Tuesday, February 28, 2006

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

Salman Rushdie has more cojones than 10 other men put together:

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats. . . .

Read every last beautiful word of it.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin and Atlas Shrugs for the heads up.

The Future of Jihad?


CBS: Bush Approval at All-time Low

(CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
How did this happen? Bush hasn't been a particularly good president in general, but I credit three huge mistakes by the Administration:

Harriet Miers - the ONE ISSUE for which conservatives had hung with Bush through all of his ideological sellouts. Hugely important issue to the GOP base. Plenty of outstanding choices available. No political benefit, and huge potential for negative fallout, from making the wrong choice. Public concern about Bush's propensity for cronyism. Bush nominates his personal lawyer, a little known and not particularly distinguished attorney from Dallas. Accuses her critics (i.e., his core constituency) of being sexist and elitist. Stupid move.

Katrina Response - Bush had us all 100% sold on re-thinking our "pre-911" mindset as regards national security and preparedness. He then quietly appointed a horse show manager (or whatever that was he did) to manage America's emergency response, even though horses are seldom used in disaster relief these days. Disaster ensued. Bush lauded the "hell of a job" his horse show expert was doing managing the disaster. Stupid.

Dubai Ports - The ONE ISSUE on which the nation still trusted you. Bush sold us on how critical it was to "err on the side of caution" as regards national security, and then rubber-stamped control of some of America's most critical ports to one of three governments in the world that had officially recognized the Taliban. Accused the deal's critics of being "racists" and "xenophobes" and threatened to veto any attempt to impede the deal, which would constitute his very first veto after six years in office. Stupid.

At this point, those of us watching from the hinterlands are scratching our heads and wondering "what the &#@% is going on out there in D.C.?" Do I think George Bush is doing a good job as President? No, I don't.

Olympus E500 Digital SLR

Just received my new Olympus E500 a couple days ago--my first digital SLR. Haven't had a chance to put it through its paces yet. Hope to do so soon and report back.

Monday, February 27, 2006

How Evil Are You?

Apparently, I'm 76% evil.

"You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the diet coke of evil. Just one calorie-- not evil enough..." - Dr. Evil

Mexican Govt. Taking Over Management of Border Patrol

From the Eidelblog:

At a press conference Sunday afternoon, President Bush announced that he and Mexican President Vicente Fox have reached an agreement that will completely cede administrative control of the southern U.S. border to Mexican authorities.

In a pre-emptive counter to Democrats' expected criticism, Bush made specific assurances that the deal would save the U.S. money while having no detrimental effect on border security. "This is win-win for both the United States and Mexico. The same American border agents will continue to report to work every day. Only administrative functions will be taken over by Mexican citizens, and they'll be subject to the same scrutiny by the Department of Homeland Security."

Nice blog. He even has Frederic Bastiat as his patron saint. What's not to like?

I Like This Guy...

I haven't come across his blog before, but this dude's name is Robert A. George, and he's at least 100% right on about Chris Mathews' characterization of the hullabaloo over the Dubai Ports fiasco:

Okay, I caught Matthews' syndicated show rerun on CNBC Sunday night. Don't ask me what the heck he was trying to say. It was something about the global pinball machine that the world is in now. Matthews compared the cartoon uproar sweeping through the Muslim world with bloggers getting exercised over the Dubai ports issue. I'm not kidding.

While not mentioned by name, Michelle Malkin, Daily Kos and this site were briefly shown on screen.

Apparently, the link was that the prime minister of Denmark was surprised by how the cartoon uproar overwhelmed him -- and Bush was surprised by the Dubai controversy.

What on God's green earth is Matthews smoking? For one thing, the Danish president had nothing to do with the publication of the cartoons! So, duh! No wonder he would be surprised about the uproar. On the other hand, the ports deal was approved by a panel of Bush administration representatives! And people aren't supposed to wonder why the president -- and treasury secretary and defense secretary -- don't know the details about it until just before the deal is announced?

Amen to that! We (the Merry Band of Curious Bloggers) are getting beat up by the White House because we're asking serious questions. That's all we're doing. And for this, we get called "racists," "xenophobes," "islamophobes," etc.
In truth, we're not concerned because we don't trust the Arabs. We're concerned because we don't trust the President.
It'd be far more accurate to call us "Bushophobes."

Coast Guard Warned Bush Admin. on Dubai Ports

Something tells me this is just the tip of the iceberg:

WASHINGTON - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.

The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports.

The Bush administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved.


Stuck on Ignorant???

Critics of the Bush Administration's vetting of the Dubai Ports deal are "ignorant?" "xenophobic?" "racist?" Not exactly. Ignorant? Yes, many of us are, indeed, ignorant regarding port security and about Dubai. That, by itself doesn't make us wrong. A person can be ignorant on an issue, and still manage to have the correct opinion. Further, a person doesnt have to be knowledgeable about an issue in order to criticize another person's analysis of the issue. An illustration:

Suppose A says "All X's are Y's"

B (knowing nothing about X's or Y's) asks "How do you know that?"

A responds "It's very simple. All X's are Z's and all Y's are Z's, therefore all X's are Y's."

B doesn't have to know anything at all about X's, Y's or Z's in order to criticize the flaw in A's logic. (If the flaw isn't readily clear to you, substitute "men" for X, "women" for Y and "humans" for Z in the above exchange.) Given different facts, it may very well be that all X's are Y's, but the truth of that proposition is not at all evident from A's argument. From my perspective, the conversation on the Dubai Ports deal is going something like this:
Critics: It's not apparent that the Bush Administration reviewed this ports deal diligently.

White House: What are you talking about? We use the ports of Dubai all the time! They even service our Navy ships! They're a vital ally in the war on terror! You're just a racist!

Critics: All that may be true, but there's a procedure for reviewing these deals, and it's not clear that it was followed.

