Like most of the rest of the world I have been watching, listening and reading as the fight has progressed over these last few weeks. Like most of the rest of us I have not had access to any secret source of information that gives me any special knowledge on the subject.
A few things have become obvious, even to those of us with only a view from down here;
1) The UN continues to be an anti-American, anti-Israeli and largely anti-Semitic organization. Mr. Annan wasted little time in condemning the "apparently"(his word) deliberate Israeli bombing of a UN observer post in south Lebanon. In his never-ending myopia he "apparently" didn't bother to consider how unlikely it would be that a civilized nation, a UN member in fact, would deliberately bomb a well known UN observer post.
I haven't heard anything on the subject from Mr. Annan since it was disclosed that emails from a Canadian soldier killed in the bombing informed higher-ups that Hezbollah was maintaining a presence so close to the post that it was endangering the UN observers. As usual, the blame for the incident lies at the feet of those brave and courageous Islamonuts who get as close as possible to unarmed non-combatants to protect themselves from us. Given their craven nature, the Islamonuts actually can't lose, thanks to the hapless western media. If the use of human shields works, the Islamonuts win and live to fight another day. If the human shields die the western media is only too pleased to show the graphic photos of yet another Zionist massacre.
2) During the run-up to the Iraq war we were encouraged to view the French as reliable allies with a different tactical view of the situation, not the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that they so obviously are. Today the French Foreign Minister is touting Iran as a great and good country that can help stabilize the neighborhood. How much more do you need to hear? Please tell me that this will finally convince you to stop buying anything French.
3) The million stories about the "new" Hezbollah that is giving the Israeli's fits is laughable. I can think of no better cover story for the Israeli's to put out. It serves their every purpose.
a) Makes Iran and Syria look even worse than they are by asserting that they have given the bad guys even more weapons and other equipment than we had thought;
b) Makes the inevitable complete destruction of Hezbollah an even greater triumph than it would otherwise have been;
c) Exposes the UN for the fraud that it is. Sooner or later, probably later, someone is going to ask what, exactly, UN observers are for. I don't think any of us assumed that their purpose was to watch Hezbollah import rockets by the 1000's and train fighters by the 1000's and build bunkers and tunnels by the 1000's all in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution #1559 which demands the DISARMING of the people the UN Observers watched arm themselves to the teeth. Did they tell anyone? If they did why are the Israelis so "shocked" at the amount of infrastructure and weaponry they are encountering? If they did relay that information to UN authorities did those authorities share the info with anyone? If so, who, and what did those they shared it with do with the information?
4) The great Qana Massacre will prove to be much like the great Jenin Massacre. Unfortunately, it appears people really did die in Qana. See Human Shields above. The Islamonuts win whether the shields live or die. That win, however is shortlived. The Israelis appear not to care anylonger what the silly western media thinks and I applaud them for choosing to largely ignore the editors and talking heads who refuse to see what is immediately before them: Good guys are fighting bad guys. Good guys are doing everything within their power to get the innocents out of harm's way. The bad guys insist on keeping the innocents in front of them. Some of the innocents get killed. This is hardly the fault of the Good guys. We are the Good guys.
5) Democrat politicians are so stupid that it is unlikely that they will return to power in the near future.
Howard Dean, in a speech calling for an end to divisivness, calls Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki an anti-Semite (also called Katherine Harris a crook and compared her to Stalin, but that is another story)for refusing to condemn the Hezbollah attacks on Israel. I guess he didn't know that 5 Dem Congressmen voted against the House Resolution condemning Hezbollah. He didn't call them anti-Semites.
On the otherhand, maybe this was just Dem pander politics as usual: the speech was in Palm Beach. I wonder what percentage of the audience was jewish?
Mr. Moron, John Kerry made one of his incredibly stupid comments. I quote, as nearly as possible from memory, "This would never have happend under a Kerry Administration". What an idiot.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Monday, July 03, 2006
NY Times Treason Cont'd
It has now been 10 days since the infamous publication of National Security Secrets by the NY Times and the LA Times. In that time the furor over the exposure of our secret funds tracking program has, thankfully, not died down.
