A fellow TCWatcher writes...

A fellow TCWatcher submitted the following:

 

All - - I'm enclosing a Bret Stephens column (WSJ, 9/25/07) - - some of you may have read it already.    This is not easy reading - -but hope you can take the time.    I've come to see Stephens as one of the three sharpest minds in the writing business.  Dr. Krauthammer is on the short list as well. 

 

I just finished Michael Ledeen's "The Iranian Time Bomb" - - read it in two days as it is fascinating in it's details of the Iranian requime.   I convinced that  what happens in Iran will foretell the next 20-30  years of world history (and then China looms).   (And, as a corollary, what happens in Iraq totally depends on what happens in Iran - -100%). 

 

I watched the Ahmadinejad "speech" from Columbia on Monday - - didn't learn a thing.     As I expected, and To paraphrase an old quote, every word he said was a lie, including "and" and "the".   (As you should know,  the Quran sanctions - - in fact encourages - -  lying to infidels, especially during jihad.)   As President of Iran, Ahmadinejad can be (and is) dismissed by many as a political figurehead.    True, as the Supreme Leader and his band of mullahs run the show there.   But - -Ahmadinejad is in perfect sync with the Iranian vision of domination (and the return of the 12th (hidden) Imam, etc.) .    Also, Ledeen states that Ahmadinejad is one of the two viable candidates for the next Supreme Leader when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei  dies - - soon, as he has terminal cancer.    The other candidate is Ali Rafsanjani (the Pres before A.).   The Republican Guard (IRGC) is run by the Supreme Leader.  The IRGC trained both Hezbollah (Shia)  and Al Qaeda (Sunni) - -and is increasingly supporting Hamas (Sunni).    The canard that you hear on mainstream TV about the Shia and Sunni not working together is completely incorrect - - they are in close, supportive harmony  when the common enemy is the Great Satan (USA) or the Little Satan ( Israel).

 

Again - - this is hard stuff to read ... and it's hard to accept because it's alien to our way of thinking.     You won't hear much from Washington because these guys  are either (a) terrified of stirring up the voters, or (b) too busy running their re-election campaign, or (c) too busy chalking up earmark projects for their respective district.    Give credit to Senator Lieberman for introducing legislature this week to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization.    I'm beating this drum because I'm convinced that it's vital for ordinary Americans to begin to understand the Iranian challenge.    It's important that some of us (at least) return to being serious and resonsible citizens.   Bret Stephens has it right - - we can't "confront" Ahmidinejad (or Iran) on a podium at Columbia University - - we must confront them in fact, with  political and economic muscle. 

 

 