White House: Stop trying to change the subject, racist-man! Are you an expert on port security all of a sudden? Didn't think so. In fact, you're an ignorant xenophobe who hates Arabs. How are we supposed to win hearts and minds with bigots like you flooding the airwaves? Should there be a different standard for Arabs than for white people? Maybe we shouldn't let the brown people vote! Would that make you happy, Gov'nah Wallace?

Critics: No, I'm definitely not an expert on port security. I think experts on port security have a lot of knowledge to share. I just think the Administration should've talked to them a months ago, rather than a few days ago. I honestly don't know whether this deal affects national security or not. I just don't think the Administration looked at it closely enough the first time around.

White House: There you go again with your red herrings. This issue is not about your personal opinion on how much more bureaucratic red tape would make you sufficiently happy. In case you didn't notice, this issue is about PORT SECURITY. You've already admitted your ignorance on port security. I rest my case.

Critics: *SIGH*...

White House: By the way, dont' forget to VOTE REPUBLICAN in November!


Iran's Nuclear Weapons: Much Ado about Nothing???

Apparently, the New York Times believes that it is:

Each time a new nuclear weapons state emerges, we rightly suspect that the world has grown more dangerous. The weapons are enormously destructive; humans are fallible, organizations can be incompetent and technology often fails us. But as we contemplate the actions, including war, that the United States and its allies might take to forestall a nuclear Iran, we need to coolly assess whether and how such a specter might be deterred and contained.

Of course, if nothing is worth going to war over, then there's no room for discussion. I think there are a lot of voices in our media who believe just that, whether they're willing to say it bluntly or not. This is the "peace at any price" crowd (f.k.a. the "peace in our time" crowd). Now, if some things are worth going to war over, but others are not, then I applaud and welcome any discussion that helps those of us who collectively comprise "the great unwashed" to better understand whether war against Iran over its nuclear ambitions would solve more problems than it would create. After reading the editorial, I think it's more of an attempt to provide cover to the "peace at any price" crowd than an attempt to shed light on the issues.

The argument that the Iranian mullahs would be deterred by the risk of American retribution is simply not well-founded. Deterrence doesn't rely on whether the U.S. would in fact trace a weapon back to Iran or whether the U.S. would in fact retaliate in like kind. Deterrence requires that the key players believe that the U.S. could trace a weapon back to Iran and that the U.S. would, in fact, retaliate against Iran if it managed to trace it back. There's good reason to believe that the U.S. wouldn't succeed in tracing a weapon back to an official decision by Iran's government, even if the decision did, in fact, originate from that source. Attenuated connections to "rogue elements" in Iran wouldn't be sufficient to justify large-scale retaliation. Maybe a door just happened to get left unlocked on a storage unit and a Hezbollah operative just happened to stroll in and help himself to a half-dozen "Roses of Mohammed" pastries and a nuclear warhead. Even if the decision to release the weapon could be traced back to official channels in Iran, one can see myriad scenarios in which the "voices of restraint" would argue that the U.S. would have more to lose by retaliation than it would have to gain. Those voices might, in fact, be right. In other words, the chance that the U.S. would ever turn Persia into a big, shiny glass parking lot is fairly low. So long as the U.S. can be counted on to be a rational actor, the threat of nuclear retribution against Iran in the wake of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil (even one traceable to Iran) is probably not credible and the mullahs probably know it. Deterrence is simply not a reliable option against apocalyptic oligarchies.

Christians United for Israel

From Ha'aretz:

WASHINGTON - A new group in the United States, Christians United for Israel, will serve as an umbrella organization for Christian congregations that support Israel, and will lobby for Israel.

Some 400 Christian community leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, two weeks ago to establish the group, which Christians United officials said represents about 30 million Americans.

The organization's main goal is to create a rapid-response network "targeted to reach every senator and congressman" in the United States. It is led by evangelical leaders Dr. John C. Hagee and George Morrison; fundamentalist Baptist minister Jerry Falwell; and Gary Bauer, president of the American Values organization aimed at protecting marriage, family and faith.
Glad to see Christians uniting for Israel. Not so sure I'm glad to see them uniting behind Jerry Falwell, but these days Israel can use all the friends it can get, so I doubt anyone's gonna be looking any gift horses in the mouth--particularly in these days of "lonesome, unprotected gerbil whisperers" & such.

The Gerbil Whisperer???

Given the controversial subject-matter of the film Brokeback Mountain, there was a apparently a lot of discussion as to the best title. The Nose on Your Face reports that a few of the rejected titles included:
Prances With Wolves
Lonesome Doug
Quickly Down Under
The Good, the Bad & the Fabulous
The Gerbil Whisperer
Yes, it's juvenile.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

On Blasphemy...

Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. Given that everyone's presently gung-ho to outlaw blasphemy, that fact seems a little ironic, somehow.

LEGO Launches New "Mohammed" Playset

Yes, I realize this image is probably very offensive to millions of folks (especially those who don't have a sense of humor.) For the record, I don't think this sort of thing encourages understanding--but it is pretty damn funny. The Catholics had to put up with my post of the "Poopy Madonna," and the Jews got the picture of Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, so now it's the Muslims' turn. It's my personal sacrifice to the world. The great religions are just so divided these days. If I can manage to convince all the different religions of the world to hate heretics like myself equally, I think that's at least one little way to bring them all together. The people of the world can hate us instead of hating one another. And then I can buy the world a coke. And then the jihadis will probably cut my head off, and make a video that no one (except for other jihadis) will ever watch.
Free speech. It's a beautiful thing.

Emiratis Confiscate Books at American School

Something tells me this won't help the President's case on the Dubai Ports deal:

ABU DHABI — Close on the heels of the cartoon controversy raging across the Muslim world, it is the turn of an upscale American school in Abu Dhabi to ruffle Muslim sentiments by teaching lessons that allegedly ''smell of racism.''