The editors of the NY Times, LA Times and the reporters who wrote the story have been forced to defend themselves several times over. Although they have declined to appear on any critics' shows, they have appeared on friendly ones and the editors have issued serial written justifications of their traitorous decision to publish the story.
There are two possible explanations of the clumsiness of their collective defenses:
1) They are so unaccustomed to being challenged that they don't know how to respond;
and/or
2) They can't possible admit that they published the story because they hate this country and our committment to the GWOT so much that they knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.
All the parties involved are asserting the same justifications;
1) Everyone knew what the USA was doing and
2) That the press has an obligation to expose government programs that might be illegal.
They appear not to have noticed that their story insists that the program was secret ( the headlines screamed it) and was effective. Obviously if the bad guys knew what we were doing they wouldn't have been caught through this program.
They appear not to have noticed that their story reported that the program was legal and subject to appropriate congressional disclosure.
How, you ask, is it possible for them not to have noticed these obvious points that discredit their defense? Its not, of course. Therein lies the reason they won't face critics directly. They wouldn't be able to continuously assert positions refuted by their own story if the interviewers were persistent in their questioning.
They seem very fond of comparing this case to the Pentagon Papers case although they know(or should know) full well that the cases are completely different. In the Pentagon Papers case SCOTUS decided that the government couldn't restrain in advance the publication of classified material. SCOTUS also said that the ruling on the injunction to prevent publication in no way constrained the government from prosecuting the leakers and the publishers for publishing classified material.
In this case, as the parties know, prior restraint is not the issue. The issue is responsibility for publishing classified material from a legal and effective program. Hopefully, prosecutions will ensue.
The editors of the NY Times, LA Times and the reporters who wrote the story have been forced to defend themselves several times over. Although they have declined to appear on any critics' shows, they have appeared on friendly ones and the editors have issued serial written justifications of their traitorous decision to publish the story.
There are two possible explanations of the clumsiness of their collective defenses:
1) They are so unaccustomed to being challenged that they don't know how to respond;
and/or
2) They can't possible admit that they published the story because they hate this country and our committment to the GWOT so much that they knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.
All the parties involved are asserting the same justifications;
1) Everyone knew what the USA was doing and
2) That the press has an obligation to expose government programs that might be illegal.
They appear not to have noticed that their story insists that the program was secret ( the headlines screamed it) and was effective. Obviously if the bad guys knew what we were doing they wouldn't have been caught through this program.
They appear not to have noticed that their story reported that the program was legal and subject to appropriate congressional disclosure.
How, you ask, is it possible for them not to have noticed these obvious points that discredit their defense? Its not, of course. Therein lies the reason they won't face critics directly. They wouldn't be able to continuously assert positions refuted by their own story if the interviewers were persistent in their questioning.
They seem very fond of comparing this case to the Pentagon Papers case although they know(or should know) full well that the cases are completely different. In the Pentagon Papers case SCOTUS decided that the government couldn't restrain in advance the publication of classified material. SCOTUS also said that the ruling on the injunction to prevent publication in no way constrained the government from prosecuting the leakers and the publishers for publishing classified material.
In this case, as the parties know, prior restraint is not the issue. The issue is responsibility for publishing classified material from a legal and effective program. Hopefully, prosecutions will ensue.
Friday, June 23, 2006
NY Times Treason
Today the NY Times has seen fit to publish details of another classified US Intelligence operation. That they can do so with impunity is not really surprising.
We have been having a big debate over the past few months about illegal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants in this country. We have all noticed that these illegal immigrants hide in plain view and, in fact, march in the streets protesting the existence of the laws they are breaking. They do so with impunity.
It seems that we have reached the point at which our tolerance of dissent is threatening the existence of the USA. The New York Times commits serial treasonous offenses and faces no challenge from our government; illegal immigrants flout the laws of this country and face no consequences from our government.
The one slim hope I have is that the NT Times has actually published a planted story designed to deceive the bad guys.
The scenario below is borrowed from hughhewitt.com. Enjoy
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"Did you see the New York Times report on how the infidels are tracking our money?"
