of the nation to see if there's anywhere else where I could possibly live.

How ironic, a guy who supports a party that promotes Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, land-use restrictions, zoning, open space laws, and unions is unable to buy a house in the very Blue area of Northern California. All this from a guy who's got a law degree. What is it about Blue America that hates people that aren't rich???
Attention Markos Moulitsas ZĂșniga: did it ever occur to many in Blue state America that Houston (that doesn't have zoning) is a lot more affordable than let's say Berkeley,California. Also, Houston residents don't have a state income tax that they are paying. It appears Kos can't afford the very values he promotes, which is regulation of markets which leads to artificially high real estate prices.

Nothing against Mr. Kos (today!); but it is this blindness towards the cause/effects of liberal policies that I find most maddening. Just saw it yesterday in Jersey at a Hanukkah/Christmas party - my fellow blue-staters were complaining about housing costs/rising taxes/lowered standards; and when I suggested that is was the direct results of policies they voted for; I was met with a collective blank stare (but little well-argued response), and comments on how Bush is the root of all evil.

Well, I never like to spoil a good party with overheated rhetoric, but perhaps aiding and abetting those whose policies you know to be destructive, for no better reason than refusal to open your own mind, can be called evil as well. Benign ignorance is one thing, but willful ignorance, as practiced by our self-appointed intellectual elite, is a vile personal trait.

Doesn't seem to faze the American Left or our "patriotic" Democratc Party, though...

Link here:

Germany's Appeasement

This is why I want to spit every time I hear people whine about America not respecting their "European Allies"'s New York Post editorial page talks about the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 back in 1985, and how Europe "respects" their American friends:

...Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver from Maryland, was brutally beaten and shot to death on the second day of the ordeal — apparently singled out after the terrorists found his military ID card. His body was dumped unceremoniously on the tarmac.
One of the hijackers, Mohammed Ali Hamadi, was sentenced to life imprisonment in Germany for air piracy, possession of explosives — and the murder of Stethem.

But, as of last Thursday, Mohammed Ali Hamadi is a free man. Not only that, he was put on a plane by German authorities for his native Lebanon — where, presumably, he will rejoin his terrorist colleagues.
This despite the fact that Hamadi remains under indictment in this country for Stethem's murder — and Washington from the outset had been pressing Germany for his extradition.

Instead, Hamadi was set free after what officials described as a "routine" parole hearing; under German law, he was eligible to be freed after serving at least 15 years.
Of course, there was one other possible factor in Hamadi's release — one that is far from "routine": It came just three days before a German archaeologist taken hostage by terrorists in Iraq was set free.
Predictably, officials in Berlin insisted there was "no connection between these two cases." But we have no doubt that a large grain of salt is called for.

As for Stethem's family, they're understandably stunned at this turn of events. "It just doesn't make sense," said his still-grieving mother.
Actually, it does — when you take into account much of Europe's continuing, cowardly refusal to stand up to the terrorist threat.

Let's see if we can figure out the Zeropean mentality...take one of our people hostage, we'll release a wanted terrorist...and that will stop it from happening again!

A curse upon this fey cowardice; it is no wonder Europe has been the focal point of so much war, death, and immorality over the last few centuries. I would wish a pox on their heads, but their appears to be one already there...

Link to NY Post editorial here:

Sunday, December 25, 2005

To any and all cruising past this little roadside stand on the internet super-highway:

Merry Christmas !
Happy Hanukkah !

The joy of brightening other lives, bearing each others' burdens, easing other's loads and supplanting empty hearts and lives with generous gifts becomes for us the magic of Christmas. ~W. C. Jones

Put on your yalmulka, here comes Hanukkah
It's so much fun-akkah to celebrate Hanukkah,
Hanukkah is the Festival of Lights,

Instead of one day of presents, we have eight crazy nights....
-Adam Sandler

"O! 'tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments."
~ Benjamin Franklin

Do give books - religious or otherwise - for Christmas. They're never fattening, seldom sinful, and permanently personal. - - - Lenore Hershey

In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church; the Jews called it 'Hanukka' and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say 'Merry Christmas!' or 'Happy Hanukka!' or (to the atheists) 'Look out for the wall!'" - - - Dave Barry "Christmas Shopping: A Survivor's Guide"

I bought my brother some gift-wrap for Christmas. I took it to the Gift Wrap department and told them to wrap it, but in a different print so he would know when to stop unwrapping. -- Steven Wright

Finally - What do the Jews do on Christmas Day? The secret is unveiled via Daniel Drezner here:

Enjoy the day!

Britain: PC Police State?

I love hearing liberals complain how America is turning into a latter-day Nazi Germany, because perhaps the NSA is sweeping for toxic materials at suspicious locations. Folks, do you know what happens when the liberals actually do take charge? Why, they create police states where freedom of speech is harshly limited! But hey, you should thank them, because it is a benign, politically correct police state! That makes all the difference! Maybe we can model a liberal America after the PC police state formally known as "Great" Britain...Melanie Phillips reports:

When the new Civil Partnership Act came into force last week, family values campaigner Lynette Burrows took part in a discussion on BBC Radio Five Live about its implications.
During the programme, Ms Burrows said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt.