September 25, 2007

GLOBAL VIEW By BRET STEPHENS

Columbia's Conceit September 25, 2007; Page A18 On Saturday John Coatsworth, acting dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, made the remark that "if Hitler were in the United States and . . . if he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him." This was by way of defending the university's decision to host a speech yesterday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. An old rule of thumb in debate tournaments is that the first one to say "Hitler" loses. But say what you will about Mr. Coatsworth's comment, it is, at bottom, a philosophical claim: about the purposes of education; about the uses of dialogue; about the obligations of academia; about the boundaries (or absence of boundaries) of modern liberalism and about its conceits. So rather than dismiss the claim out of hand, let's address it in the same philosophical spirit in which it was offered. A few preliminaries: When Mr. Coatsworth postulated Hitler's visit, he specified the year 1939, just prior to Germany's invasion of Poland and the beginning of World War II. This, then, is not yet the Hitler of Auschwitz, though it is the Hitler of Dachau, the Nuremberg Laws, Guernica and Kristallnacht. Mr. Coatsworth takes the optimistic view that "an appearance by Hitler at Columbia could have led him to appreciate what a great power the U.S. had already become," and thus, presumably, kept America from war. Less clear is whether Mr. Coatsworth issued his invitation in the name of Columbia's current faculty or on behalf the faculty of the 1930s or '40s. We'll assume the answer is the current faculty, since it's unlikely that a committee led by Jacques Barzun, Mark van Doren, Lionel Trilling or other Columbia luminaries of the day would have had much use for "discussion" with the Führer (though it seems Columbia hosted a speech by Hans Luther, Hitler's U.S. ambassador, in 1933). What, then, would be the purpose of such an invitation? Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, offered a clue in a statement issued last week: " Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas -- to understand the world as it is and as it might be," he said. "Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most or even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through dialogue and reason." That's an interesting thought, coming from a man who won't countenance an ROTC program on campus. But leave that aside. What's more important is the question of how Columbia defines the set of ideas it believes are worth "confronting," whether its confidence in "dialogue and reason" is well placed and, finally, whether confronting ideas is a sufficient condition for understanding the world. In a March 1952 essay in Commentary magazine on " George Orwell and the Politics of Truth1," Trilling observed that "the gist of Orwell's criticism of the liberal intelligentsia was that they refused to understand the conditioned way of life." Orwell, he wrote, really knew what it was like to live under a totalitarian regime -- unlike, say, George Bernard Shaw, who had "insisted upon remaining sublimely unaware of the Russian actuality," or H.G. Wells, who had "pooh-poohed the threat of Hitler." By contrast, Orwell "had the simple courage to point out that the pacifists preached their doctrine under condition of the protection of the British navy, and that, against Germany and Russia, Gandhi's passive resistance would have been to no avail." Trilling took the point a step further, assailing the intelligentsia's habit of treating politics as a "nightmare abstraction" and "pointing to the fearfulness of the nightmare as evidence of their sense of reality." To put this in the context of Mr. Coatsworth's hypothetical, Trilling might have said that in hosting and perhaps debating Hitler, Columbia's faculty and students would not have been "confronting" him, much as they might have gulled themselves into believing they were. Hitler at Columbia would merely have been a man at a podium, offering his "ideas" on this or that, and not the master of a huge terror apparatus bearing down on you. To suggest that such an event amounts to a confrontation, or offers a perspective on reality, is a bit like suggesting that one "confronts" a wild animal by staring at it through its cage at a zoo. There is also the question of just what ideas would be presented by Hitler at Mr. Coatsworth's hypothetical conference, and whether they would be an accurate reflection of his beliefs and intentions. In his 1933 speech, Amb. Luther made the case for Hitler's "peaceful intentions" in Europe, according to historian Rafael Medoff. Millions of Europeans believed this right up to September 1939, just as millions of Americans did right up to December 1941. Let's assume, however, that Hitler had used the occasion of his speech not just to dissimulate but to really air his mind, to give vent not just to Germany's historical grievances but to his own apocalyptic ambitions. In "Terror and Liberalism" (2003), Columbia alumnus Paul Berman observes the way in which prewar French socialists -- keenly aware and totally opposed to Hitler's platform -- nonetheless took the view that Germany had to be accommodated and that the real threat to peace came from their own "warmongers and arms manufacturers." This notion, Mr. Berman writes, rested in turn on a philosophical belief that "even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. Even the unreasonable must be, in some fashion, reasonable." So there is Adolf Hitler on our imagined stage, ranting about the soon-to-be-fulfilled destiny of the Aryan race. And his audience of outstanding Columbia men are mostly appalled, as they should be. But they are also engrossed, and curious, and if it occurs to some of them that the man should be arrested on the spot they don't say it. Nor do they ask, "How will we come to terms with his world?" Instead, they wonder how to make him see "reason," as reasonable people do. In just a few years, some of these men will be rushing a beach at Normandy or caught in a firefight in the Ardennes. And the fact that their ideas were finer and better than Hitler's will have done nothing to keep them and millions of their countrymen from harm, and nothing to get them out of its way.

Just when you thought you were safe...

Just when you thought you were safe cause all the Fords are locked up or headed for the lockup, Terry Frank bursts your bubble.