"Yes Khalid. I sent a courier with a note to the financier, and he wrote back and assured me that he will route the transfers through a firm in the Bahamas and have the money laundered."
"That is good Achmed."
"It is easy. The infidel newspapers do all the hard work. All I have to do is sit here and write out notes."
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"How come you just don't call the financier?"
"Oh - that! Because the New York Times revealed that the infidels were monitoring our phone calls."
"Damn those infidels!"
"Thank Allah for the New York Times Khalid. Without them we'd have no secrets that weren't known to the infidels."
"Praise Allah for the New York Times."
"Indeed, praise Allah for the New York Times."
We have been having a big debate over the past few months about illegal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants in this country. We have all noticed that these illegal immigrants hide in plain view and, in fact, march in the streets protesting the existence of the laws they are breaking. They do so with impunity.
It seems that we have reached the point at which our tolerance of dissent is threatening the existence of the USA. The New York Times commits serial treasonous offenses and faces no challenge from our government; illegal immigrants flout the laws of this country and face no consequences from our government.
The one slim hope I have is that the NT Times has actually published a planted story designed to deceive the bad guys.
The scenario below is borrowed from hughhewitt.com. Enjoy
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"Did you see the New York Times report on how the infidels are tracking our money?"
"Yes Khalid. I sent a courier with a note to the financier, and he wrote back and assured me that he will route the transfers through a firm in the Bahamas and have the money laundered."
"That is good Achmed."
"It is easy. The infidel newspapers do all the hard work. All I have to do is sit here and write out notes."
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"How come you just don't call the financier?"
"Oh - that! Because the New York Times revealed that the infidels were monitoring our phone calls."
"Damn those infidels!"
"Thank Allah for the New York Times Khalid. Without them we'd have no secrets that weren't known to the infidels."
"Praise Allah for the New York Times."
"Indeed, praise Allah for the New York Times."
Monday, June 05, 2006
May 25, 2006
Dear President Bush,
The purpose of this letter is to try to persuade you that the policies you are pursuing in several areas, but particulalrly immigration reform, are mistaken and may very well lead to a change of stewardship in one or both houses of Congress and, perhaps, the Presidency. Placing the security of this nation back in hands of Democrat politicians will be a disaster. It is avoidable. It is difficult for those of us outside the corridors of power to understand the various pressures to which you must respond. Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to warn you of disaster on the horizon.
I have been a supporter of yours since you were governor of Texas. I had the good fortune to live in Houston from 1984 - 2000. Having “known” you so long it is not a surprise to me that you would have a very compassionate position with respect to the illegal immigrant issue. You have long made your views known and anyone who has been paying attention has no reason to assert that your current position is a surprise.
The fact that you have a consistent position for a long time does not, however, confirm that position as a good one. In this case your position has the twin liabilities of assuming the nation of Mexico, and its government, will respect any immigration laws put in place in this country and so angering Republicans that we are coming to believe that we have no voice at all.
As has been pointed out by intellects much greater than my own, the fact that the Mexicans coming here are “good people” and are just “coming here to work and make better lives for themselves and their families” differentiates them in no way from about 6 billion other people on the planet. Shall we open our doors to all of them?
For most of us the illegal immigration issue has little to do with immigration and everything to do with sovereignty, the rule of law and pride of ownership.
We cannot understand how we can address the issue of future illegal immigration without ensuring that our southern border is secure. In 1965 and 1986 we undertook large scale immigration reforms that were massive failures because they failed to address a
fundamental problem; We cannot count on the Mexican Government to provide a decent economic environment for its citizens. Since they, unlike Canada for instance, are delighted to see their citizens leave and send back billions each year the situation cannot be addressed by conventional American methods.
We prefer to resolve issues by reaching agreements. In this case there is no one to reach an agreement with. Either our border becomes practically impregnable or we will have no more control over illegal immigration after passing reforms than we did before.
For many of us it is impossible to simply dismiss the multiple breakings of our laws by the illegals. They knowingly cross the border illegally; they obtain identity documents illegally; they consume civic services illegally. In short, they show absolutely no respect for our laws and by pursuing the policies dictated by your position on the issue you endorse their view. To suggest that they will pay a fine is silly. We have neither the means nor the will to collect it.
