Detroit newspapers know a good story when it falls on their heads like a ton of bricks.
Take the Detroit News, which on the day Saddam was going to be hanged buried a one-and-a-half inch news brief about it on page 7A.
The Detroit News’s above-the-fold front page was instead reserved for an unremarkable photo of some people laying mementoes at the Gerald R. Ford Museum in Grand Rapids (“Ford’s Last Journey”), and a windy news analysis on how Wall Street will do in 2007.
Today, now that Saddam is dead, the Detroit News and the rest of the media have noticed, because they can't help but notice, and the News has a lurid “SADDAM HANGS” headline in second-coming type.
Before Saddam actually became Dead Man Walking the press were all set to do their part covering the protracted ceremonies burying Gerry Ford. This was in hopes of lecturing America, (nobody in journalism reports any more—it’s all about “raising awareness”) that Ford was the great Republican president, in contrast to those other two guys whose names we won’t mention.
But then the Iraqis had to go and hang Saddam, completely bogarting the planned news cycle away from Gerry Ford’s funeral, (“Now there was a real leader. Remember how gracefully he presided over the rout of Saigon?”)
Even the Western media is not going to be able to keep people from involuntarily smiling at the all-too-rare occurrence in this world of actual justice taking place, instead of just being demanded and lied about by people who don't know the meaning of the word.
But that doesn’t mean the media won’t work mightily to keep the good fact of Saddam’s execution as far away as possible from the role played by the one man who is almost single-handedly responsible for getting him.
This is by no means a denigration of the role of the coalition forces, Iraqi interpreters and fighters, and countless other mostly unknown persons, thousands of them, who assisted in hunting him down, many of them at the loss of their lives.
But if you follow back the chain of events that led to Friday night's hanging of this war criminal, it is inescapable to conclude that the coalition forces and liberated Iraqis did not dispatch themselves to accomplish this goal, someone had to dispatch them; nor did the US Congress bestir themselves to support (briefly) this goal, someone had to lead them; nor did the UN, Chirac, Putin, Blix, Annan et al shame themselves to oppose and obstruct it, but that someone had to defy them; nor did the Western media almost universally lie, sabotage, and confabulate in an effort to accomplish the failure in Iraq they had themselves prophesied, but someone had to ignore them like the gnats and houseflies after whom they have closely patterned their behavior. The decision to depose Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice didn’t make itself, some leader had to make it.
Category 5 hurricanes are the results of blind forces and it is silly to blame them on policitical enemies. Liberating nations and bringing war criminals to justice takes human decision, and someone deserves credit.
When US Special Forces dug him out of his spider hole in December 2003, Saddam, disoriented and afraid, still had to try brassing it out. "My name is Saddam Hussein,” he said. “I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate."
US Special Forces, the smartest and best warriors the world has ever seen, knew exactly who had brought them all together that day, and who had earned the respect. They told Saddam, "Regards from President Bush."
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Shall They Overcome Some Day?
And speaking of civil rights heroes, DU readers from out of town may not be aware that Dearborn’s very own Henry Ford Museum, in recent years, obtained and now has on display the very Birmingham bus to the back of which the late Rosa Parks refused to move.
And now we have become aware that, right after the incident in Minnesota of the six imams having to be forcibly de-planed, one incisive MSNBC interviewer managed a comparison between the imams' refusal to exit the plane when ordered and the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat on the Birmingham bus. Even interviewee Ibrahim Hooper had to choke on that one.
Still, DU has heard rumors, unconfirmed, that farsighted Henry Ford Museum curators seeking to expand their “civil-rights heroes” collection, have been negotiating with US Air for the purchase of the six unassigned seats from which the courageous imams refused to be removed (except by means of police escort).
Nor have we been able to confirm rumors that Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR is calling on all Muslim Americans to boycott US airlines and begin crossing the country on foot, in silent defiance of the airlines’ discriminatory policies.
And now we have become aware that, right after the incident in Minnesota of the six imams having to be forcibly de-planed, one incisive MSNBC interviewer managed a comparison between the imams' refusal to exit the plane when ordered and the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat on the Birmingham bus. Even interviewee Ibrahim Hooper had to choke on that one.
Still, DU has heard rumors, unconfirmed, that farsighted Henry Ford Museum curators seeking to expand their “civil-rights heroes” collection, have been negotiating with US Air for the purchase of the six unassigned seats from which the courageous imams refused to be removed (except by means of police escort).
Nor have we been able to confirm rumors that Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR is calling on all Muslim Americans to boycott US airlines and begin crossing the country on foot, in silent defiance of the airlines’ discriminatory policies.
CAIR Awarded for Free Speech on Thursday, Silences Blog on Friday
According to CAIR’s website, CAIR-Michigan’s very own Dawud Walid was honored by the Detroit ACLU on Thursday for “courageously defending the Bill of Rights and helping to protect our civil liberties.” What the ACLU had in mind was congratulating one of its co-plaintiffs, CAIR-MI, in their ridiculous, and doomed, lawsuit against the NSA, which is on its way to being eviscerated by real judges at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. We took a look at that case in September.
But I really got a kick out of the article's description of CAIR's mission “to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”
The article, datelined December 15 and entitled "CAIR-MI Executive Director Honored By ACLU For Protecting Civil Liberties,” is listed on national CAIR’s website. Take a look and you'll see that, immediately above thatheadline trumpeting the award for protecting civil liberties, and with the same dateline of December 15, is another article entitled "CAIR-FL: 'Kill All Muslim Kids' Hate Site Shut Down ."
CAIR Florida succeeded in getting a blog-hosting site to shut down a blog that had posted a parody encouraging violence, something, as we all know, that neither CAIR nor any of its supporters would ever support. You can read another version of what happened at Free Republic.
As far as I'm concerned even if the Florida blogger went too far, (and I haven't taken time to try to find out), there is still this business about the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech, which is paramount. Isn't that what the ACLU just gave Walid an award for "couraegously defending"? and didn’t CAIR just claim its mission was defending civil liberties? And weren’t both the ACLU and CAIR championing the protection of speech, even hate speech with terrorists over international telephone calls, in their lawsuit against the NSA, claiming it was protected by the Bill of Rights even in the face of legitimate concerns about national security?
It just isn’t right that CAIR can be this unaware of its own hypocrisy.
But I really got a kick out of the article's description of CAIR's mission “to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”
The article, datelined December 15 and entitled "CAIR-MI Executive Director Honored By ACLU For Protecting Civil Liberties,” is listed on national CAIR’s website. Take a look and you'll see that, immediately above thatheadline trumpeting the award for protecting civil liberties, and with the same dateline of December 15, is another article entitled "CAIR-FL: 'Kill All Muslim Kids' Hate Site Shut Down ."
CAIR Florida succeeded in getting a blog-hosting site to shut down a blog that had posted a parody encouraging violence, something, as we all know, that neither CAIR nor any of its supporters would ever support. You can read another version of what happened at Free Republic.