In America, we call that "being entitled to your opinion". In liberal England, it's called a crime:

To her astonishment, the following day she was contacted by the police who said a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her. She had committed no crime but, said the police, it was policy to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were ‘priority crimes’. Such action was ‘all about reassuring the community’. Far from being thus reassured, it is difficult adequately to express one’s shock and abhorrence — not at Ms Burrows, but at the actions and attitudes of the police. What kind of a society has this become where, if someone expresses an opinion which falls foul of the politically approved doctrines of the day, the police start feeling their collar?

This is the kind of society the American Democratic Party wants to set up, emulating their European idols. This is our future:

To disapprove of gay lifestyles is to invite certain ostracism as a ‘homophobe’. But if this isn’t bad enough, we now find that voicing such opinions has become — incredibly —a matter for the police, who are putting state power behind such intimidation.

I'm sure if Nancy Pelosi was reading this, she'd be shivering with glee. This is her dream world, after all...and here is its hypocricy exposed:

What is even more astounding is that attempts by the Government to criminalise utterances which ‘glorify terrorism’ — and thus threaten our security — are being shouted down on the grounds that free speech has to be protected.

So to the Left, criminalizing someone for saying they dissaprove of gay marriage is OK, but criminalizing someone whom glorifies and extols terrorism is dead wrong. Can one see why I accuse the Left of trying to undermine society as a whole? They are fully aware of the contradictions inherent in this argument; they are simply trying to slide it by us to further their anti-Western agenda. Poor Brits; but as I have said before, you get the government you deserve...

I'll let Ms. Phillips conclude with a note on the (declining?) value of free speech:

Freedom of speech is supposed to be the bedrock value of a liberal society. It should only be constrained in extreme circumstances where a crime may be — and remember, this is in the absence of any crime—it seems the police response is to make a menacing approach to the person who has voiced {an unpopular} opinion, to warn them off from voicing it again.

Mr. Blair, what kind of road are you leading your once-great Britain down?

Link to full article here:

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Box-Office Doldrums...

Hollywood is bemoaning a year where even critically acclaimed movies lost money hand over fist. Maybe because their ideology is somewhere to the left of Michael Moore? From the San Diego Union Tribune:

Two new films serve as a reminder that no matter how complex the issue, if there are politics involved, we can always count on Hollywood to boil it down to a bumper sticker that echoes the conventional wisdom found in Berkeley's faculty lounges and Barbra Streisand's sitting room.

First came "Syriana"...Some found the film confusing, but it's hard to see why. Anyone who went in assuming – correctly, as it turned out – that we would be told the CIA and Texas oil companies conspire to thwart democracy and keep a whole region down saw the climax coming a mile away...

Now comes "Munich,"...Especially given the track record of Tony Kushner, the film's main writer, it was all but certain that "Munich" would posit a moral equivalence between the terrorists and those who brought them to justice. That's exactly what "Munich" does.
Just like "Syriana," this is simplistic garbage. But it's all we can expect, given how Hollywood and much of the left view the world.

Reality is a lot more complicated....except to the Hollywood left. Its mind is made up: George W. Bush is an oil-industry stooge, Sharon is a mass murderer, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is a giant who deserved his Nobel Peace Prize and the problems in the Middle East are entirely America's and Israel's fault.

These high priced thrillers have barely made back their cost; yet Mel Gibson's religious biopic on the life of Jesus, opening to oodles of hateful press, made hundreds of millions in profit. Hollywood, trapped in a political straightjacket that allows no dissension, will continue to see theatre attendance fall (much like the New York Times readership!) as it churns out movies with a morality repulsive to the average American.

The vacuum will not hold; there will be more Mel Gibsons afoot, and someone will make money producing pictures reflecting the values of mainstream America. I have the feeling the nation will survive without $20 million dollar liberal stars spouting PC nonsense in front of an empty multiplex...

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit illustrates the disconnect between Hollywood's current celebrity culture and the average American by pointing out how few entertainers are going overseas to entertain the troops this Christmas. Wayne Newton's comments excerpted below:

....some stars have turned down the USO because they thought such performances would amount to endorsing the war.
"And I say it's not," Newton said. "I tell them these men and women are over there because our country sent them, and we have the absolute necessity to try to bring them as much happiness as we can." Williams said he tells stars, "Go, man. You won't forget it. You'll meet amazing people.' "
Newton said "the fear of danger, and pressure from wives and kids, more than the politics" keeps many celebrities out of today's war areas. He said one National Basketball Association star whom he would not identify asked: "How safe am I going to be?" After Newton assured the player that "you've got the entire U.S. military around you," the player agreed to visit Kuwait and Qatar, Newton said.
"They're scared," country star Morgan said after Wednesday's show. "It's understandable..."

Once upon a time celebrities did the right thing; understanding that their fame, and fortune, depended on those whom fought in the dirt to ensure that they had the freedom to possess it. Today's vain product of Hollywood uses our fighting men as simply another avenue through which they can express their disdain for America.
In the past entertainers would fly into much less secure territory in order to do what they felt was their patriotic duty in wartime; today, even with "the entire U.S. military around you", they are too scared to go. Sorry, I have never understood cowardice.
In a totalitarian sociey, freedom of expression is always the first thing to go - do any of the current crop of Hollywood zeroes realize what we are fighting for?

Well, maybe the youth of Hollywood understand a bit better than their's Jessica Simpson dropping into Iraq to bring some smiles:

A blonde in combat boots and a patroitic one-piece...gosh, I so love this country!