Imagine the front page stories we will be treated to:“Hector and Maria Gonzales have been living here illegally for 10 years. Both are model citizens. They have three sons and a daughter in elementary school and both work hard to support them. In fact, Hector has 2 jobs. They can’t feed their children and pay the fines that would be imposed if they are to take advantage of the Immigration Reform Bill”.
There are two possible results for Hector and Maria: Countless “special” circumstances in which the fees will be waived or a push by moderates and liberals to reduce the fees so these fine people can afford them. Both these outcomes belittle the value of our laws and make a mockery of any attempt at reform. The Mexicans of the future know, just as the 1986 to 2006 version did, that they have no reason to worry about us enforcing our laws. We are too nice to do it. They are happy to take advantage of our generosity.
For many of us it is difficult to understand how well intentioned politicians like yourself can place so little value on American citizenship and sovereignty that you are not offended by people who ignore our sovereignty and you appear happy to give away citizenship to those same people.
We are sorely offended and our national fabric is damaged by the wholesale amnesty that results from policies like those you are pursuing. I am aware that you don’t call it amnesty. Here we run into the old saw that a pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It is amnesty.
Mr. President, with respect. Secure the Border and enforce our laws first. Reform the immigration laws later.
Yours truly,
__________________________
Michael Markowitz
Cc John McCain
Bill Frist
Dear President Bush,
The purpose of this letter is to try to persuade you that the policies you are pursuing in several areas, but particulalrly immigration reform, are mistaken and may very well lead to a change of stewardship in one or both houses of Congress and, perhaps, the Presidency. Placing the security of this nation back in hands of Democrat politicians will be a disaster. It is avoidable. It is difficult for those of us outside the corridors of power to understand the various pressures to which you must respond. Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to warn you of disaster on the horizon.
I have been a supporter of yours since you were governor of Texas. I had the good fortune to live in Houston from 1984 - 2000. Having “known” you so long it is not a surprise to me that you would have a very compassionate position with respect to the illegal immigrant issue. You have long made your views known and anyone who has been paying attention has no reason to assert that your current position is a surprise.
The fact that you have a consistent position for a long time does not, however, confirm that position as a good one. In this case your position has the twin liabilities of assuming the nation of Mexico, and its government, will respect any immigration laws put in place in this country and so angering Republicans that we are coming to believe that we have no voice at all.
As has been pointed out by intellects much greater than my own, the fact that the Mexicans coming here are “good people” and are just “coming here to work and make better lives for themselves and their families” differentiates them in no way from about 6 billion other people on the planet. Shall we open our doors to all of them?
For most of us the illegal immigration issue has little to do with immigration and everything to do with sovereignty, the rule of law and pride of ownership.
We cannot understand how we can address the issue of future illegal immigration without ensuring that our southern border is secure. In 1965 and 1986 we undertook large scale immigration reforms that were massive failures because they failed to address a
fundamental problem; We cannot count on the Mexican Government to provide a decent economic environment for its citizens. Since they, unlike Canada for instance, are delighted to see their citizens leave and send back billions each year the situation cannot be addressed by conventional American methods.
We prefer to resolve issues by reaching agreements. In this case there is no one to reach an agreement with. Either our border becomes practically impregnable or we will have no more control over illegal immigration after passing reforms than we did before.
For many of us it is impossible to simply dismiss the multiple breakings of our laws by the illegals. They knowingly cross the border illegally; they obtain identity documents illegally; they consume civic services illegally. In short, they show absolutely no respect for our laws and by pursuing the policies dictated by your position on the issue you endorse their view. To suggest that they will pay a fine is silly. We have neither the means nor the will to collect it.
Imagine the front page stories we will be treated to:“Hector and Maria Gonzales have been living here illegally for 10 years. Both are model citizens. They have three sons and a daughter in elementary school and both work hard to support them. In fact, Hector has 2 jobs. They can’t feed their children and pay the fines that would be imposed if they are to take advantage of the Immigration Reform Bill”.