As far as I'm concerned even if the Florida blogger went too far, (and I haven't taken time to try to find out), there is still this business about the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech, which is paramount. Isn't that what the ACLU just gave Walid an award for "couraegously defending"? and didn’t CAIR just claim its mission was defending civil liberties? And weren’t both the ACLU and CAIR championing the protection of speech, even hate speech with terrorists over international telephone calls, in their lawsuit against the NSA, claiming it was protected by the Bill of Rights even in the face of legitimate concerns about national security?
It just isn’t right that CAIR can be this unaware of its own hypocrisy.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Dearborn, Michigan: Where Hezbollah Gets Its Laundry Done
Just last week in greater Dearborn there were two barely reported money laundering-related stories. First, Elfat El Aouar, the wife, or possibly former wife, of federal fugitive and LaShish restaurant owner Talal Chahine, pleaded guilty to helping Chahine hide restaurant revenues from the IRS when she was financial manager for the chain.
The intended beneficiaries included Hezbollah. Chahine is believed hiding in southern Lebanon.
According to the Chicago Tribune, “[u]sing a double set of books, the owner of La Shish chain of 15 restaurants evaded taxes while funneling some $20 million to the Lebanese militant force Hezbollah in recent years.”
In a related story, Imad Majed Hamadeh, of neighboring Dearborn Heights, also was just convicted for his part in a multi-million dollar smuggling ring operating in the area handling contraband cigarettes, counterfeit Zig-Zag rolling papers, and counterfeit Viagra.
Profit beneficiaries included Hezbollah.
According to federal authorities, members of the ring (18 arrested in all), “charged a ‘Resistance Tax’ in excess of the contraband cigarettes’ black market price to fund Hezbollah.” Paying the tax enables Dearborn customers to smoke knowing they aren’t only killing themselves and evading a state tobacco tax, but are helping Hezbollah kills Israeli Jews and maybe even some American military men and women in Iraq. And every now and then some Lebanese civilians.
Meanwhile, “Federal prosecutors in Michigan say Hezbollah gets more support in their area than any other Mideast terrorist group. That may have drawn Mahmoud Kourani, a Hezbollah money man, to Dearborn, Mich. after slipping into the U.S. illegally through the Mexican border. The brother of a Hezbollah general, Kourani hosted fundraisers for the Party of God before he pleaded guilty last year to materially supporting the group. He will be deported after he finishes a 54-month prison sentence.” Read more about it here, and here.
Another article in the Chicago Tribune from last summer, “They’re 100% American, and Pro-Hezbollah,” describes how in Dearborn the “community leaders say Lebanese-Americans are not supporting terrorism against the United States. Even though the U.S. government has linked Hezbollah with the deadly attack on the Marine barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in the 1980s, Hezbollah has never attacked America at home, they argue, and has shown no interest in doing so.”
Not supporting terrorism? That's a pretty weak argument, since just because Hezbollah has never attacked America at home doesn't mean Hezbollah has never attacked America. Hezbollah’s slogan is “Death to America!,” and always has been. Hezbollah has been murdering Americans since its first year of existence. Here's just part of their long record of trying to live up to it.
And a report last week from Beirut only last Sunday described “more than a half-million pro-Hezbollah demonstrators chanting ‘Death to America!'’and ‘Death to Israel!’ in the heart of downtown,” so that “the Lebanese capital seemed more like a vision of Tehran.”
Nor is Hezbollah limiting itself to Lebanon. American intelligence sources report that Hezbollah is actively assisting in training the Mahdi army in Iraq, killing, by the way, a lot of Americans.
Another report has said “that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
“This should come as no surprise, really, since many of Baghdad’s Shiites were out on the streets chanting 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' …in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon.
“…’Allah, Allah, give victory to Hassan Nasrallah,’ the crowd chanted.
“’Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are one. Let them confront us if they dare,’ the predominantly male crowd shouted, waving the flags of Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.”
No one needs to pretend any more that Hezbollah isn't getting Lebanese civilians killed, too. A new war crimes report shows how Hezbollah’s use of civilian cover, (as was reported in tiny media whispers in July and August and therefore widely ignored), was a key part of Hezbollah's strategy in its recent war against Israel.
"’[The organization's operatives] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories,’ said Mr. Nasrallah in a TV interview on May 27, several weeks before the war. ‘You can't destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army.’
“Exactly what Mr. Nasrallah means is illustrated in the testimonials of the captured fighters. Asked why Hezbollah would risk the destruction of civilian areas by firing from them, [Hezbollah fighter Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman] replied that while in theory private homes belonged to ‘the residents of the village . . . in essence they belong to Hezbollah.’
"....Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras.... ”
The intended beneficiaries included Hezbollah. Chahine is believed hiding in southern Lebanon.
According to the Chicago Tribune, “[u]sing a double set of books, the owner of La Shish chain of 15 restaurants evaded taxes while funneling some $20 million to the Lebanese militant force Hezbollah in recent years.”
In a related story, Imad Majed Hamadeh, of neighboring Dearborn Heights, also was just convicted for his part in a multi-million dollar smuggling ring operating in the area handling contraband cigarettes, counterfeit Zig-Zag rolling papers, and counterfeit Viagra.
Profit beneficiaries included Hezbollah.
According to federal authorities, members of the ring (18 arrested in all), “charged a ‘Resistance Tax’ in excess of the contraband cigarettes’ black market price to fund Hezbollah.” Paying the tax enables Dearborn customers to smoke knowing they aren’t only killing themselves and evading a state tobacco tax, but are helping Hezbollah kills Israeli Jews and maybe even some American military men and women in Iraq. And every now and then some Lebanese civilians.
Meanwhile, “Federal prosecutors in Michigan say Hezbollah gets more support in their area than any other Mideast terrorist group. That may have drawn Mahmoud Kourani, a Hezbollah money man, to Dearborn, Mich. after slipping into the U.S. illegally through the Mexican border. The brother of a Hezbollah general, Kourani hosted fundraisers for the Party of God before he pleaded guilty last year to materially supporting the group. He will be deported after he finishes a 54-month prison sentence.” Read more about it here, and here.
Another article in the Chicago Tribune from last summer, “They’re 100% American, and Pro-Hezbollah,” describes how in Dearborn the “community leaders say Lebanese-Americans are not supporting terrorism against the United States. Even though the U.S. government has linked Hezbollah with the deadly attack on the Marine barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in the 1980s, Hezbollah has never attacked America at home, they argue, and has shown no interest in doing so.”
Not supporting terrorism? That's a pretty weak argument, since just because Hezbollah has never attacked America at home doesn't mean Hezbollah has never attacked America. Hezbollah’s slogan is “Death to America!,” and always has been. Hezbollah has been murdering Americans since its first year of existence. Here's just part of their long record of trying to live up to it.
