All you have to do is read the first sentence of an article I just found
at www.bloomberg.com (I'm sure it is
in countless other places as well):
Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Hamas would accept an
immediate weeklong cease-fire if it is accompanied by an Israeli withdrawal
from the Gaza Strip, Hamas official Mussa Abu Marzuk said.
Israel is handing hamas it's collective backside on a silver platter.
It has killed a number of hamas' most senior terrorists, severely damaged its
smuggling tunnels, blown up or captured enormous amounts of its arms and
blown apart what almost certainly is a large percentage of its rocket
But instead of agreeing to stop attacking Israel every day - which
is all Israel wants and what would have prevented the entire military action
in the first place - hamas tells Israel it will agree to a one-week
cease fire, but Israel has to completely withdraw its forces (so what's left
of hamas' "leadership" can come out of hiding and try to regroup.)
hamas caused this mess. hamas is losing every imaginable way.....and after
doing so, hamas is demanding that Israel give them what, in effect,
would be a military victory by default.
That's chutzpah, folks. You'll never see it more plainly.
Oh, one last thing: Ironically (to say the least),
though chutzpah is now in common english usage, it is originally a yiddish
A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF AL GORE
Does Al Gore drink coffee? A LOT of coffee? And does he drink it
before making speeches about global warming?
This occurred to me after reading the following article, which comes to us
from Naomi Kresge, writing for www.bloomberg.com:
Cups of Coffee a Day May Lead to Hallucinations (Update1)
By Naomi Kresge
Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Consuming the caffeine in
seven cups of instant coffee a day may leave you more likely to see, hear and
smell things that arent there, U.K. researchers said.
People who drink at least 330 milligrams of the
stimulant a day were three times as likely to have hallucinations as those who
consumed less than 10 milligrams a day, Durham University researchers found in a study of 219 college students
published today in Personality and Individual
The study, the first to link caffeine and
hallucinations, explored the relationship between high caffeine consumption and
an increased release of cortisol, a stress hormone believed to contribute to
delusions, lead researcher Simon Jones said. It forms the first step toward
examining nutrition as a factor in the occurrence of hallucinations, he said.
Given the link between food and mood, and
particularly between caffeine and the bodys response to stress, it seems
sensible to examine what a nutritional perspective might add, Jones said in a
It may also be that people under stress and more
susceptible to hallucinations are also more likely to consume high levels of
caffeine, Jones said in an interview. Caffeine is also contained in tea,
chocolate, energy drinks, and some foods.
There would be no real reason for me to stop
drinking tea, said Jones. I dont see a reason to change a moderate intake.
The amount of caffeine linked to hallucinations in
the study would also be equivalent to about seven 8-ounce cups of brewed black
tea or about 3 1/2 8-ounce cups of brewed black coffee, according to the
Mayo Clinic Web site. One 16-ounce
Corp. drip coffee also has 330 milligrams
of caffeine, according to the Starbucks Web site.
Starbucks spokeswoman Tara Darrow declined to
comment in an email, saying the Seattle-based company was aware of the research
but hadnt been able to review how it was conducted.
The U.K. researchers used surveys to assess daily
caffeine intake and past experience with hallucinations. Cigarette smokers,
known to be more sensitive to caffeine, werent allowed to participate, and
volunteers stress levels and proneness to hallucinatory experiences were taken
Nine of the 22 people in the highest-caffeine
group reported hearing disembodied voices, compared with three of the 22 people
in the lowest-caffeine group, Jones said. Participants also reported seeing
things that werent there and sensing the presence of dead people.
Ok, I admit the study is garbage. A couple of hundred people within
what almost certainly is a very limited age range (college students), with a
large subsegment (smokers) eliminated, is not real research to me. But
it's sort of fun to read. And I know that I (and I'm betting you) will be
referencing its findings to needle coffee drinkers we know.
By the way, if I remember correctly, tea and Coca-Cola have even more
caffeine than coffee. Maybe Gore is OD'ing on a combination of
GARY BECKER (???-WI)
It's time for another round of GUESS THAT POLITICAL PARTY!!