There are two possible results for Hector and Maria: Countless “special” circumstances in which the fees will be waived or a push by moderates and liberals to reduce the fees so these fine people can afford them. Both these outcomes belittle the value of our laws and make a mockery of any attempt at reform. The Mexicans of the future know, just as the 1986 to 2006 version did, that they have no reason to worry about us enforcing our laws. We are too nice to do it. They are happy to take advantage of our generosity.
For many of us it is difficult to understand how well intentioned politicians like yourself can place so little value on American citizenship and sovereignty that you are not offended by people who ignore our sovereignty and you appear happy to give away citizenship to those same people.
We are sorely offended and our national fabric is damaged by the wholesale amnesty that results from policies like those you are pursuing. I am aware that you don’t call it amnesty. Here we run into the old saw that a pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It is amnesty.
Mr. President, with respect. Secure the Border and enforce our laws first. Reform the immigration laws later.
Yours truly,
__________________________
Michael Markowitz
Cc John McCain
Bill Frist
Friday, May 19, 2006
Islam
Like most of us I knew nothing about Islam before 9/11 and although I have absorbed a lot of information about it since, I am not sure I know much more now than I did then.
Is it necessary to understand the basics of a religion in order to be able to comment on it? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
In my experience Islam and its spokespeople make having a meaningful understanding of the religious doctrine that motivates them before commenting on it about as necessary as undertsanding the philosophy of your average mass murderer before commenting on his crime.
Like you, I have heard about the "Religion of Peace" ad nauseum; heard that only a small minority are extremists; heard that the moderates are ordinary people like you and me.
Like you I am still waiting for any meaningful condemnation of Islamonuttiness from the moderates.
The President of Iran wants nukes and plainly states his intention to use them.
Hamas plainly states its determination to destroy Israel.
Islamonuts in Iraq routinely blow up other Muslims ( I know, they are only Shia and the bloweruppers are a much better brand of Muslim) and Mosques.
Islamonuts all over the world threaten to kill anyone who dares to publish anything they don't like, and follow through on their threats. Theo Van Gogh and the Danish cartoons aftermath come immediately to mind. At least in Canada the Islamonuts have the decency to file silly law suits rather than killing the messenger.
(Update: I guess I was wrong about the Canadian Islamonuts after all)
In Britain, Muslims are overwhelmingly in favor of imposing Sharia law and, according to surveys I have read do not consider themselves British at all. Muslims in Canada are trying to make their Sharia official amongst themselves. If there was any indication that they intended to keep it among themselves and voluntary I wouldn't see it as anything more destructive than the Jewish legal system that exists wherever there are Jews. Jews who wish to use it do, those who don't, don't and there is never any assertion by anyone that whatever country the Jews happen to inhabit should come to its senses and substitute Halacha for their national legal system. This doesn't even happen in Israel.
Islam, in its current incarnation is not a religion. It is a politico- religious movement, the leaders of which have made clear countless times that it is their intention to rule the world and impose Islam on everyone. Do we really have to know the intricacies of the Koran (Qu'ran or however else it has come to be called) to recognize and reject coercion when we see it? Do we really have to know the intricacies of the Koran to know that we don't want to live like the people in the Middle East, Iran and the various 'stans? No we don't.
Is it necessary to understand the basics of a religion in order to be able to comment on it? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
In my experience Islam and its spokespeople make having a meaningful understanding of the religious doctrine that motivates them before commenting on it about as necessary as undertsanding the philosophy of your average mass murderer before commenting on his crime.
Like you, I have heard about the "Religion of Peace" ad nauseum; heard that only a small minority are extremists; heard that the moderates are ordinary people like you and me.
Like you I am still waiting for any meaningful condemnation of Islamonuttiness from the moderates.
The President of Iran wants nukes and plainly states his intention to use them.
Hamas plainly states its determination to destroy Israel.
Islamonuts in Iraq routinely blow up other Muslims ( I know, they are only Shia and the bloweruppers are a much better brand of Muslim) and Mosques.
Islamonuts all over the world threaten to kill anyone who dares to publish anything they don't like, and follow through on their threats. Theo Van Gogh and the Danish cartoons aftermath come immediately to mind. At least in Canada the Islamonuts have the decency to file silly law suits rather than killing the messenger.