And a report last week from Beirut only last Sunday described “more than a half-million pro-Hezbollah demonstrators chanting ‘Death to America!'’and ‘Death to Israel!’ in the heart of downtown,” so that “the Lebanese capital seemed more like a vision of Tehran.”
Nor is Hezbollah limiting itself to Lebanon. American intelligence sources report that Hezbollah is actively assisting in training the Mahdi army in Iraq, killing, by the way, a lot of Americans.
Another report has said “that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
“This should come as no surprise, really, since many of Baghdad’s Shiites were out on the streets chanting 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' …in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon.
“…’Allah, Allah, give victory to Hassan Nasrallah,’ the crowd chanted.
“’Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are one. Let them confront us if they dare,’ the predominantly male crowd shouted, waving the flags of Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.”
No one needs to pretend any more that Hezbollah isn't getting Lebanese civilians killed, too. A new war crimes report shows how Hezbollah’s use of civilian cover, (as was reported in tiny media whispers in July and August and therefore widely ignored), was a key part of Hezbollah's strategy in its recent war against Israel.
"’[The organization's operatives] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories,’ said Mr. Nasrallah in a TV interview on May 27, several weeks before the war. ‘You can't destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army.’
“Exactly what Mr. Nasrallah means is illustrated in the testimonials of the captured fighters. Asked why Hezbollah would risk the destruction of civilian areas by firing from them, [Hezbollah fighter Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman] replied that while in theory private homes belonged to ‘the residents of the village . . . in essence they belong to Hezbollah.’
"....Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras.... ”
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Carolyn Glick on Freedom of Speech
“This is the nature of our times. We are at war and those who warn of its dangers are being systematically silenced by our enemies who demand that nothing get in the way of our complacency with our own destruction.
“If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, one day, years from now, when students of history ask how it came to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction, they will have to look no further than the contrasting fortunes of Al-Jazeera and Dyab Abou Jahjah on the one hand and Le Figaro and Robert Redeker on the other.”
She’s tough on Tony Blair, whom I admire, but her article on freedom of speech is worth reading.
“If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, one day, years from now, when students of history ask how it came to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction, they will have to look no further than the contrasting fortunes of Al-Jazeera and Dyab Abou Jahjah on the one hand and Le Figaro and Robert Redeker on the other.”
She’s tough on Tony Blair, whom I admire, but her article on freedom of speech is worth reading.
Propaganda Islam Style
They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water,
it will leap out right away to escape the danger.
But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,
and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling,
the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.
This story illustrates the importance of watching slowly changing trends in the environment, and not just the sudden changes.
The
The jump should not be the move out of
The Islamic Jihad is not just about bombs and physical destruction. Jihad by sword is one method but, there is also jihad by pen.
How many readers out there are aware that ACCESS (
I believe that our fundamental right to safety was somehow violated here. Our country is at war with so called Islamic Extremists. These terrorist don’t generally arrive and stay here legally. ACCESS is in charge of helping Muslim immigrants get into the country. This is a lot like letting the inmates run the asylum. If ACCESS was raided I believe that deserves a headline and follow-up. This is our money in our town – don’t they have an obligation to speak and let us know what this is about?
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 the Freep’s Niraj Warikoo turns the heat up a little more with a headline about Muslim furor.
No clear moment marks the time when Dearborn's pot began to boil. This blog is perhaps the first overt sign of frogs beginning to jump out – but, we don’t plan to leave. We are determined to wake up lethargic citizens and impassion them with our boiling furor. We want to turn the heat down.
We invite anyone who feels the same to join, write, or spread the word.
Darby Shaw
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Global Warming: It's Not the Heat, It's Our Stupidity
For the first time, the United States Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments about global warming. A case was brought by the State of Massachusetts against the EPA for failing to regulate, among other harmful emissions, carbon dioxide. The first thing the Court wanted to know was whether or not Massachusetts even had any business bringing a lawsuit against the EPA on the facts it was alleging, in particular, whether or not the possible future damage that Massachusetts alleged was merely speculative, or, as required to give the state standing to sue, “imminent.”
I read about the case in a commentary on FindLaw by legal writer and commentator Michael C. Dorf. Dorf believes that global warming is quite real, and he was quite impatient that the Justices were even wasting their time with the question of imminent damage. He was especially disappointed that the Justices were quizzing the lawyer for Massachusetts about whether or not further regulating American car manufacturing would make much difference if the rest if the planet could churn out all the CO2 it wants.
Legal commentators at Dorf’s level are only too at home with the the hair-splitting of constitutional law issues and slow work of appellate reasoning. Yes, it may have taken years for the high court jurisprudence to grind through desegregation, the separation of church and state, and reparations for the interned Japanese. But as Dorf sees it:
OH MY GOODNESS THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING!
It may not be happening that fast, but it is DEFINITELY happening--slowly, surely, inch by inch, inexorably, until one day we will wake up and it will be too late. Failure by the Court to skip the standing issue and to act promptly on the merits of the case is fiddling while Rome burns. Dorf wrote this about global warming's less-than-obvious, but still lethal, dangers:
“Many phenomena are non-linear; that is to say, each small change leads to no discernible difference until a tipping point is reached, after which dramatic change ensues. Warming itself provides a familiar example. A block of ice slowly heated from 29 degrees Fahrenheit, to 30 degrees, to 31 degrees appears largely unchanged, until it hits 32 degrees, at which point it begins to melt.
“To the extent that global warming works in a similar fashion, waiting for cataclysmic change to be imminent may mean waiting to take action until the action taken will likely accomplish far too little to avoid the harm.”
Upon reading this, a light went on in my head, (usually it’s quite dark up there), and I asked myself, How can people who see a threat taking decades to unfold as so pressing, while remaining so utterly indifferent to the documented, unrelenting, clear and present dangers of global Islamic jihad?
It occurs to me that, if a percentage of the intensity and focus of people who are convinced of the imminent danger of global warming could ever be brought to bear on the imminent danger of global jihad, the war against global Islamic terrorism would be won and behind us in five years. If we could but convince the same segment of the population clinging to the “consensus” theory on the greenhouse affect that jihadists are--if not evil, bloodthirsty, and determined to kill us--at least projecting an unacceptably large carbon footprint way beyond acceptable limits recognized by the Kyoto Treaty or the Green Party platform.
Especially bizarre to me is the disjunct between the standard acceptable to global warmists' for showing a danger's "imminence," as compared with that required by people attempting to rally a response to global terrorism.
You all may recall that, on the subject of “imminence,” the Bush administration was savagely attacked for not waiting until the danger of a Saddam armed with WMD had become “imminent,” while at the same time claiming that Bush had lied by claiming that it was. For example, there was this volcanic eruption by Al Gore on the subject, the aftereffects of which are still being measured by climate scientists.
Except Bush did not claim that the danger from Iraq was imminent, but only that the threat was growing, and the logic, (and it was about the last time logic played any role in America’s war policy), was based on recognition that waiting for “cataclysmic change to be imminent,” (i.e., waiting until Saddam was too well-armed to be easily subdued militarily), would be irresponsible and foolhardy.