 

 

 

Terry Frank reports: http://www.terryfrank.net/

 

 

Governor Ford?

Nashville City Paper's Clint Brewer and John Rodgers talk about Jr. and a possible run for Governor:

A close advisor to former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. met with prominent Tennessee Democratic Party officials recently to talk about Ford's interest in running for governor in 2010.

and this:

Powell couldn't be reached for comment. But Tom Lee, a Nashville attorney who advised Ford during the Senate campaign, sat in on one of the meetings and said Ford is "deeply interested in public service."

"And we felt it was important to let people know that he is seriously looking at running for governor in 2010," Lee said. 

"A lot of people have been asking him what his thoughts were, and Harold has always been straightforward with people about that, and so he wanted to be straightforward about this," Lee said.

Ford is a formidable candidate. He is likable. His rhetoric has moved centrist. And if Bill Frist or Zach Wamp is our nominee, Ford could certainly pull it off.

Who Speaks for You??

Who Speaks For You?
J D Pendry ^ | 23 SEPT 2007 | J D Pendry

I took some time off from serious news and politics for few days following my last post. The American media did too, but that's not unusual. When I tired of the newest chapters in the sad lives and times of Orenthal James and Britney and the ensuing solemn discussions about his guilt and her fitness to raise children, I thought I'd poke around and see if there was anything else important and deserving of my attention - other than football. I found some things interesting and telling. I may meander a bit, but I'll eventually arrive at a point.

Orenthal still hasn't found the real killers and according to the liberals, we still haven't found those doggoned weapons of mass destruction. That is, unless you count the chemical warhead that exploded and killed the Iranians and Syrians attempting to arm it atop a Scud C missile that has a range of 300 miles. The explosion spread VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent around the complex where it occurred. Their deaths were agonizing, I assure you, unless they were killed outright by the explosion. A tiny drop of VX or Sarin will kill you. The symptoms of nerve agent poisoning are rather gruesome although some of them, like violent retching, are similar to those experienced when hearing about the tribulations of Orenthal and Britney. Blister agents do as advertised to both your skin and respiratory system. Coughing up a lung becomes more than a figure of speech. Not to worry, though, I'm sure these weapons are for peaceful purposes- insecticide maybe.

Iran boasts that it has 600 Shihab-3 missiles aimed at Israeli cities and at United States sites located inside Iraq. It begs one to wonder about the types of warheads on these missiles doesn't it? It is just a reminder for you that Iran is led by a Holocaust denier with a death wish that believes Israel should be wiped from the map. This should raise concern amongst sane people, which excludes much of Washington, DC and practically all of academia. We are allowing this terrorist boss who advocates genocide and provides weapons and training to people who are killing American Soldiers in Iraq to come to our country. Killing Americans is not new to the Iranians. They've been accomplishing it through proxies for practically 30 years. The leader of a country who stifles free expression by beating and humiliating young men for the dastardly act of dressing or acting Western is getting the opportunity to address students at Columbia University. Columbia is one of our prestigious centers of higher learning I'm told.

It costs parents $46,095.00 a year for Columbia's fatalistic liberal indoctrination of their children. These are the same indoctrinated spoiled brats who practiced the freedom of expression and tolerance they learned from Columbia's professors and their parents when they disrupted and prevented a presentation from the Minuteman group.

There was another interesting piece added to the axis of evil puzzle. The recent Israeli air raid in Syria was to take out nuclear material supplied to them by the North Koreans. I wonder if they wanted to put their peaceful nuclear pursuits on top of their Scuds. We should ask Congressman and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich to address that with them on his next visit to Syria while he berates our country to a terrorist boss.

If you look around, not much of what I just shared, except for the Iranian admiration society meeting at Columbia has received much coverage in the mainstream of the U.S. media. The media decides for us that Orenthal and Britney are the important news that we need to hear about, while the threats of Syria and Iran apparently are not. Unfortunately, most of America is just along for the ride.