Link to San Diego Union-Trib via Roger Simon here: Link to Gateway Pundit here:

Friday, December 23, 2005

Democrats, In Denial...

What the Democrats are saying, and simultaneously denying they are saying:

Let's roll the dice. It's been more than four years since terrorists slipped past American intelligence, eluded law enforcement and slaughtered thousands of Americans on American soil.
Why haven't they managed to strike us here at home again? Who knows? Maybe it's nothing we've done. Maybe it's sheer luck. Maybe our luck will hold. So let's take a chance, OK?
Sure, there is a possibility that one reason we have not been hit lately is the Patriot Act -- the major legislative initiative of the post-9/11 era....

....Critics of the Patriot Act argue that it could– at some point down the slippery slope -- lead to some nosy FBI agent discovering that you borrow Harlequin romance novels from your local library. One must suppose it was with that grim prospect in mind that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid proudly declared last week: “We killed the Patriot Act!”

We should withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible, too. Henry Kissinger says that such a defeat “would shrivel U.S. credibility around the world. … The respite from military efforts would be brief before even greater crises descended on us.” But Cindy Sheehan sees it differently. We might as well flip a coin.

Finally, it's time we asked: What was wrong with the policies we had in place before Sept. 11, 2001? Terrorism wasn't much of a problem in those days. Yes, there were attacks against Americans in Lebanon, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia and off the coast of Yemen. But you're willing to accept that level of terrorism indefinitely, aren't you?

And, after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, intelligence and law enforcement officials, using all the tools then available to them, were so effective that it took the terrorists almost a decade before they could finish the job they had started, reducing the twin towers to rubble. Who could ask for more than that?
About a half dozen people were killed in the 1993 attack. In 2001, close to 3,000 were incinerated or buried. So if we take all the precautions we took in the past, we can anticipate that next time -- well, you do the math. The point is, you'd prefer to lose a city or two rather than have our friends in Europe think we're a bunch of cowboys, wouldn't you?

By Clifford it all here:

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Mainstream Media: Schizophrenic? Or Simply Nuts?

From today's Los Angeles Times, we hear from Max Boot:

IT SEEMS like only yesterday that every high-minded politician, pundit and professional activist was in high dudgeon about the threat posed to national security by the revelation that Valerie Plame was a spook. For daring to reveal a CIA operative's name — in wartime, no less! — they wanted someone frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, preferably headed for the gallows.

Since then there have been some considerably more serious security breaches. Major media organs have broken news about secret prisons run by the CIA, the interrogation techniques employed therein, and the use of "renditions" to capture suspects, right down to the tail numbers of covert CIA aircraft. They have also reported on a secret National Security Agency program to monitor calls and e-mails from people in the U.S. to suspected terrorists abroad, and about the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity designed to protect military bases worldwide.

Most of these are highly classified programs whose revelation could provide real aid to our enemies — far more aid than revealing the name of a CIA officer who worked more or less openly at Langley, Va....

The media, for years living in a world of its own, seems to be developing a split personality; changing definitions of phrases/events as it suits their momentary reality.

Somebody bust out the DSM III; isn't this the definition of a certain type of psychological disorder?

And can I please use the word "treasonous" as an adjective the next time I want to modify the phrase "mainstream media"?

Link to Boot's full article here:,0,6755116.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

UPDATE: If you are in the mood for some dead-on bias-bashing, link here to Times Watch "Quotes of Note - Worst of '05"...the depth and the breadth of the liberal bias is remarkable; I'm going to excerpt the first one for you if you promise to go read the rest (remember, Santa's watching...):

**The Deaniac Award for Iraq War Defeatism **

"And in the shadow of the bleak and often horrific news emerging from Iraq nearly every day, historians and political experts are finding at least a wan hope in those imperfect historical analogies. Even in the absence of a sudden and dramatic shift on the battlefield toward a definitive victory, there may still be a slight opening, as narrow as the eye of a needle, for the United States to slip through and leave Iraq in the near future in a way that will not be remembered as a national embarrassment."

-- From reporter James Glanz's November 27 story for the Week in Review section.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

New York Transit Workers Strike (Out, for Good?)

Coming from a "union" household, it is hard for me to get up much ire against strikers; it seems like a quaint, old-world way to get attention, and I tolerate it in the spirit of a bizarre kind of personal multiculturalism...

Today's transit strike in New York doesn't overly inconvenience me - New Jersey Transit still gets me into the city; and rather than take a cross-town train, I simply walked the 30-odd blocks back and forth to work. With the temperature sub-freezing, I suppose the timing could be better, but no finer time to walk the streets of Manhattan than Christmas!

But...for people whom live in places like Brooklyn or Queens, their trips to work were hellish ordeals, waiting hours in the cold for LIRR trains or private bus lines. Many could not get in at all, having to sacrifice salary or sick days instead.

And for what are these innocents sacrificing? The MTA is offering the union a raise of over 10% over the next three years; and simply asking that new employees, effective next year, retire at 60 instead of 55; and contribute a few percentage points of their salary to the cost of the oustanding medical/retirement benefits they recieve.

Union President Roger Toussaint's counteroffer: No benefit help; reduce retirement age to 50.