I quote: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent....If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.") Yet this is the identical logic of Dorf and the folks who worry about global warming.
Where's the difference? It looks to me that those on the left who tend to be most worried about the imminent danger of global warming, condemned the Iraq war's failure to meet an incontrovertible “imminent danger” standard. They argue that lack of a "smoking gun" have made all the actions taken to meet the potential threat in Iraq—again, to use the language of the liberal side that just won the Congress back—not only questionable, but certainly unnecessary, wasteful of the country’s resources, illegal, and probably were crimes against the Constitution, the UN, and all of humanity. In other words, those who opposed Bush and his aggressive response to worldwide jihad argued that, well, it wasn't imminent enough. Their standard for that category of threat is pretty high: come back when the airliners have changed course, when the dirty bombs have actually gone off, when the towers are actually burning.
As those of you who recall the November 7 election should now realize, the USA won’t be taking any pre-emptive steps in our own defense again. We may not even take them now if danger is imminent. Nancy Pelosi was wrong to keep telling us the election was a referendum on the war in Iraq. It wasn't. It was a referendum on the imminence of global jihad. And Americans voted in favor of the Teletubby version that things aren't really so bad.
And that's why these days, while the West still has time to stop Iran from getting a workable nuclear bomb, no one is willing seriously to discuss military intervention in order to forestall that imminent cataclysmic change: even though we all know that what might be difficult before Iran gets the bomb will be impossible after Iran has the bomb.
And remember how Kaddafi was so scared of George Bush in 2003 he voluntarily coughed up his WMD programs? Now he’s kicking himself between Seinfeld reruns and the Lou Dobbs Show wishing he had them back so he could join everyone else threatening to use them against a weakened Israel. And who's to stop them? Lebanon teeters inches above Syria’s iron glove. Pakistan is making a separate peace with the Taliban. The land-for-peace method of national self-destruction has worked so well for Israel, they're copying it in the cities of Paris, Marseilles, Copenhagen, and Florence, with just as much promise of success.
The global warming argument in the Supreme Court literally came down to whether inches of Massachusetts coastline might be threatened with washing away at some point no earlier than the next few decades. Look at a map of the world and ask yourself how many inches will be lost if we lose Iraq? And when? Democrats are talking about pulling out in months. Or if we lose Lebanon again, and it becomes an armed base for Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda. We have already lost a province or two of Afghanistan. Israel, our only genuine ally in the region, has been weakened by letting herself be dragged out of her justified fight with Hezbollah. Large areas of European cities, in France, in Denmark, in Sweden, literally, have been de-nationalized and become “no-go zones” that belong now to the Umma.
(I think we lost San Francisco some time in the 1960s, but now the US military isn’t welcome there at all, while you can just bet that any Muslim “spiritual leader” with a few sharp words for America and the Jews can still expect a key to the city).
Whether you believe in global warming or not is neither here nor there as far as the danger of jihad is concerned. It isn't as if the two have to be mutually exclusive. The question is how we react to something that is at least as imminent as global warming, and, realistically speaking, much more so. Islamic militants won't like you better for saving the planet. They still think it all belongs to them, anyway.
If global warming is the biggest threat we all face, maybe there won’t be any polar bears left in 2030, because, as Al Gore pedantically explains, they’re all running out of ice floes to sail around on. But if the jihadists have their way, there won’t be any Europe in 2030, or anything we recognize as Europe, or possibly even any America. Now, while I myself have never actually seen a polar bear, I have seen Europe, and I’d like to go back someday without having to buy my wife a burka. For that matter, I’ve been to the top of the World Trade Center, but I can’t do that any more, and neither can anyone else. I would call that a more present measurable damage than the erosion of the ice caps.
And what difference is it going to make if the shore of the Kennedy compound extends ten fewer feet into Nantucket Sound in 2020, when the whole country is under Sharia law? And what if the global warmists are right and the mean temperature of Michigan rises by 10 degrees in our lifetimes? (Even true believers don’t say it will rise that fast). It gets up to 120 in Iraq all the time, and that’s not what’s killing our GIs--or the Iraqi police--or freedom-loving Iraqis who would choose democracy if anyone would let them do it.
It’s jihadists doing that killing, not the heat. Jihadists like the heat. In fact, they even support global warming, judging by the amount of excitement they show when their spiritual leaders preach about the coming death by incineration of their many, many enemies. If Iran gets the bomb, just the testing program alone will heat things up more than a million Ford Explorers. And if Tehran nukes Tel Aviv, isn’t the dust in the air likely to have a greenhouse effect, (or at least, cause a nuclear winter)? But, to borrow the emotive phrase of the left on issues they do care about, like global warming or Hurricane Katrina, “Nobody is doing anything!”
Remember why global warming is so urgent: “Many phenomena are non-linear; that is to say, each small change leads to no discernible difference until a tipping point is reached, after which dramatic change ensues.”
Global jihad is that block of ice melting, and it's more accurate now to say it has reached the slushy stage. We survived one cycle of this already. It began in earnest in 1983, and slowly progressed to the cataclysm of 9/11, when the world, we were told, changed forever. When America, for about 90 days, had a brief moment of wakefulness. But after that, hundreds of millions of us pressed the big American snooze button and just like that we were back to dreaming.
Now far too many Americans think the terror war is only a “so-called war,” nothing more than a talking point, a concoction. The whole goddamned country will rush to war against Mel Gibson or Michael Richards because they said something stupid while harming no one. But not a peep when our leaders seriously propose sitting down to tea with the fiends who turned Iran into a Muslim prison and Syria into a terror state, tormented our hostages, call for our nation’s death thousands of times a day, and are this minute pouring millions into Iraq to buy bombs to kill American sons and daughters.
Meanwhile the temperature of global jihad is still rising, and it's rising a lot faster than half a degree in 200 years. And yet how many people do you know who aren't convinced global warming is the "growing threat"?
So I propose somehow linking up the threat of global warming with the threat of global jihad. Perhaps a report can be released disclosing how many cubic feet of CO2 800,000 Lebanese Shiites give off per outraged chant of “Death to America!” Or how many polluting gasses are given off by just one Kassam rocket, whether or not it manages to kill an Israeli schoolkid? Or how much sulfur dioxide is given off by every IED, regardless of if it kills a US Marine? Or what an insult it was to the troposphere when the World Trade Center was burning, even if we have made peace with what that act of war as an insult to our national honor?
If it helps you sleep nights, just forget about global jihad as a national security issue. Think of it as an EPA violation.
Think of it as just plain bad for the planet.
I read about the case in a commentary on FindLaw by legal writer and commentator Michael C. Dorf. Dorf believes that global warming is quite real, and he was quite impatient that the Justices were even wasting their time with the question of imminent damage. He was especially disappointed that the Justices were quizzing the lawyer for Massachusetts about whether or not further regulating American car manufacturing would make much difference if the rest if the planet could churn out all the CO2 it wants.