Over 100 copies of the social studies text book, 'World Cultures' taught to the sixth grade children were confiscated by the Ministry of Education yesterday, for allegedly presenting Islam and the Muslim countries including Gulf states in a negative light while glorifying Israel on the other hand, Khaleej Times has learnt.

Did I mention these folks have the world's worst PR team?

Bainbridge on Deference to Bush

Professor Bainbridge, who is always insightful (and not infrequently entertaining) raises an interesting point regarding deference to Bush on the pending Dubai Ports deal and the withdrawn Harriet Miers nomination:

I have no dog in the port fight. It's one on which I think reasonable people can differ. It would be interesting, however, to figure out how many center-right bloggers/politicians/pundits were willing to defer to President Bush's judgment when he nominated Harriet Miers but are not willing to defer to Bush's judgment on the port deal.

As to Prof. Bainbridge's first point, it's not clear from the statement whether he is addressing the question of whether the takeover itself is acceptable, or whether the CFIUS review of the deal was conducted properly. I agree that the former question is onr about which reasonable minds may differ. I have trouble, however, accepting that there's a resonable argument that the CFIUS performed its oversight duties properly in this case. In order to accept that it did, one must accept the proposition that the takeover of U.S. port terminals by the government of the UAE "could not affect national security," and therefore did not justify additional scrutiny. If I understand the statute correctly, it is not even a question of whether the transaction would affect national security (a question about which reasonable minds could perhaps differ.) It is, rather, a question of whether a takeover of American seaports by a foreign government could affect national security (a question about which reasonable minds could not differ, IMHO).

Without respect to the above, the second point presents a damn good question, particularly as regards Hugh Hewitt, who was rock-solid with trusting the President on the nomination of Harriet Miers (a decision which we might have been stuck with for decades) but not at all willing to trust him on Dubai Ports (which could theoretically be revisted and corrected at any time). For my part, I bailed on Bush upon his nomination of Miers. The Miers nomination evinced, for me, a huge deficiency in the President's critical thinking skills. There are many issues about which reasonable minds can differ, but I didn't see the Miers nomination as one of them. In the wake of the nomination, the bulk of the arguments presented for supporting the President were founded upon the merits of party unity rather than the merits of the nominee. Miers was the last straw for me, as it apparently was for Prof. Bainbridge. I'm not sure whether Hewitt's change in position derives from a change in his opinion of Bush. Perhaps in retrospect, the Miers fiasco forced Hewitt to reevaluate the prudence of placing a high degree of trust in the President's judgment.

The Velvet Prophet

I'm really not sure what the message is here, but whatever it is, I'm sure it'll piss off the Mohamatons.

Friday, February 24, 2006

"Red Ken" Livingstone's Got His Butt in a Vise

The Guardian has the full story.

I've long despised the anti-Israel "Red Ken" and his long history of coddling extremely unsavory folks, particularly those types that hate Jews. It's about time his mouth caught up with him.

What a putz.

Thanks to the Jawas for the heads up.

Congratulations to Jyllands-Posten

I write this evening to join Michelle Malkin in congratulating the Jyllands-Posten for having what we here in Texas refer to as cojones, a trait all-too-rare these days, and particularly so among the journalistic class.

In recognition of the contributions of the Jyllands-Posten to public debate, it has been awarded the Victor Prize for critical journalilsm.


I Truly Despise Hanoi Jane

These are photos of Hanoi Jane Fonda "manning" a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft gun in 1972. Not too long before her trip, she reportedly shared this kernel of wisdom with her fellow Americans: "If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist."

Thinking of her just makes me ill.
Just in case you were wondering.



Stein: Wake Up, America.

Ben Stein illustrating why he's one of my heroes:

So here's where we are: we have a first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and separation of church and state. That means so-called artists can make art of a crucifix soaking in urine and of holy Christian images made of animal dung and no one can stop them. That means bookstores of brick and on-line can sell Mein Kampf and the vilest writings of Hitler's lackeys. These horrible excrescences are protected and the media screams bloody murder if anyone tries to protect the sacred in Christianity and Judaism from the most putrid attacks.

But the media censors itself about the cartoons mocking the prophet of a religion many of whose adherents want to destroy our country and our way of life. We will fight to the death to protect the artists who create Piss Christ, but we'll also fight to the death to protect the feelings of the people who hate us and kill our children. We have surrendered our free expression to people who are at war with us. They kill us in the name of a religion and we bow and scrape to that religion while letting people dump on Christianity and Judaism.

There's a word for this, beyond the words Stockholm Syndrome and the words Political Correctness. The word is cowardice. Or maybe an even shorter word: defeat. Wake up, America. This is serious.


Malkin Promotes Deeyah

Very happy to see that Michelle's putting out the word on Deeyah and her music. Muslim women can present a serious challenge to the Islamic fundamentalists' misogynistic plans, if those women are willing to "stand up" rather than "lay down or follow," as Deeyah challenges them in the controversial song "What Will it Be?" (Yes, somehow it's controversial for a woman to write a song about not being a slave, even in 2006.)

Thanks to Michelle and, as always, to Deeyah.

On "Islamophobia"...

Our fellow Americans in the White House were quick to brand us "sexists" and "elitists" when we raised questions about Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court.

Now they're branding bloggers as "racists" and "Islamophobes" for even raising questions about the Dubai Ports deal.

With friends like these, who needs Dhimmicrats?

I don't know if there's an official dictionary definition of the word "Islamophobe," but the suffix "-phobe" generally involves the idea of having a fear of something. I'm not a psychologist, but I understand that a "phobia" is, in fact, an irrational fear of something. In fact, the most common definition I've found for the word "phobia" is "a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous." An arachnophobe, for example, has a phobia (an irrational fear) of arachnids (spiders) which is unconnected to the existence or knowledge of actual danger. In general, it's perfectly rational to avoid poisonous spiders. Suppose, however, you had a big, hairy spider with no fangs. Even if you could thoroughly convince an arachnophobe that there was no rationale whatsoever to be fearful of the spider, an arachnophobe would nevertheless attempt to avoid the spider, despite the rational knowledge that the spider presents no danger.