Is he nuts? Did he see how many tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs at General Motors simply because the company could no longer afford to pay the retiree benefits? American cars are thousands of dollars more expensive than they need to be to finance retirees; and slowing sales due to value/price have forced massive layoffs. Does the TWU want to put New York City in the same situation as GM twenty years from now - forcing a financial crisis that would eventually cost thousands of jobs? The TWU, and Toussaint, don't care...or maybe they don't know...would all these workers really be striking if they knew it was simply to save a few bucks for unborn employees? Note that the TWU demands are not posted or broadcast anywhere; they simply keep saying they are looking for "appreciation" and "respect".

Well, even in liberal New York, they are losing respect by the busload, from people whom would love to have the benefits/salaries/retirement these workers already possess. There is no support for these guys in the street; none at all.

And me? I say...stay on strike. Lose two day's pay for every day you are out. Have your union lose $1 million a day in fines, and probably lose their check-off fees as well. Hopefully, Bloomberg can pull a Reagan and fire some of your sorry asses - at the very least he should pull back his final offer, and force the TWU to take less than they might have had Monday night.

And then you selfish bastards can finally look back at what you had, and understand how lucky you once were...

Funny link to some TWU/Public to-and-fro here:
General Motors, pummelled:

Monday, December 19, 2005

DNC: Bush Lying About Everything !

Via The Corner:

The Democratic National Committee has just released a statement which appears to claim that the president is lying when he says the administration briefed members of Congress on the NSA spying program:

"With his credibility in tatters, President Bush may have fielded questions, but he failed to explain why he may have ignored both federal law and the Constitution in ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. This disturbing abuse of power has become a disturbing hallmark of the Bush administration over the past five years. The President now seems to be hiding behind a false claim that he briefed members of Congress.
In the spirit of the President's newfound candor, we call upon him to correct the record, explain why members of Congress were left in the dark
and support an investigation into this secret spying program..."

"The President now seems to be hiding behind a false claim that he briefed members of Congress" is a very dangerous claim - they are insisting that the President was lying in his radio address Saturday, his Oval Office speech on Sunday, and in his press conference today.

That is a bold statement, it demands proof. Will the MSM investigate this radical claim, the way they analyze every word that comes out of Bush's mouth, trying to create discrepencies? Or will they allow this to sit out there, hoping it gains a false aura of truth, as part of their insane War against America?

Let's watch this, carefully...

Corner link here:

Charlie Brown and The Football... an analogy for the Democrats and National Security? John McIntyre on RealClearPolitics makes the case:

One would think that after the political miscalculations the Democrats made during the 2002 and 2004 campaigns they would not make the same mistake a third time, but it is beginning to look a lot like Charlie Brown and the football again.
First, the Democrats still do not grasp that foreign affairs and national security issues are their vulnerabilities, not their strengths. All of the drumbeat about Iraq, spying, and torture that the left thinks is so damaging to the White House are actually positives for the President and Republicans. Apparently, Democrats still have not fully grasped that the public has profound and long-standing concerns about their ability to defend the nation.

Mr. McIntyre suggests the combination of their rabidly left-wing base and a chorus of yes-men in the media have helped wrap the Democrats into their own personal echo chamber - true enough, I am sure, but nevertheless each man/women whom votes/speaks in Congress is responsible for their own actions and any repercussions those actions may cause (hear me, Mr. Murtha?).

And while 9/11 has certainly faded in the consciousness for most in Washington these days (and for many in the country as a whole), for average Joe American security is still a critically important issue. And the bottom line is that average Americans’ sympathies are not with terrorists trying to kill innocents, but rather with our troops and security agents who are trying to combat these jihadists.

For Washington Democrats, 9/11 never exisited as any more than a detour to push their left-wing agenda around. 9/11 has not faded in MY consciousness; and I remember well the Democrats acting like traffic cops while the rubble still smoldered... "nothing to see here, folks! The real crime is that all these dead Americans may not have had full health care coverage! Let's move along, folks - pay no attention to the cries of the dying; we have a perscription drug plan for you!"

Here's the true pulse of America (hey- I speak with folks all across the country on a daily basis; unlike those whom communicate strictly between those in New York and DC - and this is the general vibe):

The public resents the overkill from Abu Ghraib and the hand-wringing over whether captured terrorists down in Gitmo may have been mistreated. They want Kahlid Mohamed, one of the master minds of 9/11 and a top bin Laden lieutanent, to be water-boarded if our agents on the ground think that is what necessary to get the intel we need. They want the CIA to be aggressively rounding up potential terrorists worldwide and keeping them in “black sites” in Romania or Poland or wherever, because the public would rather have suspected terrorists locked away in secret prisons in Bulgaria than plotting to kill Americans in Florida or California or New York.
The public also has the wisdom to understand that when you are at war mistakes will be made...

A wisdom that the Dems do not have, or worse, are aware of but will ignore in order to damage the nation's commander-in-chief. So how does it look outside the Beltway?

One of the major problems working against Democrats is many on their side appear to be rooting for failure in Iraq and publicly ridicule the idea that we actually might win. When this impression is put in context of the debate over eavesdropping or the Patriot Act, Democrats run the significant risk of being perceived to be more concerned with the enemy’s rights than protecting ordinary Americans.

It's not a perception. It is reality. And a sad one at that.

Link to the full post here:

Media Bias: Worse Than We thought?

