"Then you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free." John 8:32

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Case for Bombing Iran

Norman Podhoretz has a great article in commentarymagazine.com spelling out his reasoning for the urgent need to confront Iran militarily. His comparisons of Hitler and the world community's attempts to appease the ideologically driven Nazi leader to the present day kowtowing to Islamofascism and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is chillingly blunt. It is definitely a "must read".

Here also is a brief interview with Norman highlighting his concerns.

The left will, of course, decry and bloviate about the warmongering attitudes of concerned Americans as being based in fear, racial bigotry, lack of understanding, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.

Norman goes into great detail about the similarities and differences in WWII, the Cold War (he calls it WWIII), and the current War on Terror (he calls it WWIV). Here is a chilling section of the article in which Norman also quotes Bernard Lewis.
But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:
MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.
Nor are they inhibited by a love of country:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
These were the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 to 1989, and there is no reason to suppose that his disciple Ahmadinejad feels any differently.

Still less would deterrence work where Israel was concerned. For as the Ayatollah Rafsanjani (who is supposedly a “pragmatic conservative”) has declared:
If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession. . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.
In other words, Israel would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, but Iran would survive.

In spite of all this, we keep hearing that all would be well if only we agreed—in the currently fashionable lingo—to “engage” with Iran, and that even if the worst came to the worst we could—to revert to the same lingo—“live” with a nuclear Iran. It is when such things are being said that, alongside the resemblance between now and World War III, a parallel also becomes evident between now and the eve of World War II.
Folks, Islamofascism and the drive for a world Islamic caliphate is real. Iran will have its nukes someday, sooner or later. When it does, Ahmadinejad and Iran will use it to achieve their goals.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Hamas? Fatah? Hamas? Fatah?

Cox & Forkum always has absolutely the best political cartoons. I don't like the word cartoons to describe their art because the word evokes thoughts of frivolity. While their art is indeed hilarious it always brings a particular point home, which is usually deadly serious. Case in point is this cartoon about Hamas and Fatah and its not-so-subtle declaration of the stupidity of our government to somehow declare Fatah as being "moderate". There is nothing moderate about Fatah.

Cox & Forkum also says this about Hamas and Fatah.
"Palestinian moderates"? It was Fatah's Abbas who refused to disarm Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas and the "armed wing" of his own party, even after continued terrorist attacks. It was Fatah terrorists who claimed joint responsibility with Hamas for the suicide-bombing mother who murdered four people. Abbas has called Israel the "Zionist enemy". It is Fatah whose name means "conquest" and whose logo still includes an AK-47 and a grenade.

There's so little difference between Hamas and Fatah that you can barely tell them apart: Fatah photo and Hamas photo. The only real difference is that Hamas is more open about its intent to destroy Israel.

Hamas? Fatah? Hamas? Fatah? You decide. Ya think Israel believes Fatah is moderate?

Monday, June 18, 2007

Gumby Is Alive & Well

Now for something completely different...

The PC gamers out there may recognize this image from Unreal Tournament 2004, arguably the best of the best when it comes to online gaming. For relaxation and winding down, some folks like to fish, some like to bowl, some like to work on cars. My choice is online gaming. My personal choices are Unreal Tournament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Halo. Unreal has a wide variety of game scenarios and is very fast paced. Halo is a bit slower but has a more natural speed and feel to it. One of the outstanding features to Unreal is the open architecture nature of the program to design "skins", or characters in addition to the ability of gamers to design "maps", or rooms that are designed according to individual taste and game style. One of the skins I like to use is good ol' Gumby. It is pretty cool to watch him run, jump, weave and bob as he, I mean I, shoot rockets (my weapon of choice), plasma rifles, mini-guns, lightning guns and nukes. Yes, I said nukes.

My wife thinks I'm nuts. But there's nothing more fun than putting a rocket up someone's head. Whether it's in Unreal or Halo, Jack Bauer, Tater, Smoke, Yar, Eclipse, Coula, JohnnyBoy, Darnoc, Profet, Wifey, Trophy, Deus, Phenix, and all the rest of you that I dispatch with skill and honor, you know what I mean. Fun, fun, fun. Frag ya later...

Labels: , , , ,

McCain Is Not Well

I've been hearing and reading for some time now that Senator John McCain's run for the White House was in serious trouble and that his campaign was very ill. So here's an hilarious get well card someone sent to Shotpolitics.

Labels: , , , , , ,

The United Nations, Darfur & Global Warming

Now we know the REAL reason for the genocide in Darfur. It's global warming. Just ask UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.

“The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change,” Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column. UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 percent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons. “This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming,” the South Korean diplomat wrote.

“It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought,” Ban said in the Washington daily. When Darfur’s land was rich, he said, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water, he said.

With the drought, however, farmers fenced in their land to prevent overgrazing. “For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out,” he said.

...uh... ...wow...

While I should not be surprised, this should illustrate just how far left the UN has gone and how out of touch with reality the United Nations really is.

How incredibly naive.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Hypocrisy of Al Gore

Al Gore spoke in 1992 at the Center for National Policy about the failures of Bush 41's administration in ignoring the terror connections to the regime of Iraq.

What an astoundingly brazen political hack.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 11, 2007

Lions, Buffaloes and Crocs....Oh My!

Now for something completely different.

The ACLU will probably sue the crocs for interfering with and preventing the lions from expressing themselves.

The Daily Kos will decry and verbally trash the lions for attacking a weaker, undefended element of the buffalo society.

The New York Times will expose the motives of the herd mentality of the buffaloes in protecting a young innocent life.


Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, June 08, 2007

Immigration McCain Is Toast

With the ill-fated immigration stuck in the Senate, it appears that in it's present form the bill is dead. One of the good things that has come out of this whole fiasco has been the chances of Senator John McCain winning the Presidency has become... well... umm... you get the picture..

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Star Wars Has Nothing Over Vermont

has an hilarious post over at the Weekly Standard about how the nutters of Vermont are lost in their own little world. Err... I should say a BIG world called Star Wars. Unless you've been in hyperspace for an extended trip to the Outer Rim, you know that the big discussion in Vermont this week has been of seceding from the Union. Go read the post for a great laugh.

Here's what cracked me up.
I've been called dorkofascist for pointing out that the complaints we hear in the Star Wars films about the Galactic Republic aren't particularly beyond the pale: Namely that the Republic had grown too big and sclerotic to be governable and responsive to the needs of individual planets.

Now here's a hippie Vermonster talking about why Vermont should secede from the United States: "The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable--it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens."
Is this newly appointed Vermont storm trooper one of today's Green Mountain Boys? Notice the credentials from the Emperor's personal guard. Wow....

Jonathan closes his post with this nice little nugget.
It's a little hard to tell the fictional fascists from the real hippies.
Hilarious. Priceless.

UPDATE 6/07/07 11:30 PM: OOPS! A reader informed me that

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Hitchens vs. Hedges

As always, Zombie has a great post at Zombietime about a debate he attended on May 24 between Christopher Hitchens and Chris Hedges at King Middle School auditorium in Berkeley, California. The debate was centered around the theme "Is God...Great?"

Zombie said...
Surprising as it might seem in a contemporary political landscape where mocking religion is an established liberal pastime, and where Christianity and spirituality are most often associated with conservatism, it was Hitchens -- now loathed by the left for not toeing the party line over the Iraq War -- who attacked religion, while the neo-Socialist, anti-patriotic, radical Hedges volunteered for the seemingly topsy-turvy position of having to defend spirituality and the existence of God.

How did this strange state of affairs come to pass? In one word: Islam.

The left -- of which Hitchens was a part until recently -- has always been anti-religion. But now, they've become caught in a philosophical bind: how can they promote multiculturalism -- and by extension all non-Western cultures, such as fundamentalist Islam -- if they condemn religion in general? Neocon pundits have since 9/11 frequently accused the left of being in bed with Muslim extremists, a charge which the left has vehemently denied. But with every denial their position was becoming more and more untenable, as the verbiage and narratives of Islamic radicals and "anti-war" progressives have grown to become virtually indistinguishable.

Someone had to take the lead and resolve the dilemma that the left had created for itself. And so it was Hedges who stepped forward in this debate to test the waters for the first time, taking what is for him (and the left) a revolutionary position: that spirituality and religion -- with the noteworthy exception of organized Christianity -- is good.
Now, at no point did Hedges state that he was performing this amazing flipflop specifically due to Islam. He didn't need to say it -- because Hitchens said it for him. In fact, Hitchens repeatedly tore the roof off of Hedges' carefully constructed rhetorical edifice, saying aloud the exact thoughts that Hedges and the left didn't want anyone to hear.
While I find Hitchens to be at times vulgar and and extremely vitriolic towards faith, his grasp of the dangers that confront us is excellent and verbalizes it in a way only he can do.
Hitchens: But, to what I think is the hidden agenda of the question: 'Is George Bush on a Christian crusade in Iraq and Afghanistan?' Obviously not, obviously not. Anyone who's studied what's happening in either of those countries now knows that the whole of American policy -- and by the way a lot of your own future, ladies and gentlemen -- is staked on the hope that federal secular democrats can emerge from this terrible combat. We can protect them and offer them help while they do so. We know that they're there, that we are -- I've met them, I love them, they're our friends. Every member of the 82nd Airborne Division could be a snake-handling congregationalist, for all I know, but these men and women, though you sneer and jeer at them, and snigger when you hear applause and excuses for suicide bombers -- and you have to live with the shame of having done that -- these people are guarding you while you sleep, whether you know it or not. And they're also creating space for secularism to emerge, and you better hope that they are successful.
And this...
Hitchens: It's exact equivalent of the evil nonsense taught by Hedges and friends of his, who say the suicide bombers in Palestine are driven to it by despair. Have you read the manifestos of these suicide bombers? Have you seen the videos they make? Have you seen the manifestos they put out? The propaganda that they generate? These are not people in despair. These are people in a state of religious exultation. Who are promised everything. Who are in a state of hope. Who are in a state of adoration for their evil mullahs. And for their filthy religion. It's this that makes them think they have the right to kill others while taking their own lives. If despair among Palestinians was enough to create psychopathic criminal behavior, there's been enough despair for a long time, and enough misery to go around. It is to excuse the vicious, filthy forces of Islamic jihad to offer any other explanation but that it is their own evil preaching, their own vile religion, their own racism, their own apocalyptic ideology that makes them think they have the right to kill everyone in this room, and go to paradise as a reward. I won't listen, nor should you, to anyone who euphemizes or excuses this evil wicked thing.
Why was Chris Hedges chosen to supposedly somehow defend faith in God when he is very outspoken in his criticism of all religion. Well, ALMOST all religion. All religion except for Islam, of course.

It is curious indeed that one of the sponsors of the event was The Zaytuna Institute, a local Islamic training facility. Zombie noted the actions of those in attendance from the institute.
There were entire rows of seats in the auditorium reserved for Zaytuna Institute staff and students, and many others sat elsewhere in the hall as well (see photo on the right, for example). Throughout the debate, whenever Hedges attacked Christianity, the United States or Israel, and when he praised the Palestinians or defended the Muslim point of view, the Zaytuna crowd cheered and clapped. Whenever Hitchens criticized suicide bombing or praised the goals of the Iraq War, they booed and grumbled.

So, the entire purpose of the debate came into focus: Hedges was there essentially to defend Islam, and the Zaytuna Institute had invited him for this very reason. He was obviously their favorite, and Hitchens was cast as the villain. (Even though, as it turned out, a great number of Hitchens fans showed up as well.)

But Hedges was in a delicate position. He couldn't overtly defend Islam in preference to all other religions, lest he lose his veneer of impartiality. So he hardly mentioned Islam at all. Hence, his strategy became this: to praise spirituality, but then criticize every organized religion except Islam. So he ended up championing Islam in a backhanded way. (Also, after repeatedly proffering excuses and explanations for suicide bombers, Hedges was so pestered by Hitchens that he was compelled to say at one point that he did condemn the practice; but as Hitchens later pointed out, Hedges' words rang hollow because most of his other statements justified suicide bombing.)
Many thanks to Zombie for the post. He gets all the action out there in California.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

McCain On Border Security

John McCain may have been more articulate during last night's Republican candidates debate, but he definitely lost more of the supporter base and exposed his real thinking behind the ill-conceived immigration bill. Watch this clip and see his true thoughts on border security.

McCain shows us just how how much elitists thumb their nose at the American people. I will never trust John McCain again.

John wants no fences? Fine, he gets no votes, either.

Labels: , , , , , , ,