Now, let's change the hypothetical. Suppose you're hiking in South America, and you come across a cave teeming with hairy tarantulas. Suppose that you're aware that certain tarantulas in South America are very deadly. Suppose your friend encourages you to go into the cave, assuring you that while many tarantulas in South America are poisionous, most tarantulas, even in South America, are not poisonous. Suppose you have no aversion to contacting spiders, but you nevertheless decline to go into the cave because you're concerned about the chance that the tarantulas may be poisonous.

Is your concern about the tarantulas an expression of arachnophobia?

I submit to you that it's not. I submit to you that most normal people would decline to go into the cave, even though most normal people don't suffer from arachnophobia. Most people do have a perfectly rational fear of an unknown risk (in this case, the chance that the tarantulas my be dangerous). Most people won't voluntarily make contact with an unindentified animal of any type, owing to the very real risk that the unidentified animal may attack. If you hear a noise coming from under a step, are you the type of person who's likely to reach under the step without looking? If you are, should you be commended for conquering your irrational fear of unidentified noises? If you're not, does that mean you suffer from "strange-noise-under-the-step-a-phobia," or are you just sensible enough to know that what's under there (raccoon, squirrel, snake, etc.) may bite you?

I don't have any "irrational, abnormal fear" of the UAE, of Arabs, of Islam or of any its practitioners, individually or collectively. I do have some very real and very rational concerns about the dangers that certain of Islam's practitioners (some of which are known and some of which are not) pose to my personal well-being and that of my fellow human beings.

Former UAE President: America is UAE's "number TWO enemy"

From FrontPage:

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support ... that contributed more to consolidating our people’s resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation“. . .

The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: ”One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.

So, the late Sheikh considered the U.S. his country's "number TWO enemy?"

I say we block this deal just on principle. Everybody knows AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE, BABY!!! Y'all need to get that straight.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

On Being Self-Righteous...

Although we easily and often forget it, the U.S. is, like most of the world, something of a "Johnny come lately" to this whole universal freedom and democracy movement. To the contrary, even over the relatively few years we've been around, we've managed to wreak some pretty serious havoc in certain parts of the world, often within our own borders and against our own people.

We can play "holier than thou" to our "unenlightened" neighbors around the world, but it really wasn't that long ago that Americans of separate races were assigned to separate facilities and black citizens were routinely denied their right to vote. Those who spoke out against the status quo were often visited by violent hooded terrorists in the dark of night, their homes set on fire. Many were beaten and even killed. (Sound familiar?) We're not talking about the 1800s, here, folks. We're talking about the 1960s!! It wasn't that long ago that black Americans weren't allowed in the armed forces, and American women weren't allowed to vote, even in theory. Not too long before that, we had legalized human slavery and we were intentionally infecting Native Americans with smallpox.

I don't bring up America's dirty laundry because I think Americans are obligated to hang our heads in shame forever. To the contrary, I think we as Americans also have a lot to be proud of. I bring up our dirty laundry for two reasons:

1. to remind us that we shouldn't look down our noses too hard at those in the world who don't share our modern ideals of equality and
2. to illustrate how far a culture can come in just a few generations.


U.S. Law Professor: "Prosecute Jyllands-Posten Editors"

Echoing the earlier sentiments expressed by Bill Clinton, a law professor at Seton Hall University by the name of Bernard K. Freamon has this to say on the Danish authorities' decision to not prosecute the Jyllands-Posten editors:

There is no room in the public square, it seems to me, for the race-baiter or religion-baiter who acts with the intention to injure or harm others.

This from a law professor. In America.

According to the tenets of my own religion (Emanism), this fellow should be stoned to death just for being an idiot. With very small, rubber rocks. Launched from wrist-rockets.


Malkin: No More Business as Usual

In her post today, Michelle Malkin tears apart the Bush Administration and the WSJ editors backing it up on the Dubai Ports selloff:
The Journal approvingly cites the blessing of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which "includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security," but offers nothing more.

Do not be reassured. The business-as-usual Journal editorial writers may have complete faith in this panel's dealings. You should not.
Contrary to the official assurances that this deal has been "thoroughly reviewed" by the authorities, Michelle points out that neither President Bush nor Secretary Rumsfeld was even aware of the deal until it had already been approved by the administration. Further, it's now come to light that the entire "review" took place over a course of about 20 days. The CFIUS failed to perform even the minimum 45-day review required by law. Apparently, no one at CFIUS can explain why this statutorily-mandated review wasn't done:
a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

As with all too many Bush Administration projects, the more I learn about this, the less reassured I feel.

Over at the Jawa Report, the Dread Pundit Bluto doesn't think it'll really make much of a difference either way, given the current lax state of security at America's ports. Dr. Rusty Shackleford has a different take, advising that we not lose sight of the very important distinction between "allies" and "friends."


Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Sania Mirza

This is Sania Mirza. On top of being a hottie, Sania's one of the top female tennis players in the world. She's also a Muslim. In exchange for her years of hard work, she's acquired success and fame. She's also collected more than her share of fatwas and death threats from her fellow Muslims. Just like Deeyah and Sahara, Sania doesn't quite fit the profile of how a Muslim woman is "supposed to act."

More Sahara Knite

Why??? Because we can.

Sure, the Mohamatons throw a temper tantrum & stop a few cartoons. Big deal. I doubt even one dirty infidel out of 100 gives a toss about a few chicken scratchings of the Muslims' devine prophet.

Let's see the Mohamatons stop hot chicks. Nine dirty infidel dudes out of ten spend the better part of their day focused on hot chicks. Hot chicks are a very big deal to us. Now we're finding out there are Muslim hot chicks??? This gets better all the time!

Trust me, fellas. Don't go messing with the hot chicks.