Legal commentators at Dorf’s level are only too at home with the the hair-splitting of constitutional law issues and slow work of appellate reasoning. Yes, it may have taken years for the high court jurisprudence to grind through desegregation, the separation of church and state, and reparations for the interned Japanese. But as Dorf sees it:
OH MY GOODNESS THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING!
It may not be happening that fast, but it is DEFINITELY happening--slowly, surely, inch by inch, inexorably, until one day we will wake up and it will be too late. Failure by the Court to skip the standing issue and to act promptly on the merits of the case is fiddling while Rome burns. Dorf wrote this about global warming's less-than-obvious, but still lethal, dangers:
“Many phenomena are non-linear; that is to say, each small change leads to no discernible difference until a tipping point is reached, after which dramatic change ensues. Warming itself provides a familiar example. A block of ice slowly heated from 29 degrees Fahrenheit, to 30 degrees, to 31 degrees appears largely unchanged, until it hits 32 degrees, at which point it begins to melt.
“To the extent that global warming works in a similar fashion, waiting for cataclysmic change to be imminent may mean waiting to take action until the action taken will likely accomplish far too little to avoid the harm.”
Upon reading this, a light went on in my head, (usually it’s quite dark up there), and I asked myself, How can people who see a threat taking decades to unfold as so pressing, while remaining so utterly indifferent to the documented, unrelenting, clear and present dangers of global Islamic jihad?
It occurs to me that, if a percentage of the intensity and focus of people who are convinced of the imminent danger of global warming could ever be brought to bear on the imminent danger of global jihad, the war against global Islamic terrorism would be won and behind us in five years. If we could but convince the same segment of the population clinging to the “consensus” theory on the greenhouse affect that jihadists are--if not evil, bloodthirsty, and determined to kill us--at least projecting an unacceptably large carbon footprint way beyond acceptable limits recognized by the Kyoto Treaty or the Green Party platform.
Especially bizarre to me is the disjunct between the standard acceptable to global warmists' for showing a danger's "imminence," as compared with that required by people attempting to rally a response to global terrorism.
You all may recall that, on the subject of “imminence,” the Bush administration was savagely attacked for not waiting until the danger of a Saddam armed with WMD had become “imminent,” while at the same time claiming that Bush had lied by claiming that it was. For example, there was this volcanic eruption by Al Gore on the subject, the aftereffects of which are still being measured by climate scientists.
Except Bush did not claim that the danger from Iraq was imminent, but only that the threat was growing, and the logic, (and it was about the last time logic played any role in America’s war policy), was based on recognition that waiting for “cataclysmic change to be imminent,” (i.e., waiting until Saddam was too well-armed to be easily subdued militarily), would be irresponsible and foolhardy.
I quote: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent....If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.") Yet this is the identical logic of Dorf and the folks who worry about global warming.
Where's the difference? It looks to me that those on the left who tend to be most worried about the imminent danger of global warming, condemned the Iraq war's failure to meet an incontrovertible “imminent danger” standard. They argue that lack of a "smoking gun" have made all the actions taken to meet the potential threat in Iraq—again, to use the language of the liberal side that just won the Congress back—not only questionable, but certainly unnecessary, wasteful of the country’s resources, illegal, and probably were crimes against the Constitution, the UN, and all of humanity. In other words, those who opposed Bush and his aggressive response to worldwide jihad argued that, well, it wasn't imminent enough. Their standard for that category of threat is pretty high: come back when the airliners have changed course, when the dirty bombs have actually gone off, when the towers are actually burning.
As those of you who recall the November 7 election should now realize, the USA won’t be taking any pre-emptive steps in our own defense again. We may not even take them now if danger is imminent. Nancy Pelosi was wrong to keep telling us the election was a referendum on the war in Iraq. It wasn't. It was a referendum on the imminence of global jihad. And Americans voted in favor of the Teletubby version that things aren't really so bad.
And that's why these days, while the West still has time to stop Iran from getting a workable nuclear bomb, no one is willing seriously to discuss military intervention in order to forestall that imminent cataclysmic change: even though we all know that what might be difficult before Iran gets the bomb will be impossible after Iran has the bomb.
And remember how Kaddafi was so scared of George Bush in 2003 he voluntarily coughed up his WMD programs? Now he’s kicking himself between Seinfeld reruns and the Lou Dobbs Show wishing he had them back so he could join everyone else threatening to use them against a weakened Israel. And who's to stop them? Lebanon teeters inches above Syria’s iron glove. Pakistan is making a separate peace with the Taliban. The land-for-peace method of national self-destruction has worked so well for Israel, they're copying it in the cities of Paris, Marseilles, Copenhagen, and Florence, with just as much promise of success.
The global warming argument in the Supreme Court literally came down to whether inches of Massachusetts coastline might be threatened with washing away at some point no earlier than the next few decades. Look at a map of the world and ask yourself how many inches will be lost if we lose Iraq? And when? Democrats are talking about pulling out in months. Or if we lose Lebanon again, and it becomes an armed base for Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda. We have already lost a province or two of Afghanistan. Israel, our only genuine ally in the region, has been weakened by letting herself be dragged out of her justified fight with Hezbollah. Large areas of European cities, in France, in Denmark, in Sweden, literally, have been de-nationalized and become “no-go zones” that belong now to the Umma.
(I think we lost San Francisco some time in the 1960s, but now the US military isn’t welcome there at all, while you can just bet that any Muslim “spiritual leader” with a few sharp words for America and the Jews can still expect a key to the city).
Whether you believe in global warming or not is neither here nor there as far as the danger of jihad is concerned. It isn't as if the two have to be mutually exclusive. The question is how we react to something that is at least as imminent as global warming, and, realistically speaking, much more so. Islamic militants won't like you better for saving the planet. They still think it all belongs to them, anyway.
If global warming is the biggest threat we all face, maybe there won’t be any polar bears left in 2030, because, as Al Gore pedantically explains, they’re all running out of ice floes to sail around on. But if the jihadists have their way, there won’t be any Europe in 2030, or anything we recognize as Europe, or possibly even any America. Now, while I myself have never actually seen a polar bear, I have seen Europe, and I’d like to go back someday without having to buy my wife a burka. For that matter, I’ve been to the top of the World Trade Center, but I can’t do that any more, and neither can anyone else. I would call that a more present measurable damage than the erosion of the ice caps.
And what difference is it going to make if the shore of the Kennedy compound extends ten fewer feet into Nantucket Sound in 2020, when the whole country is under Sharia law? And what if the global warmists are right and the mean temperature of Michigan rises by 10 degrees in our lifetimes? (Even true believers don’t say it will rise that fast). It gets up to 120 in Iraq all the time, and that’s not what’s killing our GIs--or the Iraqi police--or freedom-loving Iraqis who would choose democracy if anyone would let them do it.
