Thursday, September 28, 2006

Suicide bombers follow Quran, concludes Pentagon Briefing

Pentagon intelligence analysts have concluded what Bush will not acknowledge publicly: that the clear text of the Quran and the Hadiths motivates suicide bombers and Muslim holy warriors. The analysts even say that their actions are eminently rational in a Muslim context. See Surat Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).

read more | digg story

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

AP runs to the Washington Post

You can't make this stuff up. Michelle Malkin has the full, gory details on an AP photographer caught in the same apartment with an Al-Qa'ida operative. The shutterbug had explosives residues on his clothing--now how did those get there, if he's innocent? The AP said nothing--and now they've asked the Washington Post to spin a human-interest story about some poor slob held without charge by the US Army. Talk about false and misleading!

read more | digg story

Monday, September 25, 2006

'Zionist Companies' on Iranian TV - All Popular American Brands

You simply cannot make this stuff up. In Iran, they say that Pepsi stands for 'Pay Every Penny, Save Israel.' That's but a small sample of the corporate conspiracism that riddles this report. Read it and weep for any prospect for a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

read more | digg story

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Anne Applebaum on the Pope's Remarks and Free Speech

Finally a Washington Post op-ed columnist gets it. An excerpt:
Instead of apologizing in the face of Muslim anger, the West should unite to support free speech and condemn unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns.

read more | digg story

Monday, September 18, 2006

The Path to Hysteria

Cyrus Nowrasteh, author of the 'Path to 9/11' screenplay, reveals enough about his background to show that the criticisms about him, from liberal quarters, were as absurd as they were unfair. And by the way: his film stole the ratings for the Monday night that it aired. Just thought you'd like to know--you'll never hear about it from anyone else but him (and me).

read more | digg story

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Al-Qa'ida Warns Muslims to Leave the US

And why? This is no complaint of discrimination this time--it's a warning that Al-Qa'ida is going to attack, and Muslims need to be out of the hot zone before it happens.

This is the equivalent of the Japanese instructing their embassy to destroy their cipher machines, codes, and secret documents before Pearl Harbor. Is anyone listening, especially in the Senate? Or do we condemn ourselves to the same recriminations that resulted from Pearl Harbor? Whom are we going to sack this time, as the equivalent of General Short and Admiral Kimmel? (And where is the Admiral Nimitz who will take over?)

The Senate can, of course, do something to forestall this: immediately seat a Select Committee on Religious Ideals and their Consequences and hold hearings on whether Muslims need to be told to abandon their pan-Arab nationalist movement in religious dress, or leave.

read more | digg story

Thursday, September 14, 2006

'Bioethicist' says it's OK to kill disabled babies

Understand: that's after they're born. In fact, Peter Singer, PhD, of Princeton University, sees no essential difference between the born and the unborn. So if a society allows abortion, then it should allow the killing of disabled children. Ask yourselves if you'd like to live in the kind of world he would make, given the power.

read more | digg story

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

American Muslim cleric accuses US gov't of engineering 9/11

To the rogues' gallery of fruitcakes and nutballs who insist that 9/11 was an inside job, now add the ex-head of an Islamic center in Washington, DC. He said--on Iranian TV, no less--that the American government knocked down its own buildings. This particular nut has done this before.

read more | digg story

WorldNetDaily: 'Path to 9/11' producer sees ABC 'victory'

The producer comments on the high drama leading up to the airing of the production--why, he didn't even know that his movie would be on the air until Sunday morning! He also confirms Rush Limbaugh's assessment: seventy seconds of footage landed on the cutting-room floor.

Will he bring out a director's cut? Stay tuned.

Monday, September 11, 2006

ABC-TV Airs Path to 9/11 with very few cuts

Rush Limbaugh has just said it on his broadcast. He has sources inside Disney/ABC, and he called them. The cuts from the first night of The Path to 9/11 add up to one minute!

So why did ABC-TV feature a special edition of Nightline? Simple: they originally had filmed two hours and forty minutes of footage for the first night, and had intended to plump it out with commercials. Then came the decision to air it straight through, without interruption.

I have seen edited and unedited versions of a key scene. In the original version, Sandy Berger, as NSA, hangs up on George Tenet, the DCI. In the version that aired last night, Berger simply dithers, and nobody gives the go to the CIA and Northern Allied forces on the ground. Sportsfans, that is a distinction without a difference--because both versions show the feckless political culture that prevailed in Washington. You can therefore understand why, in both version, the head of the Northern Alliance asks, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?"