More on Deeyah

From Deeyah.com:

The first single from the album, “Plan of My Own,” was released in the UK January 31, 2005 and debuted in the Top 40, reached #4 on the Club Chart and #11 on the Indie Chart. The music video for the single, by John Lindauer (award winning director of commercials/videos for Nike, DHL, Sunny D, Christina Aguilera, etc.) reached #1 on The Box, the leading request music video channel in the UK. As was the case when Deeyah’s last album came out, her video has led to threats from conservative Muslims who are angry that Deeyah (herself a Muslim) appears in sexy clothes and dances with a black man. The resulting press coverage since the release of the video has been overwhelming to the point of overshadowing Deeyah’s music. For her safety, and in hopes of shifting the focus off of the “news story” and back on the music, Brainwash Records has brought Deeyah and her album to the US.

More info on Deeyah over at Jesus Was A Liberal, Sweet Spirits of Ammonia, and Alphabet City.

Does Islam REALLY Prohibit Depictions of Mohammed (PBUH/SAW/TM)?

Many in the West, including yours truly, have been puzzled by the extreme reaction to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. The Muslim talking heads have explained that the extreme reaction to the cartoons arises out of a sacred and universal tenet of Islam--namely, that any depiction of the prophet Mohammed in any form is the epitome of blasphemy to any Muslim.

As I've read more about this issue, I've become more and more skeptical of this claim. I found, for example, this question posted to Ali al-Sistani, a powerful Shi'ite Imam in Iraq:

Is it permissible to draw or produce a scene which shows the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), one of the past prophets or the infallible Imams (a.s.), or other luminaries and show it in cinema, on television or theatre?

The answer, according to the Imam, is:

If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem.

This Wikipedia article has more on the issue.

So, at least some Muslims don't subscribe to the "no pictures rule." From what I can gather, it's more or less a Sunni rule and generally not adhered to by the Shi'ites. I've heard you can even buy pictures of Mohammed on the streets of that free-for-all of moral decadence known as Tehran. There are a lot of what are represented as Persian and Afghani depictions of Mohammed here. To characterize what is in reality a Sunni rule as a sacred universal rule of Islam is either misinformed or simply dishonest. Further, to the extent the "no pictures rule" is subscribed to by certain Muslims, it isn't specific to Mohammed alone, but applies to all living things, including "the prophets." Thus, a picture of Jesus or Moses is also forbidden to the devout fundamentalist Sunni. So, why no protests over pictures of the "prophet" Jesus?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. We generally have to rely on the "Muslim talking heads" to explain this stuff to us, but at least in this case, their answers just don't seem to fit the facts.

I think the reality of the situation is closer to the following: Muslims don't like others making fun of their religious icons any more than Christians or Jews like people making fun of theirs. The difference in their reactions doesn't originate in some sacred and universal Islamic ban on idolatry. It grows out of an overdeveloped sense of moral superiority and religious entitlement.

If you weren't sure where you stand on the Dubai Ports deal...

George Bush has annouced he will VETO any legislation aimed and derailing the takeover of America's ports by the government of the United Arab Emirates. Can I get a WTF??? Michelle, Ed Morrissey and the Jawas have more.

You might want to know that Jhimmah Qatah, working hard to stay on the WRONG side of EVERY FRICKIN' ISSUE, is in FAVOR of the deal:

"The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists," Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. "I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat."

I tell ya, the longer Jhimmah lives, the more I wish that rabbit had finished him off back in '79...

Nigerian Muslims Continue Rampage

30 churches torched so far, dozens killed.

Such love.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Muslim Leader Threatens Violence Against Gay Parade

WARNING: CLICKING ON THE ABOVE LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO 365GAY.COM, which probably won't get you in trouble, but probably will thoroughly entertain the IT staff at your company.

For those of you who don't want to end up on some NAMBLA mailing list, here's an excerpt:

The leader of Russia's Muslims on Tuesday called for a "violent mass protest" if gay leaders go ahead with Pride celebrations this spring.

Gay Russia is planning a pride parade in the Russian capital on May 27, 2006 despite warnings from the city's mayor that a permit will not be granted. (story)

The group says it is prepared to take the case all the way to the European Court in Strasbourg. Moscow is the biggest city in Europe never to have had a pride parade.

On Tuesday Chief Russian Mufti Talgat Tajuddin said gays could be killed if they go ahead.

Okay, so the Mohamatons are going to kill off the gays and the pornstars. Big deal, right? We can get along just fine without gays and pornstars, right? Maybe they'll give us extra super bonus dhimmi brownie points if we cut the Jews loose, too. Get a nice little break on our first year of jizya. It's not like they're going after regular people and regular stuff, right?

Actually, they are. They just haven't gotten around to it yet. Besides, the Mohamatons don't discriminate between the real, dirty "porno" porn and, say, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. And they don't discriminate much between the various classes of infidels.

Trust me, this is just gettin' started, folks. Stay tuned.

And if you feel the need to do something extremely gay, sooner might be better than later.

A Hummer With a Frickin' Laser Beam on Top???

AKA "Operation: Kentucky Fried Jihadi."

The Jawas have some pics posted.

Very cool.

Taking bets on how long before Hillary Clinton holds a press conference about "under-lasered hummers"...

On Mohamatons...

I've had several practicing Muslims as friends, and one who I consider a very good friend. Accordingly, I know that Muslims can't, as a group, be accurately categorized as a bunch of uneducated, violent fanatics. Unfortunately, there's a disproportionate number of uneducated, violent fanatics within that particular group, the type of people who are poised and ready to go out and burn things and hurt people whenever their local imam tells them it's time to hit the streets. These are the Mohamatons. They don't like Western culture, which is fine. They wish Western culture would change. That's fine, too. I, myself, wish Western culture were, for example, less materialistic, so I can understand their general sentiments to some degree. When I'm unhappy about the way things are, I jump on my computer and write about it. When Mohamatons are unhappy about the way things are, they go out and kill people and break things. This simply won't do. Civilization demands civilized behavior.