It’s jihadists doing that killing, not the heat. Jihadists like the heat. In fact, they even support global warming, judging by the amount of excitement they show when their spiritual leaders preach about the coming death by incineration of their many, many enemies. If Iran gets the bomb, just the testing program alone will heat things up more than a million Ford Explorers. And if Tehran nukes Tel Aviv, isn’t the dust in the air likely to have a greenhouse effect, (or at least, cause a nuclear winter)? But, to borrow the emotive phrase of the left on issues they do care about, like global warming or Hurricane Katrina, “Nobody is doing anything!”
Remember why global warming is so urgent: “Many phenomena are non-linear; that is to say, each small change leads to no discernible difference until a tipping point is reached, after which dramatic change ensues.”
Global jihad is that block of ice melting, and it's more accurate now to say it has reached the slushy stage. We survived one cycle of this already. It began in earnest in 1983, and slowly progressed to the cataclysm of 9/11, when the world, we were told, changed forever. When America, for about 90 days, had a brief moment of wakefulness. But after that, hundreds of millions of us pressed the big American snooze button and just like that we were back to dreaming.
Now far too many Americans think the terror war is only a “so-called war,” nothing more than a talking point, a concoction. The whole goddamned country will rush to war against Mel Gibson or Michael Richards because they said something stupid while harming no one. But not a peep when our leaders seriously propose sitting down to tea with the fiends who turned Iran into a Muslim prison and Syria into a terror state, tormented our hostages, call for our nation’s death thousands of times a day, and are this minute pouring millions into Iraq to buy bombs to kill American sons and daughters.
Meanwhile the temperature of global jihad is still rising, and it's rising a lot faster than half a degree in 200 years. And yet how many people do you know who aren't convinced global warming is the "growing threat"?
So I propose somehow linking up the threat of global warming with the threat of global jihad. Perhaps a report can be released disclosing how many cubic feet of CO2 800,000 Lebanese Shiites give off per outraged chant of “Death to America!” Or how many polluting gasses are given off by just one Kassam rocket, whether or not it manages to kill an Israeli schoolkid? Or how much sulfur dioxide is given off by every IED, regardless of if it kills a US Marine? Or what an insult it was to the troposphere when the World Trade Center was burning, even if we have made peace with what that act of war as an insult to our national honor?
If it helps you sleep nights, just forget about global jihad as a national security issue. Think of it as an EPA violation.
Think of it as just plain bad for the planet.
Nasrallah and Syria Closer to Seizing Lebanon
That's Hassan Nasrallah's face projected onto the big screen in this AP photo.
A BBC report says that “Demonstrators are waving the red, green and white flag of Lebanon, but others are also waving the yellow flag of Hezbollah emblazoned with a fist holding up an AK-47.”
Speaking on al-Jazeera TV, Mr Siniora said Nasrallah "is trying to stage a coup. Or at least he's threatening to stage a coup. And he has already decided the outcome."
Speaking on al-Jazeera TV, Mr Siniora said Nasrallah "is trying to stage a coup. Or at least he's threatening to stage a coup. And he has already decided the outcome."
The Detroit Free Press has decided that Hezbollah's attempt to take over Lebanon for itself and its Syrian/Iranian puppetmasters is the fault of--no surprise here--the USA!
According to its "news" report on Nasrallah's efforts to topple the government, "Many in Beirut say U.S. failure to stop Israel's onslaught against Hizballah last summer crippled the Lebanese government -- a U.S. ally -- while strengthening Hizballah -- a U.S. enemy. "
The article nowhere mentions that Israel--also a US ally--was defending herself against decades of unprovoked missile attacks and incursions by Hezbollah, and that it was Israel's--and the US's--lack of firm resolve to see Hezbollah destroyed that led to Israel withdrawing with Hezbollah still in place and armed, which in turn enabled Nasrallah to claim "victory." Hezbollah, just like all terrorist groups, exploits weakness and lack of resolve. E.g., "Hizballah has more support in the population now because they are the 'victorious resistance,' cabinet member Ahmed Fatfat said."
Hezbollah doesn't have more support now, they just know that no one is going to fight back. Many in Lebanon hate Hezbollah, hated Syrian discrimination, and were sorry Israel didn't finish the job. But now Hezbollah has been emboldened by the failure of the world community to stand up to them and disarm or destroy them.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
The Day the West Stood Still
Now Britain's Labour Party leader Tony Blair gets the credit for being the first world leader to say multiculturalism is a bad idea. And Earth wasn’t even incinerated by Gort! (But just to keep on the safe side, ever since the speech all BBC announcers have been muttering "Klaatu barada nikto" on the quarter-hour).
Blair gave his speech with the express purpose of addressing multiculturalism’s limits, directed straight at Britain's stubborn non-integrated Muslims. The part that will have everyone most upset is the very end, where he says:
“Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed."
Whoa. So tolerance doesn't require subsidizing hate-mongers who want to destroy their host country, and never miss an opportunity to disrespect the majority culture? Our heads can't take it in.
We’re also gratified to hear the PM insisting on freedom to speak openly on the subject of Islam, an area in which the UK is much freer than we are here in the USA. Mr. Blair said it should be possible that all call can express their differences within the civility of “shared boundaries.”
“Partly we achieve it by talking openly about the problem. The very act of exploring its nature, debating and discussing it doesn't just get people thinking about the type of Britain we want for today's world; but it also eases the anxiety. It dispels any notion that it is forbidden territory. Failure to talk about it is not politically correct; it's just stupid.”
He also made it clear that there wasn't going to be any tolerance of the Muslim community's efforts to replace UK law in Islamic areas with Sharia. "Nobody can legitimately ask to stand outside the law of the nation. There is thus no question of the UK allowing the introduction of religious law in the UK."
Blair gave his speech with the express purpose of addressing multiculturalism’s limits, directed straight at Britain's stubborn non-integrated Muslims. The part that will have everyone most upset is the very end, where he says:
“Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed."
Whoa. So tolerance doesn't require subsidizing hate-mongers who want to destroy their host country, and never miss an opportunity to disrespect the majority culture? Our heads can't take it in.
We’re also gratified to hear the PM insisting on freedom to speak openly on the subject of Islam, an area in which the UK is much freer than we are here in the USA. Mr. Blair said it should be possible that all call can express their differences within the civility of “shared boundaries.”
“Partly we achieve it by talking openly about the problem. The very act of exploring its nature, debating and discussing it doesn't just get people thinking about the type of Britain we want for today's world; but it also eases the anxiety. It dispels any notion that it is forbidden territory. Failure to talk about it is not politically correct; it's just stupid.”
He also made it clear that there wasn't going to be any tolerance of the Muslim community's efforts to replace UK law in Islamic areas with Sharia. "Nobody can legitimately ask to stand outside the law of the nation. There is thus no question of the UK allowing the introduction of religious law in the UK."