Yes, worse than we thought, according to this UCLA (no right-wing organization!) study:

I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Interesting report, read it here - - and learn why these researchers claim the Wall Street Journal is more liberal than you may think...

Still don't believe? Than look at this piece of analysis (of W's speech last night) from the Associated Press, seemingly exsisting in its own universe, and tell me the media doesn't have a dramatic leftward tilt:

Analysis: Bush drops rosy Iraq scenarios

WASHINGTON (AP) — No more rosy scenarios. After watching his credibility and approval ratings crumble over the course of 2005, President Bush completed a rhetorical shift Sunday night by abandoning his everything-is-OK pitch to Americans and coming clean: He was wrong about the rationale for going to war in Iraq; he underestimated the dangers; the country has suffered "terrible loss"; and the bad news isn't over.

"To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor and I will not allow it," he said in a prime-time address, capping a series of five speeches designed to reverse a stunning political free-fall.

The fact that this left-wing hatred and distortion even made it past an (approving) editor's desk shows the moral and professional depravity of the AP. No wonder that the American public has the media on par with ambulance-chasers and used-car salesman...

Link to the AP's bile here:

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Afghanistan's Success...ssshhhh !

Yeah, I know, I only need to turn on the news to hear about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket and it is all George Bush's fault; the War on Terror has been a disaster, people dying for nothing, etc...

Yet there is this, as dug up by Murdoc Online:

Formation of the parliament marks the latest step in Afghanistan' path to democracy and follows the country's Sept. 18 parliamentary elections, a State Department official told the American Forces Press Service on the condition that he not be identified or quoted.
Afghan National Army, Afghan National Police and international military forces ensured a relatively safe and secure environment so more than 12.5 million registered voters could vote for a 249-member lower house of parliament, as well as provincial councils. These council members, in turn, elected 68 members of the upper chamber.
President Hamid Karzai appointed the remaining 34 upper-house members, more than half of them women, the official explained.

A peaceful election, women representing more than half of Afghanistan's upper house...why isn't NOW singing the praises of the Bush administration? Do the liberals prefer the Taliban, with their brutal repression of women, destruction of non-Muslim cultural artifacts, and exportation of terrorism? Or would they rather recreate the slavery of the Afghan populace in order to have a few stones to chuck at President Bush?

Murdoc echoes thoughts expressed here before:

If, at the end of September 2001 you had said that both Iraq and Afghanistan would have elected new democratic national governments by the end of 2005, I would have said you were a bit too optimistic. I'm glad to be proven wrong.
Why are some people so disappointed that things are going so well?
Are they unpatriotic?

Hey - DON'T QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM, OK? Remember, they are the ones who really support the troops...

Link to Murdoc Online here:

If The New York Times Could Have Its Way...

The Sydney Riots - a Non-PC View...

Britain's Melanie Phillips, quickly becoming a lone voice of sanity in the British intellectual wilderness, has her take on the recent Aussie-Muslim unrest in Sydney: appears that the current unrest was sparked by Lebanese Muslim attacks on two indigenous lifeguards, and that this was only the tip of an iceberg of aggression by this minority which - thanks to the censorship imposed by multiculturalism - has gone all but unreported.

"Censorship" is an underused word in this case - how many times have you seen a police report in the newspaper with a full description of a perpetrator, containing everything except their race? Oh, I forgot, the only ones ever guilty of censorship are Bush Administration officials!

...a loss of professional nerve in the Australian police led to a mindset that was more concerned with avoiding hostility by ethnic minorities than tackling crime (identical to the situation in Britain). Confronting even the most minor of misdemeanours in Muslim areas tended to provoke a terrifyingly violent response -to which the police response was abject surrender...

...The result has been an explosive amount of crime and extreme violence by gangs of Middle Eastern origin, with many racially motivated attacks by such gangs who target people simply because they are Australian.

Phillips compares this to the situation in Britian; which I admit I do not know much about - but based on the huge pro-Palestinian, anti-Semetic rallies combined with subway bombings, seems to make some sense - but it certainly bears the hallmarks of the social decay in the suburbs of France. In our PC world, racism is just fine when practiced against whites, I suppose...Anyway, Ms. Phillips concludes thusly:

Britain, France, Australia, Sweden - variations of the same phenomenon are happening all over the western world. Aggression and denial, creating a spiral of ever-worsening aggression, all because of a paralysis in acknowledging, let alone dealing with, the true nature of what we are all facing.

Censorship by the multi-culti thought police will be the death of us all - every culture is not equal; and applying equal status to those whom defy society's norms will undo those norms in short order. Multiculturalism now makes the perpetrator into the victim; giving us a future where we must all choose between being anarchists or their prey.

I will fight; as I choose neither...

Link to Ms. Phillips essay here:
Want an example of my type of multiculturalism? Look here:

Racist Katrina Lies?

Via No Parasan!, we find a link to an interesting chart provided by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. Check out the death rates by race (the only stat counter that matters, of course):

African-American - 259 (50% of total)
Asian-Pacific 2 (1%)
Caucasian - 236 (46%)
Hispanic 13 (2%)
Native American 2 (1%).

Now here are the population demographics of New Orleans:

White - 135,956 (28.05%)
Black or African American - 325,947 (67.25%)

In a city that is only one-quarter "white", how is it that nearly half of the fatalities where white as well?
RACISM, OF COURSE! George Bush has always hated whitey, and fiddled while they died at a rate nearly doubled that of their representation in the population! We all know that blacks have been big supporters of W.; he must have helped out his constituentsants first while allowing the poor white folks (of which there are many in Louisiana) suffer and die needlessly.