The Mohamatons in Europe just learned a very unfortunate lesson. They acted like spoiled, overgrown children, and they were rewarded for it. The European and American politicians fell all over themselves to appease these spoiled, overgrown children. They invented a new "thou shalt respect religion" rule that we'd never had before, at least not for the last few centuries or so. Ever heard of "Piss Christ?" I heard some Christians weren't totally crazy about that particular work. Nobody invoked the "thou shalt respect religion" rule as regards "Piss Christ" or the "Poop Madonna." Truth is, there has never been a Western tradition of "respecting religion" in modern Europe, and everyone knows it. Everyone knows that "thou shalt respect religion" is a new rule invented just for Islam. Everyone also knows that Muslims get a special rule because politicians and journalists are afraid of Muslims. Thus, we can expect the Mohamatons will only accelerate the pattern of violent riots every time they're unhappy with the status quo in some respect. In the short term, this will most likely pay off. It will pay off as long as the imams don't overplay their hand. At some point, however, the voters of Europe may realize that, short of the imposition of Sharia law across Europe, there is really no end to the demands of the Mohamatons. If and when the European voters realize this, they'll replace their Chamberlains with Churchills, after which point the Mohamaton temper tantrums will no longer be tolerated.

Personally, I'm not really sure why the European imams are stirring things up at this point in the game. With negative birth rates among the native caucasians and high birth rates in among European Muslims, it would certainly seem that time is on their side in Europe. As is often the case, there's a piece of the puzzle that I'm missing. Either that, or the imams are just not that sharp.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Deeyah vs. the Mohamatons

This is Deeyah. Deeyah is a Muslim, but some of the other Muslims don't like her too much. Partly it's because she doesn't look the way she's supposed to look. Partly it's because they don't like her lyrics. Excerpt:












Daily Times: Bill Clinton Calls for Prosecution of Danish Cartoonists

We all know Bill Clinton loves to be loved, but I never dreamed he'd go this far:

ISLAMABAD: Former US president Bill Clinton on Friday condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers.

Talking to reporters after meeting Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in Islamabad, Clinton said he disagreed with the caricatures and that the publication was against religious and ethical norms. Clinton said he had no objection to peaceful demonstrations being held worldwide, but this was not the time for violence. He said it was the time to promote inter-faith harmony and stand together on the issue.

He said the people’s religious convictions should be respected at all costs and the media should be disallowed to play with the religious sentiments of other faiths. He said the media could criticise any issue including governments and people, but nobody had the right to play with the sentiments of other faiths.

I'm so tired of hearing Dhimmicrats referred to as "liberals," as if they were all about freedom. Please enlighten me: other than the "right" to an abortion and the "right" to gay marriage, what rights do the "liberals" believe in any more?

Muslims Burn Churches in Pakistan

Not to be outdone by their comrades in Nigeria, Muslims in Pakistan decided to burn some churches, too. I guess they did this to illustrate just how much Muslims respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims.

There are more details, but do they really matter?

More on "What the F#@% is Going on in the White House?"

I don't even need to post a link for Michael Brown or Harriet Meirs. We're all familiar with those two fiascos.

You may or may not have heard of Julie Myers, who has approximately the same level of qualifications as the aformentioned. National Review had the following to say:
Given the importance of the position and a history of mismanagement in the immigration service, Congress took the unusual step of inserting a statutory requirement that nominees have a minimum of five years of experience in both management and law enforcement. Even a cursory reading of her resume reveals that the well-connected 36-year-old attorney’s background fails to comply with this legal requirement

At least she's only in charge of coordinating our nation's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and not something, ya know, important. It's not like anyone would ever try and smuggle terrorists or a bomb into our country or something. Who would even think to do such a thing? How did this young lady get the job? Outside of the White House, no one's really sure.

You probably haven't heard as much of Patrick Rhode, former Acting Deputy Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. After serving as an "associate administrator" at the U.S. Small Business Administration, he was probably slightly more qualified than his former boss, but that ain't saying much. He's best known for characterizing FEMA's response to Katrina as "probably one of the most efficient and effective responses in the country's history." Wow.

How about Stewart Simonson, Assistant Secretary for Public Health and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services? The New Republic had this to say about Mr. Simonson:

According to his official biography, Stewart Simonson is the Health and Human Services Department's point man "on matters related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies." Hopefully, he has taken crash courses on smallpox and avian flu, because, prior to joining HHS in 2001, Simonson's background was not in public health, but ... public transit. He'd previously been a top official at the delay-plagued, money-hemorrhaging passenger rail company Amtrak.

Maybe a lack of knowledge about biology isn't a big deal. I mean, I'm sure he has a crib sheet or something, to remember which virulent pathogens are which. I understand it's not really an important job. It's not like there's any risk of any global pandemics, or as if anyone would ever try to use biological agents against Americans. Who would do such a thing?

As usual, Michelle Malkin pulls no punches:
Old habits die hard, unfortunately. The Bush administration, like the Clinton presidency before it, has continued entrenched Beltway practices of installing no-nothing political seat-warmers in high places within the immigration bureaucracy. Bush appointed Eduardo Aguirre, a banker with zero experience in immigration law, to head DHS's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Bush has also named several Republican Party operatives with zero experience in immigration law to immigration court posts. It's hack heaven at DHS.
Hey, I understand "politics is politics," and administration appointments are sometimes used to repay political favors. That's just reality. What I don't understand is how this administration, which never stops reminding us (correctly) of the need to remember that we live in a post-911 world, can be so cavalier when it comes to staffing at the Department of Homeland Security. I don't understand how the White House can now be so insistent on allowing the operations of several of America's busiest ports to come under the control of Dubai Ports World, a company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, a country whose citizens' fingerprints were all over the planning for the September 11 attacks.