Muslims Exhausted and Depressed
David Crumm’s Detroit Free Press article on Friday, “Muslims, Jews start to heal ” had a couple of interesting comments. The event, according to Crumm, included "nearly 200 Christians, Jews and Muslims met at Congregation Adat Shalom in Farmington Hills on Thursday night to listen to two rabbis and four Muslim leaders from metro Detroit.”
One of the leaders was Victor Begg, chair of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan. He "said local Muslim leaders are fed up with non-Muslims’ demands that they continually condemn terrorism, as if they are responsible for all such crimes.
‘It is exhausting and depressing to be responsible for everyone in the world who uses our faith for evil,’ Begg said.”
Doesn't it sound as if Begg were suggesting that Islamic terrorists who commit acts of murderous evil are merely using Islam for evil, rather than engaging in violent acts in obedience to Islam? And isn't it more accurate that aren't demanding continual condemnations of terrorism, but that Islamic terrorist acts are being committed on a continuing basis?
Begg can’t be held responsible for the irony of the arrest, the very next day, of Derrick Shareef in Chicago. But, on the exhausting and depressing point of people using the faith for evil, Shareef was a Muslim convert, “who talked about his desire to wage jihad against civilians” by setting off “hand grenades at a shopping mall during the Christmas rush….Officials said Shareef had been under investigation since September, when he told an acquaintance that ‘he wanted to commit acts of violent jihad against targets in the United States as well as commit other crimes.’"
Is Begg asking us to accept, along with him, that, just supposing here, every once in a great, great while some person claiming to be of the Islamic faith commits an evil act, he is clearly doing it in part with the intention of making the Islamic faith look bad? That such a person isn't practicing Islam, he is only using Islam?
Najah Bazzy, teacher at the Islamic Center of America here in Dearborn was also one of the speakers.
She talked about the "fear" a lot of non-Muslims have of Islam "and its cultural symbols, such as Muslim women wearing scarves over their hair."
“’I will be so happy when people finally quit worrying about what's on my head and focus on what's inside my head.'"
Those of us who have fears about Islam aren’t the least bit fearful of Ms. Bazzy’s scarf.
And we are focusing upon what’s inside her head. And the heads of other Muslims, too. Say, like Derrick Shareef’s head, and whoever filled it with jihad.
One of the leaders was Victor Begg, chair of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan. He "said local Muslim leaders are fed up with non-Muslims’ demands that they continually condemn terrorism, as if they are responsible for all such crimes.
‘It is exhausting and depressing to be responsible for everyone in the world who uses our faith for evil,’ Begg said.”
Doesn't it sound as if Begg were suggesting that Islamic terrorists who commit acts of murderous evil are merely using Islam for evil, rather than engaging in violent acts in obedience to Islam? And isn't it more accurate that aren't demanding continual condemnations of terrorism, but that Islamic terrorist acts are being committed on a continuing basis?
Begg can’t be held responsible for the irony of the arrest, the very next day, of Derrick Shareef in Chicago. But, on the exhausting and depressing point of people using the faith for evil, Shareef was a Muslim convert, “who talked about his desire to wage jihad against civilians” by setting off “hand grenades at a shopping mall during the Christmas rush….Officials said Shareef had been under investigation since September, when he told an acquaintance that ‘he wanted to commit acts of violent jihad against targets in the United States as well as commit other crimes.’"
Is Begg asking us to accept, along with him, that, just supposing here, every once in a great, great while some person claiming to be of the Islamic faith commits an evil act, he is clearly doing it in part with the intention of making the Islamic faith look bad? That such a person isn't practicing Islam, he is only using Islam?
Najah Bazzy, teacher at the Islamic Center of America here in Dearborn was also one of the speakers.
She talked about the "fear" a lot of non-Muslims have of Islam "and its cultural symbols, such as Muslim women wearing scarves over their hair."
“’I will be so happy when people finally quit worrying about what's on my head and focus on what's inside my head.'"
Those of us who have fears about Islam aren’t the least bit fearful of Ms. Bazzy’s scarf.
And we are focusing upon what’s inside her head. And the heads of other Muslims, too. Say, like Derrick Shareef’s head, and whoever filled it with jihad.
Friday, December 08, 2006
That's Our Congressman!
We have commented on legislative resolutions here before, but here is one we at DU support. US House Resolution 1082 condemns “the decision of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murder of Philadelphia Police Office Danny Faulkner.”
To his credit, Dearborn’s Congressman Dingell voted “yea,” to condemn. Guess who voted no? About 31 people, all Democrats, two of them from Michigan: John Conyers and Carolyn Kilpatrick.
We’ve never expected much from Rep. Kilpatrick, but Rep. Conyers is taking over as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, his greatest ambition there to impeach President Bush for fighting the war on terror.
Okay, I admit, I’ve never expected much from Conyers, either. But one would think qualification for chairing the Judiciary Committee would include a more practical attitude of disapproval for honoring convicted cop killers.
I mean, even Alcee Hastings voted to condemn.
Then again, we note that St. Denis does enjoy its own Islamic "no-go zone," from which the police are forbidden. The no-go zones are a growing Euro-phenomena. Perhaps Rue de Mumia Abu-Jamal falls inside one of these areas, in which case the French city's decision has a certain logic. Mumia has an Arab name, and he is a hero of those who defy law enforcement and will back it up with murder.
To his credit, Dearborn’s Congressman Dingell voted “yea,” to condemn. Guess who voted no? About 31 people, all Democrats, two of them from Michigan: John Conyers and Carolyn Kilpatrick.
We’ve never expected much from Rep. Kilpatrick, but Rep. Conyers is taking over as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, his greatest ambition there to impeach President Bush for fighting the war on terror.
Okay, I admit, I’ve never expected much from Conyers, either. But one would think qualification for chairing the Judiciary Committee would include a more practical attitude of disapproval for honoring convicted cop killers.
I mean, even Alcee Hastings voted to condemn.
Then again, we note that St. Denis does enjoy its own Islamic "no-go zone," from which the police are forbidden. The no-go zones are a growing Euro-phenomena. Perhaps Rue de Mumia Abu-Jamal falls inside one of these areas, in which case the French city's decision has a certain logic. Mumia has an Arab name, and he is a hero of those who defy law enforcement and will back it up with murder.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
"Hypocrisy paralyzes Lebanon"
"What started with 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' has now turned into 'Death to Siniora'. Neither Nasrallah, nor Berri, nor Aoun has attempted to preach to their sheep otherwise."
Read about it here.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Watch This Space
Thousands of Hezbollah and pro-Syrian supporters have planted themselves in downtown Beirut in what is, essentially, an attempted coup aimed at Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government. This according to Lebanese MP Walid Jumblatt, quoted here.