Here is a story about the mayor of a medium-sized city, located south of
Milwaukee. He is charged with child pornography and solicitation of a
Read it through. Every word. Then.....GUESS THAT POLITICAL
Racine, Wis., Mayor Arrested On Child Porn
Gary Becker, 51, Held On $165,000
RACINE, Wis. (AP) ―
city officials say Mayor Gary Becker is under arrest on possible charges of
child pornography and solicitation of a minor.
The 51-year-old mayor
is being held in the Kenosha County Jail on $165,000 bond.
administrator Ben Hughes says Becker was arrested on Tuesday by agents from
the state Division of Criminal Investigation at a shopping mall outside of
The case is under review by the Kenosha County District
Attorney's office. City Council President David Maack says he got a call
from the police chief shortly after midnight telling him about the arrest
involving child pornography.
Maack says he was "shocked and
disappointed" by the news and alerted the city's other aldermen. Maack says
he'll serve as acting mayor for the time being. He was not sure what would
happen if Becker could not finish his term.
This article was reported by CBS2Chicago and written by the Associated
Press. Do you see any mention of party affiliation for Gary Becker?
No you do not.
Now the big question: Do you have any doubt at all that he is a
Of course you don't. Democrats are the ones who get a free ride on
party affiliation. Not Republicans. That is the ongoing policy of
our wonderful "neutral" media.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
To the great glee of many on the left, osama bin laden was not caught during George
Bush's years as President. And, for all the bluster about this "faulure", I
very seriously doubt that bin laden will be caught during Barack Obama's
presidency as well -- in no small part because I have a hunch he died years ago.
In fact, the only indication that bin laden could be alive these days
is that, a couple of times a year, we hear a tape purporting to be of him,
which exhorts Muslims to fight and kill and die for someone or something.
Here is what "bin laden" (or the Arab version of Rich Little) says on
the latest one, via excerpts from an Associated Press article:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -
Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel
and condemned Arab governments as allies of the Jewish state in a new message
aimed at harnessing anger in the Mideast over the Gaza offensive.
Bin Laden spoke in an audiotape posted Wednesday
on Islamic militant Web sites where al-Qaida usually issues its messages. It was
his first tape since May and came nearly three weeks after Israel started its
campaign against Gaza's militant Hamas rulers.
The al-Qaida leader also vowed that the terror network would
open "new fronts" against the United States and its allies beyond Iraq and
Afghanistan. He said President-elect Barack Obama has received a "heavy
inheritance" from George W. Bushtwo wars and "the collapse of the economy,"
which he said will render the United States unable to sustain a long fight
against the mujahedeen, or holy warriors.
"There is only one strong way to bring the return
of Al-Aqsa and Palestine, and that is jihad in the path of God," bin Laden said
in the 22-minute audiotape, referring to the revered Al-Aqsa Mosque in
Jerusalem. "The duty is to urge people to jihad and to enlist the youth into
"Islamic nation, you are capable of defeating the
Zionist entity with your popular capabilities and your great hidden
strengthwithout the support of (Arab) leaders and despite the fact that most of
(the leaders) stand in the barracks of the Crusader-Zionist alliance," bin Laden
The tape, entitled "a call for jihad to stop the
aggression on Gaza," was played over a still picture of bin Laden and the
Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem's Old City,
one of Islam's holiest sites. But there were no English subtitles and flashy production graphics that
usually accompany such messages.
That suggested the message had been hastily put
together and issued to best exploit anger in the region over the Gaza offensive,
which Palestinian medical officials say has killed more than 940 Palestinians,
half of them civilians. Israel said the offensive aims to halt rocket fire from Gaza
against Israeli towns.
Bin Laden accused Arab leaders of "avoiding their
responsibility" to liberate Palestine.
"If you are not convinced to fight, then open the
way to those who are convinced," he said.
The al-Qaida leader also said the world economic
crisis was a sign that the United States' power was falling apart.
"The Islamic nation's jihad is one of the main
causes of these destructive results for our enemies," he claimed.
Pointing to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since the
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, bin Laden said al-Qaida was prepared to fight "for seven
more years, and seven more after that, then seven more."