Now, apparently Michael Chertoff, the same man who hired Michael Brown, Julie Myers and Patrick Rhode, has satisfied himself that this transfer of control presents no risk to national security. Excuse me if I'm disinclined to trust Mr. Chertoff's instincts.

The Hebron Massacre

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him." (Bernard Wasserstein, The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917-1929, Oxford England, Basil Blackwell, 1991)

Hajj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini

People are understandably wary when one likens a political opponent to a Nazi. Personally, I think the comparisons are way overdone. On the other hand, what if your political opponent really does openly idolize Hitler and other Nazi leaders? What if he reads and cites Mein Kampf as a positive source of philosophy? What if he openly hates Jews and wants them all dead? What if he actually hung out with Hitler during WWII? What if he recruited and organized soldiers to fight for the Third Reich?
Certainly, at some point, it's fair to call a Nazi a Nazi, even if the Nazi in question doesn't call himself a Nazi. The link above is to a page honoring Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and his role in supporting the Nazis during World War II, largely due to the fact that they shared a common interest--namely, ridding the world of Jews.

Fortunately for the world, the Grand Mufti died in 1974. Unfortunately for the world, his nephew Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa al-Husseini carried on the fight against the Jews. Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa al-Husseini, who often described his Nazi uncle as his "Hero," was more popularly known as Yasser Arafat.

More Fun & Games from the Mohamatons...

From AP:

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria -- Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings.

It was the first major protest to erupt over the issue in Africa's most populous nation. An Associated Press reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze.

Although it can sometimes be tough to remember, please don't forget: Islam is the Religion of Peace

Such Love...

The Muslim apologists explain to us that we owe respect to Islam because the followers of Islam have such deep respect for adherents of all faiths, and especially Christians and Jews.

Sure, buddy.

Mohamatons Torch Italian Embassy

Repeat after me: "Islam is the Religion of Peace. Islam is the Religion of Peace..."

Ten MILLION Dollars...

Wow. Salman Rushdie must be really jealous. He did all the work to write a book, and all he got was a lousy fatwa. The Danish cartoonists spend a little time to draw a few pictures and get a TEN MILLION DOLLAR price on their heads.

There clearly is no justice in this world.

As our friends on the left are fond of reminding us: "no justice, snow peas." I honestly dunno what that means, but I hear it chanted a lot at rallies. I guess it's an anti-asian thing. Some people consider Pakistan part of Asia, so I suppose it all makes sense, in a karma sorta way.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the heads up.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

These Folks Have the Worst PR Team...


Friday, February 17, 2006

Able Danger and The Manchurian Candidate

Whenever someone begins a statement with "I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but..." you know it's time to pull out your tin-foil hat. (I've got mine pulled down tight.)

Having said that, recent news on Able Danger is finally putting a reasonable story together. (Not saying it's the truth, necessarily, but it is reasonable.)

I've been watching the Able Danger story for awhile. From what I've seen, there seems to be a whole lot of evidence that:

1. Able Danger identified at least some of the 9-11hijackers many months ahead of time and
2. Able Danger was intentionally dismantled and its results buried before they could be used

On the other hand, this set of facts doesn't make any sense, unless you're part of the John Conyers/Cindy Sheehan tin foil brigade that believes that 9-11 was orchestrated by the White House/ the CIA/zionists/etc. If Able Danger was dismantled by high-ranking bureaucrats to make sure that the 9-11 hijackers weren't busted by an FBI field office before carrying out their attacks, that means that the Clinton administration orchestrated the 9-11 attacks months before Bush was elected and dsmantled the Able Danger program to protect its "agents." I don't believe any of that happened. Maybe I'm woefully naive.

At any rate, since my name isn't "Michael Moore," I've had a lot of trouble believing that the Clinton or Bush administration would intentionally bury the Able Danger program to intentionally block its intended anti-terrorism result, primarily because there didn't seem to be any reasonable motive. Why in the world would either administration dismantle an anti-terrorism program that had already identified foreign nationals having very suspicious connections to known foreign terrorist elements? After all, at least one of the planes on 9-11 was supposed to hit the White House. If nothing else, wouldn't the basic human interest in self-preservation dictate that the most visible human target of hatred in the world (the Commander-in-Chief) would really want to know, using any tools available, what might be coming down Pennsylvania Avenue?

So the idea that the Administration would intentionally dismantle an effective terrorist-identification program makes no sense unless they had a very good reason. Now, the China angle brings in a perfectly understandable motive, at least on the part of the Clinton administration. The Chinese were to the Clintons what the Saudis are to the Bushes, namely: very bad, very powerful people with far too much access and influence to the White House. I believe the Clinton administration still has a lot of dirty laundry out there re: China, and most of it will probably never come to light. To this day, I believe Clinton deserved to be removed from office, but not for giving a blowjob. Clinton deserved to be removed from office because he was bought and paid for by the Chinese government, and as payback he turned a blind eye to the transfer of sensitive U.S. military technology to the Chinese military. We know that the Clinton-Gore campaign was illegally paid by the Chinese government. We know that transfers of valuable military technology happened. Those are facts. We also know that the Clinton administration knew at least of a very high risk of technology transfer to China and we know that the Clinton adminstration took almost no steps to prevent them. Now, I don't know of any shipments of high-tech military equipment personally packed by Bill Clinton and addressed directly to Beijing, but we have a lot of damning evidence that is, in my opinion, not that far short of it. Of course, the GOP couldn't really make an issue of that without being hypocrites, because a lot of them were feasting at the same trough.

Given all this background, it's not hard for me to believe that Able Danger was starting to identify some very uncomfortable connections between high-ranking politicians in Washington and some very unsavory power brokers in China. It's likely that these connections involved enough Republicans that the GOP couldn't afford to use it as a political issue. Even if the GOP power brokers weren't caught in this net, the GOP may have realized how dangerous a tool like that could be to the status quo and were happy to see this "weapon of political mass destruction" quietly disposed of. If that's true, there's every reason to believe that the White House pulled the plug on the program and buried it, hoping no one would really notice that it had ever existed.