What, you have a better explanation?

Link to No Parasan! here: ; follow the other links on the post for a great roundup of hate-filled European reaction...

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Now Fighting for al-Qaeda: The New York Times!

So now the media and the Democrats are all aflutter over "domestic spying" as reported in the New York Times. Problem is, no one is interested in putting the claims up against any type of context. First, let us see what the Times is up to here:

The New York Times is under fire for not disclosing that a front-page story on domestic spying by the National Security Agency was excerpted from a future book by the reporter.
Media watchdogs questioned the timing of the article about the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping on suspected terrorists in the U.S. The Times said it held James Risen's story a year over White House fears of endangering ongoing probes.
But what it didn't write in yesterday's article or in a follow-up statement by editor Bill Keller was that Risen had written a book scheduled to hit stores in January.
Internet columnist Matt Drudge noted that Risen turned in the manuscript for "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush administration" three months ago.
Free Press confirmed plans to publish a book by Risen in January.


So this reporter wrote a book on these claims, due to be released within weeks, and yet the Times publishes this excerpt as "breaking news", without even a mention of the cross-interests that may be in play here. I give James Risen credit; this will give him book sales exponentially higher than what may have been expected. Amazing that the Times either didn't know this; or did know it and chose to let it slide in order to concoct yet another "scandal".
And of course timing is key here; this t-storm in a teapot serves to distract people from the fact that the Iraqi people held an amazingly successful election just the other day; with turnout and inter-party co-operation that the American electorate can only dream about. What to do when there is good news? Why, smear Bush, of course!
It didn't work with the "Guard Memos", or the Plame "scandal" (for which, ironically, the only person to serve prison time was a Times reporter); and it won't work here, either.

But it will harm our national security - their reporting on the alleged "secret prisons" overseas further ruptured international co-operation on the War on Terror; now the Patriot Act, which has forstalled terrorist attacks on American soil consistantly since 9/11, may be in trouble as well. May God damn the Times for doing everything they can to harm this nation's well-being in order to wrongfully defame a sitting president. Al-Jazeera can only sit back and watch in admiration...

And while Congess claimed to be "Shocked, shocked", there is this:

President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program

"This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.
Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency violates civil liberties
Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.
The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.
Appearing angry at times during his eight-minute address, Bush left no doubt that he will continue authorizing the program.


By all that is reasonable, isn't it time to depose the Times reporter, find out his source, and prosecute them for leaking top secret confidential information in a time of war? It is a freakin' felonious criminal offense!
{For more on this take see Powerline post here:}

But no doubt the Democrats will jump on this new "spying" bandwagon as a political tool to bash the president; consequences to our nation's security and our soldiers in the field be damned. But please, let us remember, these doomsayers have been wrong, wrong, wrong...consistantly!

Ralph Peters sticks it to those of little faith:

As American public opinion turned and growled and complained and as American politicians and thinkers scurried about in search of a place to hide, the people of Iraq and the developing political class of Iraq began taking a firm hold of their own future.
While Iraqis braved the terrorists, many Americans trembled before them.
We can't win in Iraq," shouted Howard Dean, who might have confused Iraq with Iowa, where he couldn't win.
"We've become the enemy," yawped John Murtha
— who later told Time magazine that he probably would have said nicer things about the war and its prospects if President Bush had invited him over to the White House for a coke and a few hands of canasta the way his father did.
Cindy Sheehan, mother of a slain soldier, moved to Bush's front yard for the month of August and was treated like a heroine by the media . . . until she called both Hillary Clinton and John McCain warmongers — and you can't criticize either Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

And you know what? It's all nonsense and flapdoodle, all of it. All the talk about Iraq inside the United States in the year 2005 has been meaningless.

Let's remember that, the next time the Dems or the Times tries to throw our nation under the bus to score a few cheap politcal points...

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit links to the text of President Bush's defense of the NSA's domestic evesdropping...strong words, delivered quote from W.:

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities...

And our friend in Missouri points out:

George Bush is not one to speak in symbols or mince words. His message today leaves you with the impression that "W" is more than miffed... Bush won't let this national security leak go that easy. He stated today the information was "improperly reported". Look for an investigation into this leak. "W" isn't letting this one go! And, this of course, is very bad news for the New York Times.

Link here:

de Villepin Lies; French Society Dies..

The Socialist French government decided that the politically correct rationale for the Intifada that rocked France was "discrimination", "economic injustice", et al.; and you were a racist if you dared speak otherwise (don't believe me? Look here: But those pesky little things call "facts" keep getting in the way of the French Politburo's story. From E-Nough!:

French counter-terrorism agents have arrested three suspects believed to have "indirect links" to al Qaida in Iraq's leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The round-up near Paris was connected to a similar sweep on Monday near the capital
and in the northern Oise region that netted 25 suspects, national police spokeswoman Catherine Casteran said.
During the overnight sweep, police found a stash of weapons in a garage in the suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, said a police investigator who cannot be identified.
They found several kilograms of explosives, AK-47 and Famas assault rifles, revolvers, ammunition, balaclavas and bullet-proof vests, he said.
Investigators believe the weapons were used to carry out armed robberies in France to finance jihad, or holy war, and that some of the funds may have gone to al-Zarqawi's group

And I'm sure these guys had nothing to do with the Muslims riots that rocked France a month back. Right. And I've got some cheese to sell you...