We've already observed the Speaker of the House showing more respect to a Syrian terrorist boss than she does to the President of the United States.

We are ill informed by our so-called news sources and our politicians answer to the move on crowd instead of to their voting constituencies, but here's the straw that broke it for me. Last week there was a resolution before the Senate. At the end of it, Senators were asked to make one simple affirmation. The important part of that affirmation, which you also do not hear discussed in the media, is in bold letters.

b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack

Voting no:

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

If you cannot affirm your support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, you do not deserve a seat in the United States Senate and you most certainly are not suited to fulfill the role of Commander in Chief.

Discovering what is left out of the news and listening to and observing politicians has left me to wonder about who speaks for me. Who speaks for our Soldiers? Who speaks for our country? Who speaks for you?

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

The Complete "Jena Six" Story

Jena 2007
By Mike Gallagher
Thursday, September 20, 2007

Why do so many people seem reluctant to condemn the act of hanging nooses from a so-called "white tree" in Jena, Louisiana? Is it because a race-baiter like Al Sharpton has joined with the thousands of protesters who have descended upon the tiny town?

If so, they're allowing the well-deserved tarnished reputation of "Reverend Al" to cloud their judgment.

Good and decent people shouldn't stand for white teenagers hanging nooses or burning crosses in order to intimidate and terrorize black people.

The story of the "Jena Six" isn't nearly as complicated as some would have us believe. Amazingly in today's America, there existed a "white tree" in Jena where white teenagers gathered under the shade of the central Louisiana sun. One day, a black teen had the temerity to ask a school official at the local high school if he would be allowed to sit under "the white tree." Of course you can, said the administrator. You should be able to sit wherever you want to.

Not everyone agreed. The following day, three hanging nooses were tied to the tree, a chilling message reminiscent of Ku Klux Klan rallies and lynch mobs.

It didn't take long to discover the culprits, three white kids who attended the high school. They were given three day suspensions for their hideous act.

And then all hell broke loose.

For nearly a year, fighting and brawling and name-calling erupted between the white kids and the black kids. The tension, say many in the town, was almost suffocating. One of the acts of violence involved six black teenagers beating up a white student. Thankfully, that act of cowardice didn't result in serious injury to the victim. He was treated and released at a local hospital and even attended a school function that same day.

But that didn't stop the local prosecutor from going bonkers over the beating. Instead of charging the black kids with assault, or a variation of assault, he decided this was a crime that should result in these kids going to jail for many, many years. Inexplicably, this district attorney decided that the sneakers these punks used as part of the beating should be considered deadly weapons and that the charge should be nothing less than attempted murder.

Attempted murder for a brawl so minor that the victim wasn't even admitted to the hospital.

Listen, there is no doubt that the black teens who ganged up on the white boy needed to be punished. And they likely are nothing close to being angelic members of the church choir. It's been pointed out with some enthusiasm that some other acts of criminality have preceded this incident.

But to put all of this mess in context, it would be impossible to ignore or forget what started everything: a black teen, a little more than a child, wondering why he can't sit under a tree to cool off like the white kids do.

I don't like Al Sharpton. And I don't pretend that black racism directed towards whites doesn't exist. I'm as ashamed of "Miss Black America" or Black Entertainment Television as I am anything a white racist can do.

But none of that changes what has happened in Jena, Louisiana. Two wrongs never make a right. All of us, white, black, Hispanic, whatever, should be mortified that a "white tree" ever existed in 2007 America (thankfully, the tree has since been cut down). And any white kid who thinks that hanging a noose from a tree in order to send a signal to black kids needs some serious enlightenment.

May everyone learn a valuable lesson from "The Jena Six" affair.

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

25 senate dems will NOT support Gen. Petraeus

25 Senate Democrats voted NO on a measure and would NOT express Support FOR General Petraeus and would NOT condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces by the far left group Moveon.org.