If 9-11 had never happened, it's likely no one ever would have ever noticed the existence and untimely demise of Able Danger. Then came the revelations that Able Danger had identified at least Mohammed Atta as a potential terrorist threat before it was shut down. Unfortunately, the regular American news media has shown almost no interest in the story to date. Kudos to Rep. Weldon for staying on this. It's not unlikely that Jamie Gorelick was put on the 9-11 Commission to make sure any "loose ends" would get tied up quietly and not make it into the Commission's official report. If that was the goal, she succeeded in that limited task, but this issue hasn't gone away, and I sincerely hope it doesn't.

What the F#@% is Going on in the White House???

I really hate to align with all the leftist moonbats out in tin-foil-hat-land, but the more I watch W's presidency, the more I wonder if W may, in fact, be a monkey.
I still maintain that Bush is preferable to Kerry. Bush is a mess. I'm convinced Kerry would've been a disaster.

Probably Not a Terrorist...


Thursday, February 16, 2006

YAAFM: "Don't Like the Cartoons? Stop Bombing Sh*t!"

(Thanks to the Jawas for the heads up.)

Why There's Only One Muslim Porn Star...

Apparently, there used to be two Muslim porn stars, but the loving followers of the Religion of Peace took out some rocks and went real, extra "peaceful" on this one, a young lady named Amal Kashua.

Real nice.

Maybe you're not too torn up about the rights of porn stars, prostitutes and those types of fringe elements. Fair enough. But however much contempt you may feel for this woman and what she may have done in her life, remember that Jesus Christ stood between the raging mob and the shamed woman at the well.

There is no longer any time to be ambivalent about this sort of thing. This particular woman was beaten in Israel. That means at least some of the perpetrators will probably be punished. Atrocities like this go on every single day in the Muslim world, in places like Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, even at the hands of the government.

I wonder: how long can we continue to turn a blind eye to this brutality just so that we can continue to gorge ourselves on lots of cheap, shiny, noisy crap??? Did you enjoy the cheap, shiny, noisy crap that you bought today??? Did you enjoy it a lot??? I certainly hope so. You didn't really pay the full price for it. This young lady paid a lot for it.

House Blocks Aid to Hamas

On the one hand, defunding Hamas is what we like to call a "no-brainer." With our federal budget overstretched and massive federal deficits piling up, it's encouraging to see that our elected officials can muster the courage to cut spending to bloodthirsty terrorists. Such courage. Such statesmanship. On the other hand, there are many, many "no brainers" that our elected officials never find time to get around to, so I'm still surprised at the boldness of this particular move.
I'm sure Hamas is beating the bushes for a good lobbyist as we speak. No doubt their good friends over at the Saudi embassy can hook 'em up.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

More on "How to Piss Off Muslims"

The picture to the left is a girl who goes by the name of Sahara Knite. Apparently. she's a Muslim porn star. (For the record, I learned this info from an Islamic fundamentalist discussion group.)

At any rate, Muslims aren't too happy with Ms. Knite.

No real point, here. Just thought it was interesting that there's at least one Muslim porn star in the world.

On Criticism vs. Hate...

Dudes and ladies...

I'm REALLY big on free speech, so I don't censor comments, but I've gotta tell ya, I'm not in for all this hate in some the comments here. By "hate," I don't mean criticism. I mean real, down and dirty "hate" hate directed at an entire cultural group. There are definitely some REALLY bad elements within the Muslim community, and they've led many of their fellow Muslims down a VERY bad path. Even among the ones who've been led astray, I'm sure there are a lot of good people.
For the slower folks out there who haven't noticed yet, there's a war brewing right now. This isn't a "culture war." This is a real, blood & guts "war" war. That means a lot of people are going to die. We are fortunate to be aligned with the most efficient killing machine ever devised, which means the majority of the bodies will be racked up on the other side. Most of the killing may be necessary, but it's neither glorious nor beautiful. The sheer scope of death in warfare is tragic and unfortunate. Every death represents a life that could've been something amazing.*

(* - except for Zarqawi & his sadistic clones. I really do hate Zarqawi according to every definition of that word. I sincerely hope Zarqawi bites it in the slowest, most excruciating way possible. I propose wire brush exfoliation under a shower of Dave's Insanity Sauce for starters.)

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

This Girl May Be a Terrorist...

Apparently, the Iranians are looking into recruiting her (see link).

Ronald in Flames...

Sad to see the otherwise talented Dave Grohl getting in on the act...

Probably Not a Terrorist...


This Girl Is Probably Not a Terrorist


We Are SOOOOOO Beheaded....


Monday, February 13, 2006

Has Al Gore Gone Completely Effing Mad???

Al "Internet" Gore's penchant for making up his own facts is well-documented. I've despised Al Gore ever since he whored his sister's death on national television. Now Al Gore's apparently lobbying for the Saudi Arabian vote by exaggerating facts, running down America and generally throwing red meat out to a hungry audience:

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

There was a time that politics stopped at the water's edge. Looks like those days are gone. Whatever his motives in giving this speech, Gore's timing seems impeccably bad. While news organizations are running footage of embassies on fire around the globe, and the American people are fit to be tied over America's broken borders, Gore thinks our biggest problem is overly-aggressive enforcement of our immigration laws? Does Gore know that Saudi citizens generally don't get to vote in American elections? Is this the start of a new campaign for the Dhimmicrats, something like:

"The Democrat Party: Even Closer to the Saudis than W."
or how about this one:
"The Democrat Party: Protecting Undocumented Saudis Since September 11, 2001."
Sound like winners to me.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Video: Men (with Balls) in France

Huge courage? Huge insanity? Death wish? Is there really a discernable difference?

I don't know, but I'll throw my lot in with these two guys any day.

Thanks to Michelle for the info.

Is Ann Coulter a Vampire?

I'm just playin. It's late. I'm bored.