"We are on the way to opening new fronts," he
said, urging Muslims to "join hands with the mujahedeen to continue the jihad
against the enemy, to continue bleeding them on these two fronts and on the
others that are open to you."
"The question is, can America continue the war
against us for several more decades? The reports and signs show us otherwise,"
he said. He said Bush had left his successor "with a heavy inheritance," forcing
Obama to choose between withdrawing from the wars or continuing.
"If he withdraws from the war, it is a military
defeat. If he continues, he drowns in economic crisis," bin Laden said.
It was the first time bin Laden have spoken of
Obama, though he did not mention him by name. Bin Laden's top deputy Ayman
al-Zawahri has previously spoken against Obama, warning Muslims he will not
bring major change in U.S. policies.
How's that for relevancy? Assuming this actually is bin laden, after 7
years of hiding who knows where, his great message is that Arab leaders
are Israel's pals and complicitors.
That should be quite a revelation for Israel.......
But here's some real news. If bin laden is alive, the
reason he has become a laughable anachronism is that someone invaded Afghanistan, blew
away its bin laden-loving government and destroyed his training camps.
This caused him to run for his sorry life and hide in a cave.
Then, that same someone invaded Iraq, got rid of the mass murdering butcher
saddam hussein. Then he absolutely decimated bin laden's al-qaeda forces, when
they streamed in thinking Iraqis would stand with them against that someone. This
caused the creation of a free Iraq with democratic elections, a military
increasingly able to keep it that way, and a population that seems to like being
free more and more every day - enough so that it would not stand with al qaeda,
or moqtada al-sadr's "mahdi army" either.
Now who could that someone be?
CAMILLE PAGLIA COMPARES SARAH PALIN AND KATIE COURIC
First things first: let me assure you that Camille Paglia's politics
are still primarily left wing. If I didn't do that, you'd probably
have to pinch yourself several times while reading her remarkable commentary
about Dick Cavett, Sarah Palin and Katie Couric which I've excerpted from her
latest column at slate.com.
The column is comprised of letters from readers and her responses to
them. Here is one of its letters, and Ms. Paglia's response to
Dick Cavett is someone whose column I almost always enjoy very much.
But I agree that he put down Sarah Palin's use of language for no good reason.
The example he cited (she was discussing Darfur and what Alaska had done in view
of events there) was an almost perfect example of coherent thought on her part
if you recognize that a longish sentence includes a parenthetical
Here is the bit he cites in his column: "My concern has been the
atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke
about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people
succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on
the continent, the relevance was Alaska's investment in Darfur with some of our
permanent fund dollars."
Here is my own very minor rework of her sentence (rework in italics):
"My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with
that issue (as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there
where we see the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption
of some collapsed governments on the continent), the relevance was
Alaska's investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars."
When she spoke, the sense of what she meant was clear, and a minor
edit makes the sentence good enough for a print medium.
No doubt she can be attacked in several areas on substance, but it is
interesting and strange that instead people engage in elitist attacks on her for
being a hunter or for the way she talks. In point of fact, she is a very able
communicator, as time will bear out, I am sure, and yet the number of people on
the left who recognize her political gifts is very small.
Cavett will come back and entertain me again soon, I am sure, but
this is one case where he's just lost his objectivity and comes off sounding
like a prig.
Excellent analysis! You have cut the entire ground out from beneath Dick
Cavett's lofty claim of grammatical superiority to Sarah Palin by exposing his
inability to sense a simple parenthesis in a spoken passage. I laughed heartily
at your e-mail, for which I am most appreciative.
As I have repeatedly said in this column, I have never had the slightest
problem in understanding Sarah Palin's meaning at any time. On the contrary, I
have positively enjoyed her fresh, natural, rapid delivery with its syncopated
stops and slides -- a fabulous example of which was the way (in her recent interview with John Ziegler) that she used a soft,
swooping satiric undertone to zing Katie Couric's dippy narcissism and to assert
her own outrage as a "mama grizzly" at libels against her family.