The second night airs tonight. But from where I sit, ABC-TV made a few edits to tighten up the story--and that was all. My guess is that they were prepared to edit it more severely, until Senators Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, et alti made a fatal mistake. They threatened Robert Iger, President and CEO of ABC, with suspension or revocation of broadcast licenses if he did not severely edit the film and cancel its showing.

Now I don't know Robert Iger at all. But when you threaten a man, his honor demands that he do the opposite of what you are trying to tell him to do. And so might be the case here. I had not thought that anyone in the broadcast media had any honor left. Robert Iger has--maybe--proved me wrong. And sometimes, finding out that you might be wrong about somebody feels good.

I'm preparing a video archive of the second night, and will await Rush Limbaugh's description of the before-and-after versions, since he is the most consequential commentator to possess a full-length preview copy.

Al Qaeda Officially Claims Responsibility for 9/11

By releasing the tape, analysts say al Qaeda was declaring "we did this", ending doubt among conspiracy theorists that anyone else had flown the airliners into New York's Twin Towers and the Pentagon in Washington, killing almost 3,000 people.
If only I could believe that. People will still insist that "9/11 was an inside job," so they won't have to admit that this country needs to get onto a war footing.

read more | digg story

Christopher Hitchens calls for solidarity

Christopher Hitchens reminds us who the enemy is, and calls on all civilized people to oppose the Islamic fundamentalists who seek to destroy civilization. This, he says, is a war we must all fight, unless we all want to die.

read more | digg story

Friday, September 08, 2006

Amazon suggests Brokeback Mountain for children's reading?

A woman gets a recommendation for Brokeback Mountain, because she bought a Harry Potter movie, said she owned The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and rated The Lady and the Tramp. Now what has Brokeback Mountain to do with any of the other three?

Someone at Amazon is gaming the system, and playing a stupid game at that. I mean, if you're going to push homosexuality on people, then at least you'd recommend it to someone who had bought buddy-romp films (like Thelma and Louise) or throw-together farces (like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles). But--children's programming? Come on!

read more | digg story

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Adam Gadahn In His Own Words (MEMRI-TV)

The Middle East Media Research Institute has the very words of Adam Gadahn, the American who basically tells America to convert or die. He reveals that Muslims detest America for what it is, not for anything it does--and furthermore, Muslims reject the UN, too. Read him for yourselves.

read more | digg story

Monday, September 04, 2006

Daily Kos: 'Muslims are the New Jews.'

I am not making this up. Let the Kossacks deny something that is on their own page. 'Muslims are the new Jews'--this although Muslims routinely declare that Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys, and Grand Mufti Haj Amin Husseini (Yasser's uncle) was a direct ally of Adolf Hitler.

read more | digg story

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Want to Solve the Abortion "Problem"? Clean Up the Culture!

This is in answer to any of you who have commented in the past, or wanted to comment, on why I am adamant in my opposition to abortion, and what I would do instead of allowing abortions to continue. That's not the question. The question is how do we finally make abortion unnecessary.

Before I begin: how can we debate anything if we don't even agree on the
fundamentals? If any person has so little respect for human life that he or she would sacrifice any human life under any circumstances to the convenience of another person (except as punishment for a crime, of which the person to be so sacrificed shall have been duly convicted), then I say to that person: Debate is impossible. All we're arguing about is which of us will earn the most votes in the next election, or win the next Senate confirmation fight.

Do any of you remember this event that occurred this summer, wherein Operation Rescue bought the building out from under an abortion clinic, evicted the abortionist, moved in, and started to clean the place up to use it for their headquarters? Do you remember the really sick-making findings? Blood all over the carpet, blood that lit up the walls when you shined a Woods lamp on them, and a big garbage disposer in a janitor's closet that reeked from all the tissue-trap remains that the clinic staff had ground up in that thing? Even the makers of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre couldn't have done better, by their lights, than this.

And in case any of you think that these conditions are not typical of abortion clinics nationwide, let me remind you that Norma McCorvey, of Roe fame, confirmed that these conditions and practices absolutely were and are typical. Don't just take my word on that; read the original article for yourselves.

Now then: Some people seem to think that abortion is simply a wretched and desperate solution to a very pressing, even emergent, problem that a number of young women find themselves getting into. Let us lay aside, for the moment, the brazen heartlessness of abortion providers--and of women who know what sex can lead to, but do it anyway, and have their abortionist on-call. Let us, then, take these complainers at their word. So what solution do they offer for the spectacle of pregnancy out of wedlock, kids raising kids, and the like? More "sex education." In other words, more of the same-old, same-old, that leads so many young women down that garden trail.

Now I propose that we teach solid moral values. I also propose that we clean things up in this culture. The trouble is that when you're wallowing in mud, you forget what "clean" is. "Clean" is that until Hollywood repents of their sexed up (and anti-American) ways, we don't go to the movies anymore. "Clean" might be junking the TV and subscribing to ISP's that do DNS-level filtration of all domains. Above all, "clean" means teaching our young women to dress modestly and teaching our young men to train in their roving eyes.

Some of you will ask what this has to do with abortion. I'll tell you what. If women had enough respect for themselves to reserve sexual intercourse for marriage only, we wouldn't be fighting this verbal war in which we can't even agree on the simple meanings of words.

But how can we expect women to have such respect for themselves when we--and I speak directly to my fellow men--don't have such respect for them? When we define lack-of-modesty down to the point at which modern outerwear provides less coverage than did the underwear commonly worn just one generation ago? (For the record: the big crash of standards came with the departure of women's fashion away from the high standards of the Regency, Victorian, and Edwardian periods.) When we put actors and actresses into suggestive situations and call that a fit public spectacle? When we build private clubs and sell one another fifty- or hundred-dollar keys (they cost $25 US ca. 1965) to walk into places where women run around in their underwear and serve us intoxicating liquor? When we encourage our wives and daughters to swim in public in what might as well be their underwear, the only difference being that it's waterproof? When we continue to patronize certain wiseguys who brazenly bray out rapacious rhymes?

In answer, the pro-abortion crowd points to the "ostracism" of young women (and when was the last time any of you saw that happen?). They go on to say, "Well, we did it ourselves once, except that we didn't get pregnant, and they did. Maybe their condoms failed. Maybe their parents taught them that prophylactics were wrong. And nobody wants to solve the problem!" Et cetera ad nauseam

And neither do they want to "solve the problem," not really, because of all the money that the abortion providers would lose. What sort of solution is it, anyway, to go on doing these things? As usual, such verbiage that passes for analysis, misses the point.

The point is not that "we have ostracized anyone"--if we have. The real point is that we place a double bind on women when we suggest that they ought to have more respect for themselves, and then don't show such respect on our part. How long do any of you think that women would run around in outerwear that is more like underwear, if men would consistently avert their eyes from such sights? What if they showed a movie and nobody went?

But I don't see that kind of solution from the pro-abortion movement. No, sir (or ma'am, as the case may be). They want to be able to divorce sex from all its consequences. And some of them want a little action themselves. The educational establishment is full of Humbert Humberts and Sapphos--and fashion designers who act as though they took what passes for their inspiration from Vladimir Nabokov. If we could stop that cycle, then abortion wouldn't be such a lucrative practice.

Of course, I don't expect more than a tiny portion of those who complain about the "burden" of "unwanted pregnancy" to approve my solution. Well do I remember Faye Wattleton, one of the long line of past presidents of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She once said, and this was another lie, that "America [was] the most prudish country on earth." (Let no one bother denying that she ever said that; she said it to Morley Safer, or maybe it was Mike Wallace, on Fifty-nine-and-a-half Minutes Too Late.) We could use some of the prudery that Faye Wattleton claimed to see in our society.

In closing, many of my opponents will quote the Pericopa Adultura, the passage (of dubious authorship, but that's another story for another forum) purporting to describe an incident in which Jesus refused to judge a woman caught in flagrante delicto in adultery. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," this passage quotes Him as saying. But those who cite this passage--and again, I admit nothing as to its authenticity--fail to mention what "else" this passage quotes Jesus as saying to the woman: "Go and sin no more." I don't hear any of my opponents saying one word that anyone might legitimately construe as an admonition to "go and sin no more." Instead, I hear, "I'll make it to be of no consequence."

Jesus never once said that sin would have no consequence. He has promised to cancel the sin debt--but never to erase the consequences of sin for the rest of creation. Not, that is, until He literally burns everything up and makes everything new. [Revelation chh. 21-22]

And by the way: many of the same people who presume to quote Jesus in this context, are the very ones yelling about "separation of church and state" and suing in court to promulgate separation of faith and state. If they quote Jesus now, then they're just being hypocritical.

So: you want to solve the abortion problem? Let's name it then: obsession with, and compulsion in the name of, sex. Fight that, and a lot of those other problems will go away. But if you won't fight it, then don't come crying to me about a lack of compassion and decency. Anyone who sees anything decent about snuffing out another life just because that life is inconvenient, is guilty of hijacking the language, and I repeat: with such a person, debate is impossible.

Friday, September 01, 2006

VDH's Private Papers::The Waiting Game

Victor Davis Hansen reminds us of the parallels between Islam and Nazism, which also include the way Hizballah, for example, behaves when they "pass in review." He asks, quite reasonably, how long we have to wait before they strike another Hitler-like lightning blow.