I cannot resist pointing out that, if everything Hezbollah and its mouthpeices in the media were telling us ad nauseum in August and September about Israel having "completely destroyed" Lebanon's infrastructure were true, then, judging by those high-rises in the picture at the right (from Xinua Online), Hezbollah for Humanity has thrown up a helluva tent city in just a few days. Not my style maybe, but not much of a burned-out bombscape, either.
One can only assume that, if the UN's and the Dearborn Press & Guide's favorite social services group can take so many members away from their good works rebuilding southern Lebanon and passing out other people's money to have a days-long sit-in, maybe they should be allowed to run the whole country. Or, at least, co-run it with Syria's benevolent assistance.
All kidding aside, we have been warning that Hezbollah's lust to rule all of Lebanon, (on behalf of Syria) has only grown, and that Nasrallah will not relent unless he is made to do so, which no one appears willing to make him do.
According to Jumblatt, "They want south Lebanon to remain an arena for an open war so that it can be a commodity used for negotiations by the Iranian and Syrian regimes."
"Jumblatt added 'I never forget Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's answer when Siniora told him we have a promising summer and we expect to receive in Lebanon more than 2 million tourists.' Nasrallah looked at him in the eye and said 'My arms do not disrupt tourism.'
"Jumblatt said we lost the tourism business. The 6 % growth in the economy is now a 5 % deficit . The government revenue is down to zero. The hotels are empty. The only thing that is full are the foreign embassies ... full with the young Lebanese who have had enough of this mess and want to emigrate."
Gym Cited for Failing to Enforce Sharia
We’ll probably never know what the Fitness USA patron said to Wardeh Sultan of Dearborn, as she was dutifully at her prayers in a Dearborn Fitness USA. Perhaps it was something like, "if you’re through bowing on that treadmill, can I get on?" or even, "Move it lady, I have to be back to work in 20 minutes!" All that is reported is that the patron “interrupted” Ms. Sultan, which, of course, is enough to base a civil rights complaint on.
Ms. Sultan, who obviously spoke to the press before being properly prepared by legal counsel, said she has been a member of the gym for seven or eight years, and has never had problems praying there before. In other words, Fitness USA has honored her right to worship freely for a long time. But this time when she complained to the manager about being interrupted during her prayers, he told her something to the effect that while her fellow patron did have to respect Ms. Sultan, her fellow patron didn’t have to respect her God (Allah).
“I can’t believe you said that!” exclaimed Ms. Sultan, who, as if in a nightmare, suddenly realized that, after waking up that morning in America, had somehow found herself adrift in an unrecognizable land where people around her can't be forced by gym managers to respect Allah!
Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, has leapt into the fray, saying, “They (Muslims) are resenting that they are to be suppressed from expressing themselves freely, like others,” Hamad said.
Ms. Sultan, who obviously spoke to the press before being properly prepared by legal counsel, said she has been a member of the gym for seven or eight years, and has never had problems praying there before. In other words, Fitness USA has honored her right to worship freely for a long time. But this time when she complained to the manager about being interrupted during her prayers, he told her something to the effect that while her fellow patron did have to respect Ms. Sultan, her fellow patron didn’t have to respect her God (Allah).
“I can’t believe you said that!” exclaimed Ms. Sultan, who, as if in a nightmare, suddenly realized that, after waking up that morning in America, had somehow found herself adrift in an unrecognizable land where people around her can't be forced by gym managers to respect Allah!
Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, has leapt into the fray, saying, “They (Muslims) are resenting that they are to be suppressed from expressing themselves freely, like others,” Hamad said.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Cow College Cowed by CAIR
According to the Jewish Forward, Michigan State University has agreed to a plan, (at the prompting, of course, of the Michigan chapter of CAIR), to offer diversity training to students and faculty, “focusing on Islam-related subjects.”
This is MSU’s penance for harboring on its faculty Indrek Wichman, a professor of mechanical engineering, who dared to exercise his right to free speech in a private e-mail directed to the Muslim Students’ Association in the midst of the group’s tantrum over the Danish cartoons last February. The day before the group's campus protest was to be held, a website, SpartanEdge.com, owned by an MSU journalism teacher, published the cartoons. This caused further offense, as shown in an opinion piece that ran in the State News written by the Association’s “political chair,” Syed Mehdi Jafri:
“This is just a continuation of the university's anti-Muslim policies and practices, which include mandatory housing in dorms for all freshmen (which we were not given exemption from), the unavailability of halal food (which was denied upon request), the invitation to a speech by Salman Rushdie last year (which was not revoked upon request) and now remaining silent as SpartanEdge.com publishes such offensive and blasphemous caricatures.”
Apparently pushed to the point of distraction, Wichman fired off a private e-mail to the group.
“I intend to protest your protest,” he said. “I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians.” After citing several examples of brutal Islamic violence from around the world, Wichman, a rather poor speller, said “I counsul you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile ‘protests.’”
The Muslim Students’ Association went public with the e-mail, and CAIR began demanding MSU discipline Wichman, “saying the e-mail creates a hostile learning environment for students.” CAIR also wanted a mandatory freshman seminar on hate and discrimination.
MSU refused to discipline Wichman, citing his right to freedom of speech and that he hadn’t violated the university’s anti-discrimination policies. In the end CAIR got the diversity training it wanted, at least. But according to the Forward, Michigan law prevents the diversity training from being made mandatory. In that case, “Wichman told the Forward not to expect him at the training.”
This is MSU’s penance for harboring on its faculty Indrek Wichman, a professor of mechanical engineering, who dared to exercise his right to free speech in a private e-mail directed to the Muslim Students’ Association in the midst of the group’s tantrum over the Danish cartoons last February. The day before the group's campus protest was to be held, a website, SpartanEdge.com, owned by an MSU journalism teacher, published the cartoons. This caused further offense, as shown in an opinion piece that ran in the State News written by the Association’s “political chair,” Syed Mehdi Jafri:
“This is just a continuation of the university's anti-Muslim policies and practices, which include mandatory housing in dorms for all freshmen (which we were not given exemption from), the unavailability of halal food (which was denied upon request), the invitation to a speech by Salman Rushdie last year (which was not revoked upon request) and now remaining silent as SpartanEdge.com publishes such offensive and blasphemous caricatures.”
Apparently pushed to the point of distraction, Wichman fired off a private e-mail to the group.
“I intend to protest your protest,” he said. “I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians.” After citing several examples of brutal Islamic violence from around the world, Wichman, a rather poor speller, said “I counsul you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile ‘protests.’”
The Muslim Students’ Association went public with the e-mail, and CAIR began demanding MSU discipline Wichman, “saying the e-mail creates a hostile learning environment for students.” CAIR also wanted a mandatory freshman seminar on hate and discrimination.
MSU refused to discipline Wichman, citing his right to freedom of speech and that he hadn’t violated the university’s anti-discrimination policies. In the end CAIR got the diversity training it wanted, at least. But according to the Forward, Michigan law prevents the diversity training from being made mandatory. In that case, “Wichman told the Forward not to expect him at the training.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