Ideology-driven attacks on Palin became clotted liberal clichs within 24
hours of her introduction as John McCain's running mate. What a bunch of
tittering lemmings the urban elite have become in this country. From Couric's
vicious manipulations of video clips to Cavett's bourgeois platitudes, the
preemptive strike on Palin as a potential presidential candidate has grossly
misfired. Whatever legitimate objections may be raised to Palin on political
grounds (explored, for example, by David Talbot in Salon) have been lost in the
amoral overkill that has defamed a self-made woman of concrete achievement in
the public realm.
And let me take this opportunity to say that of all the innumerable print and
broadcast journalists who have interviewed me in the U.S. and abroad since I
arrived on the scene nearly 20 years ago, Katie Couric was definitively the
stupidest. As a guest on NBC's "Today" show during my 1992 book tour, I was
astounded by Couric's small, humorless, agenda-ridden mind, still registered in
that pinched, tinny monotone that makes me rush across the room to change
stations whenever her banal mini-editorials blare out at 5 p.m. on the CBS radio
network. And of course I would never spoil my dinner by tuning into Couric's TV
evening news show. That sallow, wizened, drum-tight, cosmetic mummification look
is not an appetite enhancer outside of Manhattan or L.A. There's many a moose in
Alaska with greater charm and pizazz.
I would think it redundant to mention that Camille
Paglia is not trapped by ideology.
Ms. Paglia calls 'em as she sees 'em -- which is why she is such a pleasure
CABLE NEWS RATINGS
The Drudge Report is running an article about Sean Hannity's new Alan
Colmes-less show, and how well it has started in the ratings (it generated more
viewership than Larry King and Rachel Maddow combined).
For what I would think to be obvious reasons, I make nothing of the
first-day ratings for any show. There is no way to gauge how
many people are there out of curiosity and will be gone almost immediately
afterwards. One look at katie carwreck's first few days as the anchor of
CBS News, and where her ratings went afterwards, is a great example of what
I'm talking about.
Hannity aside, however, Drudge's link brings us to a very complete
list-out of neilsen ratings for the cable networks, from morning to night.
And I thought you might be interested in seeing them.
CNN/HLN: 96.93 million
HHs CNBC: 95.13 million
HHs FNC: 94.55
million HHs MSNBC: 91.59 million
As you can see, Fox dominates the cable news networks. Not just during
prime time, but all the time. And, after something like 6 years of hype,
keith olbermann still generates less than half the audience of the man he hates,
I'll leave it to you to analyze the rest of these data to your heart's
THE COST OF BARACK OBAMA'S INAUGURAL
Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com doesn't need
any help from me on this one, I'll let him tell it solo. My only
contribution will be to remind you that the economy is in far worse shape today
than it was four years ago:
From the 20 January, 2005 edition of the
(admittedly biased, but always frugal) BBC
No expense spared at inauguration
By Kevin Anderson
With an estimated price tag of
$40m, the three-day celebration that is President Bushs second inauguration
will be the most expensive ever.
The lavish dinners, parties and
fireworks began on Tuesday and will continue through his swearing-in on
Thursday, followed by a parade and nine official inaugural balls.
The cost will be paid by individual and
corporate donations, while the city of Washington is being asked to
pay for an estimated $17m in security costs.
Some have criticised the expense,
questioning the propriety of a flashy celebration as US troops are dying in
Iraq and South Asia still recovers from last months deadly tsunami.
The overt criticism of an
inauguration is unusual, but a Washington Post poll found that a majority of
Americans would prefer a smaller, more subdued
While numerous, the number of balls is five shy
of the record 14 balls held for Bill Clinton on the night of his second
inauguration in 1997
But with the recent tsunami in the
Indian Ocean and the ongoing war in Iraq, some think the expensive inaugural
is an inappropriate, ostentatious display.
"Precedent suggests that inaugural
festivities should be muted - if not cancelled - in wartime," New York
Democrat Representative Anthony Weiner said in a letter to President Bush.
He noted the money could be used
to buy 690 Humvees and pay for a $290 bonus for each soldier serving in
And city officials in Washington
are complaining that for the first time the city and not the US government is
being asked to foot the bill for the security
Bill Clintons first inauguration cost $30m,
which was comparable to the inaugural costs of George HW Bush in 1989. His
second inauguration cost $23.6m.