And on another tragicomic note:

Israeli security chiefs are advising France on riot control.

Israel’s security minister, Gideon Ezra, and the chief of police, Moshe Karadi, flew to Paris this week for meetings with Ezra’s French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, Ha’aretz reported Monday.
According to the newspaper, the French, who last month endured a wave of rioting by disaffected Arab immigrant youths, want to learn from Israeli security experts.
... French officials confirmed the trip by Ezra and Karadi but declined further comment.

The French have spent decades bashing the Isrealis for having the temerity to defend themselves against Muslim terrorists. And look to whom they turn first for help. Wonder how much "outrage" we'll hear from them in the future...
I hope Isreal is exacting a price for the assistance that only they can provide. Not financial, but at least a guarentee of some kind of understanding and support. Let's see how France votes on the next batch of Jew-bashing resolutions that arise at the UN...

E-nough! links here:
and here:

Friday, December 16, 2005

Gee, Mr. Kerry, They Don't Look Terrorized to Me...

December 14, 2005 Staff Sgt. Carlswell, from 23rd Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, greets an Iraqi family at a traffic control point in Mosul, during pre-election security operations. Photo by Staff Sgt. James H. Christopher III

A great day for the Iraqi people. A great day for American Servicemen/Women of all stripes.

And a great day for American foreign policy. We must make sure this beautiful flickering candle, this beacon of hope, stays lit in the Middle East...

Link to StrategyPage here:

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Fastest Flip-Flop Ever!

New Jersey gets the government it deserves when it elects Democrats:

Corzine ends his vow to leave gas tax alone

After vowing during his campaign that he would not raise the gas tax, Gov.-elect Jon Corzine said yesterday he will reconsider the idea now that gasoline prices have eased and the state's budget gap has ballooned to more than $5 billion.
Corzine's comments to reporters came after a key state senator said he will introduce legislation to raise the tax on gasoline and replenish the Transportation Trust Fund. The fund, which pays for highway and mass transit projects, is about to run out of cash.
The governor-elect said he would look for alternatives, including pouring more of the current gas tax into the trust fund rather than the general state budget. But he said increasing the tax might have to be considered.

...Lawmakers, meanwhile, continue to add new spending to the current year's budget, which itself is beset by revenue shortfalls and spending overruns.

Paragraphs three/four illustrate the real problem; the gas tax is a pork trough and very few dollars are getting through to the Department of Transportation. But why reallocate spending when you can simply force the residents of New Jersey to give you more to waste?

And now things will get real interesting; with confirmed liar Corzine at the helm in Jersey

...during a radio debate on NJ 101.5 in October, Corzine said flatly: "There will be no gas tax hike in a Corzine administration, particularly after we've seen a $1.50 rise in the price of gasoline. I'm proposing we have a tax holiday."

"Tax holiday" defined as a tax hike? Only to a Democrat...

Link to / Star Ledger story here:

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Sydney Riots: The Apologists Have Arrived!

The fighting continues in Sydney...via LGF:

Seven people were injured and 11 arrested after youths rioted in the suburbs Monday night, smashing the windows of stores, homes and parked cars. The youths appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, leading police to believe the destruction was in response to racially fueled attacks [where are the scare quotes? -ed.] on a Sydney beach a day earlier...

As we predicted yesterday {}, it didn't take long for the multiculti apologists to figure out a way to blame the evil West for the anger of the rioters. Professor Bunyip has a roundup of the claptrap posted in the Sydney Morning Herald:'s getting harder for multiculturalism's obfuscators to stick to the script. Still, credit where it's due, they remain resolute. As usual, the Silly is in the wings, prompt book at the ready. Consider its "coverage" from today's paper:
David Marr blames Alan Jones for Sunday's yobbo-palooza, never mentioning our Muslim Middle Eastern imports' long history of impolite behaviour, including 20-on-1 gang violence and pack rape.
• Damien Murphy rounds up a posse of academics who attribute the trouble to mateship, surf culture and, of course, our Prime Minister. ("At Cronulla, there's John Howard dog-whistling on immigration, Bob Carr singling out the ethnicity of rapists, and the anti-terror laws," said Amanda Wise, of Macquarie University's Centre for Research on Social Inclusion. As a result, Lebanese Australians are demonised etc., etc., blah, blah, blah).
The high incidence of English speakers in Sutherland Shire is the root cause, according to Sharon Verghis.

The Professor also exposes some Austrailan media dhimmis whom report all of the henious acts being committed yet refuse to identify whom is perpetrating it all here: .

I admit a lack of total understanding of Aussie surf culture; and while I understand that those whom fought with the Muslims on the beach have been described as the American version of "white trash"; is this any reason to treat their grievences any less seriously? Or is it still open season on poor white folk? As surfers usually espouse a "live and let live" type of philosophy; shouldn't we question what must have been building up in them to finally confront Muslim gangs who apparently have been freely roaming the beaches, abusing women, and beating down lifeguards?

Or is finding the particular "root causes" of these riots to painful for even the multiculties to undertake?

Reminds me of "The Planet of the Apes", when Cornelious warns Taylor not to travel further into the Forbidden Zone:
"Taylor...You may not like what you find...'