 

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

 

3 Democrat Senators did not vote

Biden (D-DE)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Obama (D-IL)

Who is Worse???

TCWatch Note:  We moan and groan about "Moderate" Muslims not speaking out against their terrorist brothers.

 

What about "Moderate" (read Bluedog) Democrats not speaking out against their brother democrats from the radical left when they spew anti-American garbage.

Are they not in the same class as the gutless Muslims??

Bush slams MoveOn.org and Democrats for Petraeus ad

Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:38am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday an ad criticizing the United States' top commander in Iraq was "disgusting" and added that Democrats should have spoken out against it.

The liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org has drawn widespread criticism from Republicans for its ad in the New York Times last week that labeled Army Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" as he testified to Congress that Bush's troop build-up in Iraq was making progress.

"I thought the ad was disgusting," Bush said at a press conference. "I felt like the ad was an attack not only on Gen. Petraeus but on the U.S. military, and I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that ad."

"And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military," Bush added. "That was a sorry deal."

Syria seeking Nukes - Dems want to surrender and pull out

 

TCWatch Note: Dems are chomping at the bit to leave Iraq and surrender the Middle East to the bad guys. All this while Iran is developing the bomb and now Syria is dealing with North Korea for nukes.

 

What kind of mindset cuts and runs when your enemys are arming themselves with nukes??

 

 

U.S. confirms Syria-N. Korea nuke link

WASHINGTON — The United States has determined that Syria has been seeking nuclear weapons from North Korea.

"We do know that there are a number of foreign technicians that have been in Syria," Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Semmel said. "We do know that there may have been contact between Syria and some secret suppliers for nuclear equipment. Whether anything transpired remains to be seen."

One North Korean-flagged ship, Al Hamad, arrived in the Syrian port of Tartous on Sept. 3. Three days later, the Israel Air Force attacked an unspecified target in northeastern Syria along the Euphrates River near the border with Turkey.

Semmel, responsible for nuclear non-proliferation at the State Department, said Syria has been placed on the U.S. nuclear watch list. In a briefing in Rome, Semmel said Damascus was suspected of contacting a range of nuclear suppliers.

Officials said North Korea has provided nuclear material and guidance to Syria. They said Pyongyang has helped establish underground facilities that could be used to produce weapons-grade uranium for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"There are indicators that they do have something going on there," Semmel, who did not rule out the involvement of the so-called nuclear smuggling network once led by Abdul Qadeer Khan, said on Sept. 13.

Officials said North Korean ships arrived in Syria in mid-2007 with cargo suspected to have included weapons of mass destruction components. They said both Israel and the United States have been tracking these shipments, which in some cases were registered as cement.

[On Sunday, Iran said Russia was ready to ship enriched uranium fuel for the Bushehr nuclear energy reactor. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the nuclear fuel for Bushehr was inspected and sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.]

"There are North Korean people there," Semmel said. "There's no question about that. Just as there are a lot of North Koreans in Iraq and Iran."

Israel has not denied an air force operation in Syria. But officials have refused to provide any details.

For its part, Syria has insisted that Israeli fighter-jets did not stage an attack. On Monday, Syrian sources told the London-based A-Sharq Al Awsat daily that the Israeli operation was meant to test Syrian air defense systems.

But Western intelligence sources said the Israeli strike, termed Operation Orchard, consisted of eight aircraft, at least two of them F-15I fighter-jets, four F-16Is and a G-550 electronic intelligence aircraft. They said the operation was coordinated with the United States.

"We are watching very closely," Semmel, who did not confirm U.S. involvement, said. "Obviously, the Israelis were watching very closely."

The State Department confirmed Semmel's remarks, but refused to comment. On Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States was watching North Korea and Syria "very carefully."

"If such an activity were taking place, it would be a matter of great concern because the president has put down a very strong marker with the North Koreans about further proliferation efforts and obviously any effort by the Syrians to pursue weapons of mass destruction would be a concern," Gates said in a television interview. "I think it would be a real problem."