But a Washington Post-ABC News
poll found that two-thirds of Americans think inaugural festivities should be
scaled back. That includes half of those who voted for President Bush and 80%
of John Kerrys supporters
Here is the (obviously objective) question from
the aforementioned WP/ABC News poll:
Officials say Bushs inauguration ceremonies
next week will cost about 40 million dollars, nearly all of it coming from
private donations. Some people say that because the country is at war, it
would be better to have a smaller and more subdued inauguration. Others favor
continuing the country?s tradition of large inaugural celebrations. Which of
these views comes closer to your own?
Better to have smaller, more subdued
Continue tradition of large inaugural
DK/No opinion 12%
Source: A Washington Post-ABC News poll
conducted by telephone January 12 - 16, 2005 among 1,007 randomly selected
adults nationwide. Margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or
minus three percentage points. Fieldwork by TNS of Horsham,
Mind you, Mr. Bushs inaugural cost less than a
third of what Mr. Obamas will.
And where are all of the polls today, asking
whether Americans think inaugural festivities should be scaled
THE ISSUE THAT SHOULD - BUT WON'T - DISQUALIFY HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary Clinton should not be confirmed as Secretary of State. The
reason is that there is massive conflict of interest between Ms. Clinton and the
patrons/donors/special interest groups who have given millions of dollars to her
Clinton Rejects Calls to Reveal More
Details About Husband's Donors
Hillary Clinton says she will not be influenced
by contributors to her husband's foundation as secretary of
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Rodham
Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for secretary of state, rejected
calls Tuesday for more details about donors to her husband's foundation, saying
she has revealed enough to avoid even the hint of conflicts. An
Associated Press review found that Clinton stepped in at least a half-dozen
times on issues involving businesses and others who later gave to the
Clinton said as secretary of state she will not be
influenced to act on behalf of her husband's contributors, which include foreign
"It will not be in the atmosphere," Clinton
Richard Lugar of Indiana was among GOP senators on
the Foreign Relations Committee pressing for full transparency about
contributors to the William J. Clinton Foundation and one of its main projects,
the Clinton Global Initiative.
Under an agreement with Obama, Bill Clinton
recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has
raised at least $492 million -- including millions from Saudi Arabia and other
foreign governments -- to fund his library in Arkansas and charitable efforts
worldwide on such issues as AIDS, poverty and climate change. He pledged to
release similar information annually. The donor list doesn't provide exact
amounts, background on donors such as their employers, or the dates of
Lugar, the committee's top Republican, urged
Hillary Clinton to immediately disclose donations of $50,000 or more; alert
ethics officials when any gift of that size is pledged or given by a foreign
entity, whether an overseas government, individual or business; and reveal the
year a donation was made and the amount, or at least the range, of a donor's
giving in that year.
Revealing pledges is particularly important, Lugar
said: "So if we're going to have an argument it happens right then, and
therefore if it's not a good idea, that it's stopped and the compromise for the
State Department, for foreign policy, for you is prevented as rapidly as
possible, within days rather than in months or in years."
Clinton noted that under the agreement, foreign
government pledges will be submitted to the State Department for review. She
said it was unprecedented for a former president to agree to the disclosure her
husband has, and that she was confident the current arrangement would avoid even
the appearance of conflicts of interest.
"I don't know who will be giving money. That will
not influence," Clinton said. "When the disclosure occurs, obviously it will be
after the fact, so it would be hard to make an argument that it influenced
anybody because we didn't know about it."
The AP reported Tuesday that Clinton
intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies
and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation. The AP obtained
three pieces of the correspondence under the Freedom of Information
This is the same Hillary Clinton who lied her way through the presidential
campaign last year. The one who told us about her dangerous landing in
Tuzla, Bosnia that - as video of the landing proved - was 100% safe and
She is the same Hillary Clinton who took full credit for
her book, "It Takes a Village...", which, in fact, was mostly written by Barbara
Feinman. Until being embarrassed into doing so, she didn't even
bother to acknowledge
Ms. Feinman, let alone
credit her for writing most of the book that went out under the
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Let's say it plain: Ms.Clinton
is a serial liar, who will say anything about anything to get what
If you believe that her senatorial actions on behalf of big-time donors
were not informed by the tons of $$$ streaming into hubby Bill's "charity", you
are hopelessly naive.
Hillary Clinton has no business being the Secretary of State. If this
were a Republican with that history, not one Democrat would vote for her.
But watch them all vote her in after the for-show hearing this week.
And then watch New York's Governor-by-accident, David Paterson, replace her, y'know, with, y'know,
the birthright lady, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg.
Remember Mohammed Said al-Sahaf?
I didn't think so.
Ok, do you remember the name we gave him when he was a
spokesperson for saddam hussein: Baghdad Bob? Ahhh, now you
Do you remember the time he did a TV report that saddam's glorious Iraqi army was successfully repelling
US Troops....as US tanks literally rolled by in the
background? Remember how we laughed at how ridiculous he was?
Well, Baghdad Bob has a hamas counterpart, named Azzam
Tamimi. I'll call him Gaza Gus.
The following video is Gaza Gus piling on a hot steamy load to a group of hamas fans in
London. Listen to them lap it up like cats lap up cream (if you have
trouble clicking on the video, click
hamas is intact and undented??????
You have to hand it to Gaza Gus. He definitely gives
Baghdad Bob a run for his money. He's not anywhere near as funny. But he makes up for it by dramatically
elevating his ridiculous level.
The UN is angrily condemning, and protestors
around the world are angrily marching against, Israelis trying to finally stop
hamas, the terrorist group next door, from daily attacks on its civilians.
While they're busy with that, I thought you might like to see what's
been happening in Zimbabwe - the place they absolutely do not give a damn about.
Here is the latest news, from Reuters:
Zimbabwe cholera deaths climbs past
Reuters Published: Tuesday, January 13,
Justine Gerardy, AFP, Getty ImagesTwo
Zimbabwean men rest in a cholera rehydration tent. Dec. 11, 2008, on the border
of South Africa and Zimbabwe.
HARARE -- Zimbabwe's cholera epidemic has killed
more than 2,000 people and almost 40,000 have contracted the normally
preventable disease, the World Health Organisation said on Tuesday.
The epidemic is adding to the humanitarian crisis
in the country, where President Robert Mugabe and the opposition are deadlocked
over a power-sharing deal and the veteran leader is resisting Western calls to
An update dated Jan. 12 showed 2,024 people had
been killed by cholera from 39,806 cases.
The waterborne disease, which causes severe
diarrhoea and dehydration, has spread to all of Zimbabwe's 10 provinces because
of the collapse of health and sanitation systems. The WHO said 89% of the
country's 62 districts are affected.
Zimbabwe's government has warned that the epidemic
could get worse in the rainy season which peaks in January or February and ends
in late March. Floods, which can affect Zimbabwe's low-lying areas, may increase
the spread of the disease.
Cholera has also spread to Zimbabwe's neighbours
with at least 13 deaths and 1,419 cases recorded in South Africa.
Botswana, Mozambique and Zambia have also reported
U.S.-based Physicians for Human Rights called on
Zimbabwe's government to hand over control of its health services, water supply,
sanitation and disease surveillance to a United Nations-designated agency to try
and ease the crisis.
The group said the UN Security Council should
enact a resolution referring Zimbabwe's crisis to the International Criminal
Court for investigation.
Millions of Zimbabweans have fled to neighbouring
countries as the crisis at home bites, in search of jobs and better living
conditions, and, more recently, medical treatment.
On Tuesday, an immigration spokeswoman said Zambia
had deported 190 Zimbabwean illegal immigrants found sheltering at the country's
largest bus terminus in the capital Lusaka, fearing the spread of
"They came in as mere visitors but then started
conducting business without valid papers. We had to act to stop the spread of
cholera," spokeswoman Mulako Mbangweta told Reuters.
An entire country is being decimated by its head of state. People are dying
everywhere. Two thousand (probably a very conservative estimate) by
cholera alone, and countless others by starvation or sickness for which there is
no medicine and no doctors or nurses to administer it.