LGF link here:

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The Sydney Riots: CNN Lies Through Their Teeth

Riots involving Muslims? Quick, CNN, switch into full Dhimmi mode! Here they commit an out and out lie to protect the identity of the Sydney rioters:

Anti-Arab rioters smash cars, windows in Sydney
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Violence on the streets of Sydney spilled into a second night Monday, as scores of youths drove through beachside suburbs smashing windows of stores, homes and apartments, police said.
Any hopes that a race riot Sunday would be an isolated incident were shattered after dark when car loads of youths rampaged through southeastern Sydney chased by hundreds of police vehicles and a helicopter.
A police spokesman said...he did not have descriptions of those involved in Monday night's rampage, but said that clearly it was linked to Sunday's rioting.

So if you don't have descriptions, how the hell can you ascertain that they were anti-Arab protestors? I guess only the dhimmis at CNN could answer that, if they could cease bowing and scraping for a moment...
{Via Tim Blair:}

And at The Sydney Herald, Andrew West makes a point usually left unspoken:

Australia does not have a race relations problem. We have a clash of cultures and that's a big difference -- and maybe the problem is certain forms of Islam...
...some strains of Islam -- most obviously the strict, puritanical and downright fanatical Wahhabism -- do, indeed, sanction attitudes and behaviour that are not simply patriarchal but repressive. I'm sorry, but to this extent, this particular brand of Islam is most definitely the problem....
When groups of young Muslim men stalk the beaches of Sydney making sexually threatening comments against women in bathing costumes, as they indisputably do; and when they believe they act with the license of a sheik who
claims that such women are responsible for their own sexual violation, then I do blame, in part, their religion.
I do not embrace multiculturalism, as such, because I do not believe all cultures are compatible with non-discriminatory liberalism. I prefer a multi-ethnic, non-racial society, which has at its core a canon of values that include racial and gender equality.

Whoa! Can't he get arrested for speaking so...honestly?

Link here:

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Race Riots in Sydney?

Tim Blair has been following; he has reports and a timeline:

Racial tension turned to violence today as at least 5000 angry people converged on the beach after simmering anger and disputes between beach users flared last week.
An ambulance spokesman said crews had treated at least five people after pockets of violence broke out among the crowd ...

Two ambulance officers were injured when an angry mob attacked their vehicle.
The ambulance was transporting six injured youths under police escort when the crowd descended upon the vehicle and began hurling beer bottles.

Attacking rescue workers? Sacre Bleu, where have we seen that before? I don't get it, call me culturally confused, but in America, we honor our emergency service workers...

Now here's the timeline:

Last weekend some people, probably Lebanese Muslims, bashed a bunch of lifeguards at Cronulla Beach, including knocking one unconscious. They also harassed girls and women on the beach.
* Residents, pissed off by the violence,
got angry at the lack of police attendance and presence.
* The anger morphed into a rage that the beach was being “invaded” by people from the western suburbs (i.e., a euphemism for Lebanese Muslims).
* Some people started
texting to incite others to “defend the beach” from thugs.
* Today they did that by forming a violent, rowdy, mob.

But the Muslims learned how to fight by watching the French Intifada on TV:

Reports on radio station 2GB indicated up to 50 vehicles with passengers armed with “baseball bats” had been causing trouble in Maroubra, in Sydney’s east.
Sky News reported that a group of people in cars and with baseball bats, bits of wood and stakes, had “slammed every single car” in some streets.

Tim Blair comments:

The above report doesn’t say so, but our bat-wielding friends are of “Middle Eastern appearance”, at least according to police radio...

Blair goes on to seemingly critisize those whom "defended the beach"; but since the Aussie police have apparently been in hiding, seems like someone had to step up to prevent Sharia law from being imposed on Sydney's beaches. From RightWingDeathBogan:

...What I find more appalling than this sort of 'unrest' breaking out at all, is that it was allowed to get to this stage. Where have the police been? What have the community leaders been up to (other than hiding their heads up their arses) when we hear of this happening:

Another Cronulla local told how little girls taking part in swimming lessons at the beach were warned to keep their sun protection shirts on as they left the water after thugs called them "little tarts".
Others described the abuse of a pregnant woman because she was taking up room on a stair way to the beach as one of the most shocking recent incidents at the beach.
The father of a 16-year-old girl said she had been too afraid to return to the beach after she and two friends were asked if they were virgins by a group of men. When she failed to respond the gang told her she would be carried off the beach and it was only when she spotted a friend nearby that the two girls were able to escape.
Locals said the behaviour of aggressive groups of youths of Middle Eastern descent had become progressively worse in recent years. "I am not racist against their ethnicity, I am reacting to their behaviour," one surf life saving source said.

Trust me, I am sure the PC Police will be out in force to make sure the word "Muslim" is not used in connection with these events at all; and any who "react to their behavior" by naming their ethnicity will instantly be labeled "racist", making honest discussion moot. Fairly soon we will hear about how these Islamists are "poor" and "discriminated against"; and how we must "understand their culture" - despite the fact they are apparently under no obligation to recognize ours.

I have great faith in our Aussie friends, however...there will be no Sydney Intifada, for at the first sign of an organized uprising Australia and it's citizens will bite back hard (as they may have done today).

Tin Blair here:
RWDB link here: