Pontifications on politics, sports and whatever else comes to mind. Links are good at the time of publication. Feedback welcomed via e-mail at email@example.com or Twitter @LakerGMC.
Monday, November 06, 2006
The expected endorsement
No surpise here, but terrorists are once again endorsing Democrats:
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.
"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.
Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.
Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."
"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."
Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."
Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.
"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman. [...]
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."
Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.
WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."
"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."
Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."
Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."
"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said. [...]
Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."
He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."
Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."
Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.
"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."
It's pretty clear that the primary immediate goal of the worldwide terrorist movement is to get the US out of Iraq. Which makes advocating said removal an irresponsible position, and one that should disqualify any candidate in any election from receiving your vote.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Congratulations to the people of Iraq
Thursday, November 02, 2006
A parent who should not be a parent
A rather stunning and disturbing Virginia letter to the editor:
We had an interesting experience at Clifton Day this year. Myself, my 11-year-old son and a friend were walking up the street in the big crowd when we encountered Mrs. George Allen and her entourage. [...] Here is the exchange:
Mrs. Allen: "I am Mrs. George Allen."
My son: "You suck."
Me: "She's Mrs. Macaca."
Mrs. Allen: "Oooooo, don't teach your children to hate."
Me: "Teach your children to think. (We chant) Stop the corruption."
And she was whisked away by her handlers. [...] I have never been more proud of my son. We are teaching respect on a case-by-case basis, not on arbitrary parameters having to do with social position or age. The main thrust of this experience is this: We are starting to hate [...] [I]t's sad but politics is no longer a polite cocktail hour conversation.
Wow, I'm not even sure where to start here. This is a woman who is so consumed with hate that she's taught her child to express hate and insult adults in the most vile manner...and she's proud of it! And in a bizarre bit of projection she complains that politics can no longer be discussed politely!
This is disturbing on so many levels. It's one thing to rage on an online political forum, where such irrational, overheated rhetoric is expected, each post trying to one-up the shock value of the previous entries. It's quite another to send such a missive to a newspaper.
But once you've been brainwashed into thinking that this sort of behavior is acceptable in public, you've really crossed a boundary. At that point you're so emotionally disturbed that you have no place in polite society and should seek therapy. From this point, you're baby steps from turning to violence against the subjects of your ire with possibly tragic consequences for yourself or others.
This idiot acts as if being whisked away by handlers when faced with somebody who is apparently mentally ill and possibly armed is a bad thing. I would have been getting the hell out of there if I was even within earshot, much less the one being accosted.
And to pass this kind of bahavior on to an 11 year old is just incomprehensible. Sometimes it might seem as if those who claim that our culture is losing its way are overstating their case, but then you see something like this and you realize that, if anything, they might be selling it short.
The latest Kerry kerfuffle
The thing that strikes me about the latest edition of John Kerry inserting his foot into his mouth is how similar the whole thing is to Trent Lott's performance at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, which ended his Senate leadership career. Both guys made clumsy attempts at humor which went horribly wrong and ended up being extremely offensive and demeaning a significant segment of the population. I would hope that fair-minded people are treating the incidents similarly, either condemning or attacking both. For my part, I think it's silly that Lott had to resign his position or that Kerry has become a focal point of this campaign season, but I understand that politics is a contact sport.
Of course, while I expect fair-minded people to treat them the same, I expect no such thing from the legacy media, especially at this point when they are in full court press mode in campaigning for Democrats (with, as usual, Fox News and a handful of newspapers acting as dissenting voices). So the New York Times outright lying about the actual content of Kerry's quote is about as surprising as Allen Iverson leading the Sixers in shots in their opener.
While I will defend Kerry over the original remark, his followup lie is another matter and there is a valid complaint there. Him trying to play the "I'd never insult the troops!" card rings hollow when his whole career was built on smearing troops in Vietnam with a series of outlandish fabrications in front of Congress. He is certainly a symbol of the longtime Democrat hostility to our military, and using him to highlight that viewpoint is fair game.
A little data
Apropos of nothing, some demographic data on Internet users form Nielson/NetRatings:
* 36.6 percent of U.S. adults online are Republicans, 30.8 percent are Democrats and 17.3 percent are Independents.
* The Web site with the highest concentration of Republicans was RushLimbaugh.com, with an 84.8 percent Republican audience [...] NewsMax.com and Bill O'Reilly.com ranked No. 2 and 3. [...] Among Democrats, the top three sites were BlackAmericaWeb.com, AOL BlackVoices and BET.com with audiences that were 79.9 percent, 64.8 percent and 58.6 percent Democratic, respectively.
* WSJ.com has predominantly Republican readers, at 40.2 percent. Democrats make up 25.8 percent of WSJ.com's readership, closely followed by Independents at 24.3 percent. The New York Times online is a favorite among Democrats, who make up 52.3 percent of its readership. Independents compose 22.6 percent and Republicans 18.3 percent.
* When respondents were asked about their political leaning, the largest segment, 36.1 percent, identified themselves as "Moderate." The second largest segment, 32.5 percent, identified themselves as "Conservative/Very Conservative," while 19.8 percent of respondents identified themselves as "Liberal/Very Liberal."