(Update: I guess I was wrong about the Canadian Islamonuts after all)
In Britain, Muslims are overwhelmingly in favor of imposing Sharia law and, according to surveys I have read do not consider themselves British at all. Muslims in Canada are trying to make their Sharia official amongst themselves. If there was any indication that they intended to keep it among themselves and voluntary I wouldn't see it as anything more destructive than the Jewish legal system that exists wherever there are Jews. Jews who wish to use it do, those who don't, don't and there is never any assertion by anyone that whatever country the Jews happen to inhabit should come to its senses and substitute Halacha for their national legal system. This doesn't even happen in Israel.
Islam, in its current incarnation is not a religion. It is a politico- religious movement, the leaders of which have made clear countless times that it is their intention to rule the world and impose Islam on everyone. Do we really have to know the intricacies of the Koran (Qu'ran or however else it has come to be called) to recognize and reject coercion when we see it? Do we really have to know the intricacies of the Koran to know that we don't want to live like the people in the Middle East, Iran and the various 'stans? No we don't.
The Immigration Wall
Other than those between our respective properties, Americans don't like fences. They just seem wrong. From somewhere I remember "Don't Fence Me In". Range wars were fought over fences in the 1800's. We demanded that "Mr. Gorbachov, tear down that wall!"
Now we appear to be at the edge of an existential crisis. Illegal immigrants, by the millions, crossing our southern border. The most obvious, efficient solution includes a fence; a really big fence. For many of us who realize just how ugly that is, it appears also to be an essential element of the solution.
Threats that "walls won't stop us" are silly and completely counterintuitive. As Charles Krauthammer points out, at the very least a wall will create "choke points" and will seriously slow the progress of the illegals.
It still doesn't feel right, does it? Just the way declaring war on another country doesn't feel right. But when you are left no choice you have to do it. That is where we are with illegal immigration. The governments of Central America and Mexico are so fraudulent and unrepentant that they are forcing us to abandon our liberal philosophies in favor of practicality in defending ourselves against an existential threat.
The illegals themselves are, in the view from down here, blameless. Just like the civilian, non-combatant populations and conscripted solidiers that are devastated in every war. They are being starved to death in their own countries and apparently encouraged (at least by the Mexican Government) by their governments to head North. Who wouldn't try it.
We seem to treat Mexico as though it is somehow entitled to special privileges. Maybe it is our collective guilt for having "stolen" part of their country. Perhaps it is our very American propensity to take pity on the impoverished. What we should be doing is sanctioning Mexico until it stops exporting its poorest citizens North.
Now we appear to be at the edge of an existential crisis. Illegal immigrants, by the millions, crossing our southern border. The most obvious, efficient solution includes a fence; a really big fence. For many of us who realize just how ugly that is, it appears also to be an essential element of the solution.
Threats that "walls won't stop us" are silly and completely counterintuitive. As Charles Krauthammer points out, at the very least a wall will create "choke points" and will seriously slow the progress of the illegals.
It still doesn't feel right, does it? Just the way declaring war on another country doesn't feel right. But when you are left no choice you have to do it. That is where we are with illegal immigration. The governments of Central America and Mexico are so fraudulent and unrepentant that they are forcing us to abandon our liberal philosophies in favor of practicality in defending ourselves against an existential threat.
The illegals themselves are, in the view from down here, blameless. Just like the civilian, non-combatant populations and conscripted solidiers that are devastated in every war. They are being starved to death in their own countries and apparently encouraged (at least by the Mexican Government) by their governments to head North. Who wouldn't try it.
We seem to treat Mexico as though it is somehow entitled to special privileges. Maybe it is our collective guilt for having "stolen" part of their country. Perhaps it is our very American propensity to take pity on the impoverished. What we should be doing is sanctioning Mexico until it stops exporting its poorest citizens North.
Start-up
Like millions of others I have been fascinated and informed by the blogosphere. I have finally summoned up the courage to expose some of my thinking on various political and philosophical issues to the scrutiny of the rest of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)