So what does the UN do? It looks the other way and waits, hopefully, for Israel
to act against people who are specifically committed to its obliteration and
the death of its Jews. THAT'S something worth getting excited over.
And those caring souls over at the African Union? Two headlines
should tell you everything you need to know. The first is from VOA
radio at the end of June, after mugabe fixed the election so he would not
lose, and while people were dying in the streets, just as they are today - the
ones not already dead of cholera, that is:
African Union Summit Welcomes Mugabe, Shuns Zimbabwe
But here is another headline, this one from the Middle East News',
December 30 article, when Israel had just started its action against
African Union lambasts
Israel over Gaza attacks
The people dying are their fellow Africans. And they could not care
less. Hail to robert mugabe!! The west is appalled by him so he
must be a hero.
Leave him alone to live in resplendent luxury with his favored inside
people/protectors, while everyone else either dies, is in danger of dying or
wishes for death over the life mugabe has doomed them to.
Did I say mugabe has doomed them? I apologize and retract. They
are doomed because of mugabe - AND the UN - AND the African Union.
The tragic reality is that these people are in a competition with ku klux klanners
from the early 1900's, to see who cares less about Black African human
BARACK OBAMA: SEPTEMBER 10TH LIBERAL?
I've always liked actor Ron Silver's self-description as a "September
His meaning, of course, is that while still politically liberal, his position
regarding national security and the war against terrorism changed significantly
after we were attacked. I like it because it is a triumph of common sense
Unfortunately, there are also "September 10th liberals". And, having
just reread a column by Andrew McCarthy from last June, I am reminded
that Barack Obama may be one of them.
Read the column and see why. The bold print is mine:
June 17, 2008, 9:30
Obamas America Is September
10th America His latest remarks
betray an alarming ignorance.
Andrew C. McCarthy
This is June 2008. That means it marks the
ten-year anniversary of Osama bin Ladens indictment.
He was first charged
by my old office, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New
York, in June 1998. That was before the bombings of the U.S. embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania (hundreds killed), before the bombing of the
U.S.S. Cole (17 U.S. members of the U.S. Navy killed), and
before 9/11 (nearly 3000 Americans killed). So its fair to ask: How is
that strategy of prosecuting him in the criminal-justice system working
Thats a question Sen. John McCain ought to be putting to Sen.
Barack Obama every day.
Sen. Obama, the Democrats presumptive
nominee, made some astounding statements
yesterday which provided his views on confronting the most urgent challenge
facing the American people that of radical Islam.
at the Bush approach of regarding our terrorist enemies as, well, enemies,
rather than criminal defendants clothed in all the rights and privileges of
those American citizens whom these enemies pledge to kill, Obama
What we know
is that, in previous terrorist attacks for example, the first attack against
the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on
trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
And the fact
that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where
not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have
destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world,
and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, Look,
this is how the United States treats Muslims.
So that, I think, is an
example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same
thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.
This is a
remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism.
In point of fact, while the government managed to prosecute many people
responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, many also escaped prosecution
because of the limits on civilian criminal prosecution. Some who contributed to
the attack, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to operate freely because
they were beyond the systems capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was
released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him he
fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been
But lets assume incorrectly, for arguments sake, that
everyone was brought to justice in that case. What about Khobar Towers, Sen.
Obama? After Iran and Hezbollah, perhaps with al-Qaedas assistance, killed 19
members of the United States Air Force, the Clinton administration responded
with a criminal investigation. The result? No arrests in fact, no indictment
was even filed until 2001.
After the embassy bombings, the aforementioned
bin Laden was indicted along with his top henchman Ayman al-Zawahiri and nearly
two dozen others. Exactly six of those men have been prosecuted as a result. And
of those, the top-ranking al-Qaeda figure, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, has never been
tried for the embassy bombings. When we gave him all the glorious privileges of
the American Constitution, he used his access to free legal help as an
opportunity to attempt a kidnapping escape from custody in the course of which
he maimed a prison guard by stabbing him in the eye before being subdued.
Then, of course, there was the October 2000 attack on the Cole
in Aden harbor. No arrests, no indictment until well after the 9/11 attacks. The
indictment has now been on the books for years as our Yemeni allies have
pretended to pursue the al-Qaeda perpetrators who, of course, have been
permitted to escape from confinement. There is no prospect of an American
prosecution because of the justice systems painfully obvious limitations. Those
terrorists are free to plot more American deaths, unless, of course, our
military or intelligence operatives get them first.
And thats the point
isnt it? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been under indictment by the Justice
Department even longer than bin Laden. He was first charged in 1996, in
connection with the so-called Bojinka plot to blow up American airliners as
they flew over the Pacific (one Japanese tourist killed during a dry run). The
plot was also found to include plans to assassinate President Clinton and Pope
John Paul II.
So what happened? Because criminal prosecution is
incapable of dealing with the likes of KSM a highly insulated foreign jihadist
operating from terror safe havens sprinkled across the globe he remained free
to plot murder and mayhem for years, finally masterminding
KSM was apprehended only after the Bush
administration changed strategy and started regarding terrorists as what they
are: wartime enemies, rather than in possession of Obamas suggested criminal
The fact is that we used the
criminal justice system as our principal enforcement approach, the approach
Obama intends to reinstate, for eight years from the bombing of the World
Trade Center until the shocking destruction of that complex on 9/11. During that
timeframe, while the enemy was growing stronger and attacking more audaciously,
we managed to prosecute successfully less than three dozen terrorists (29 to be
precise). And with a handful of exceptions, they were the lowest ranking of
When an elitist lawyer like Obama claims the
criminal-justice system works against terrorists, he means it satisfies his top
concern: due process. And on that score, hes quite right: Weve shown we can
conduct trials that are fair to the terrorists. After all, we give them lawyers
paid for by the taxpayers whom they are trying to kill, mounds of our
intelligence in discovery, and years upon years of pretrial proceedings, trials,
appeals, and habeas corpus.
As a national-security strategy,
however, and as a means of carrying our governments first responsibility to
protect the American people, heavy reliance on criminal justice is an abysmal
A successful counterterrorism strategy makes criminal
prosecution a subordinate part of a much broader governmental response. Most of
what is needed never happens in a courtroom. It happens in military
operations against terrorist strongholds; intelligence operations in which
jihadists get assassinated without trial; intelligence collections in
which we cozy up to despicable informants since only they can tell us what we
need to know; and aggressive treasury actions to trace terror funds.
That is how you stop the homeland from being attacked, which is what we
have done for the last seven years. And it is that from which Obama wants to
Obama would bring us back to September 10th America.
And September 10th is sure to be followed by September 11th
What a chilling ending. "...September 10th
is sure to be followed by September 11th."
The election is over and, in a number of meaningful ways, Mr. Obama
seems to be demonstrating at least some capacity for ignoring the red-meat
rhetoric he used to excite his hard left base.
With that in mind, we can at least hope that his September 10th mindset
is now political history. The safety of our country depends on
RICARDO MONTALBAN R.I.P.
Ricardo Montalban died today of natural causes, at the age of 88.
Mr. Montalban was the the quintessential suave "latin lover" of many movies
in the 1940's and early 50's. But he is probably best remembered for
playing Mr. Roarke in the hit TV series, "Fantasy Island".
Personally, I remember him just as well for the Chrysler commercials he
did prior to the "Fantasy Island" era, in which he talked about the
Chrysler Cordoba's "rich corinthian leather" (I never much cared for Chrysler
products, but he made the Cordoba sound great). I also loved
his role as the bad guy in the first "Naked Gun" movie.
Beyond his long, successful career, Mr. Montalban appears
to have been a very fine gentleman as well. He certainly had a stable
marriage; it lasted for 63 years until his wife's death in 2007. And he
was very active in various social programs. One of his most important contributions was
founding "Nosotros", which helps Spanish-speaking people to break into the entertainment industry and ultimately succeed.
Show business has precious few people of this quality.
Ricardo Montalban will be greatly missed.
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small.
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!