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said Syria has long sought nuclear and other WMD capabilities. Bolton said Syria might have agreed to provide uranium enrichment facilities to Iran and North Korea, both of whom have been under international pressure to end their nuclear weapons programs. On Monday, North Korea delayed talks scheduled for Sept. 19 for an end to the nation's nuclear weapons program.

"Syria is very aggressive in pursuing WMD capability," Bolton told the Israeli daily, Jerusalem Post. "It's a diversion game — to carry on even when you are supposed to have halted, as in the case of North Korea. And I'd be surprised if Syria would do anything with North Korea without Iranian acquiescence."

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

Defeat at Any Price

Defeat at Any Price Why Petraeus's testimony was a nightmare for the Democrats. by David Gelernter 09/24/2007, Volume 013, Issue 02 To prepare for General David Petraeus's long-awaited testimony on Iraq to Congress last week, the liberal pressure group MoveOn.org wrote itself into the history books with an anti-Petraeus ad so repulsive it ranked with Lyndon Johnson's infamous 1964 TV spot in the campaign against Barry Goldwater: A little girl picking flowers dissolved into a mushroom cloud, and then the screen went black. (Evidently by voting for Goldwater, you expressed your support for nuclear holocaust.) But gleeful Republicans who are certain that MoveOn has finally tipped its hand and shown America what the left is all about should remember that Johnson won that election, in a landslide. Because MoveOn headlined its ugly ad with an ugly rhyme ("General Betray Us"), it will stick in the public mind. But it is just possible that the public will invite MoveOn to take their ad and ShoveIt. Democrats at the hearings themselves found it impossible to look this capable, thoughtful, distinguished man in the face and endorse the MoveOn ad. But don't get them wrong: Leading Dems had dumped on Petraeus often in the past, and were dumping furiously in preparation for the hearings. Petraeus is guilty of "carefully manipulating the statistics," Senator Dick Durbin announced; in fact the general has "made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual" (in strict contradistinction to Majority Leader Harry Reid), said Majority Leader Harry Reid. Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden plunged their knives in also. The Democrats were scared for a reason. They worried that Petraeus would impress the country as dispassionate and serious--which he did. He called Bush's troop surge no unqualified success, said that much work remains--but that Iraq has turned a corner; has achieved tangible, important results in its fight against terrorism and inter-sect violence since the surge began. It was a Democratic nightmare. America's ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, had the harder job of reporting on political progress. He said, too, that much work remained; Iraq's political health is bad in some ways, improving in others. But one fact towers above the rest like the ghost of the World Trade Center: If we stay put until the patient is stable, we face a tough job; if we panic and run, we face catastrophe. Again this message was bad news for leading Democrats. But their reaction was just what it should've been, given that President Bush is the enemy--and, like the man said, politics ain't beanbag. Surely it's only natural for leading Democrats in Congress and the presidential campaign, and their vicious lap dogs on the web, to hope for the president's policies to fail. Americans are so accustomed (or inured) to this attitude that they rarely step back and ask, What the hell is going on here? The issue isn't tactics--doesn't concern the draw-down that the administration has forecast and General Petraeus has now discussed, or how this draw-down should work, or how specific such talk ought to be. The issue is deeper. It's time for Americans to ask some big questions. Do leading Democrats want America to win this war? Have they ever? Of course not--and not because they are traitors. To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost. And this has been true from the start. To rephrase the question: Why did Harry Reid announce months ago that the war was lost when it wasn't, and everyone knew it wasn't? The wish is father to the deed. He was envisioning the world of his dreams. The Democrats' embrace of defeat is inspired by no base desire to see Americans killed or American resources wasted. But let's be honest about it, and invite the Democrats to be honest too. Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left. Each one has been defended by serious people; all are philosophically plausible, or at least arguable. But they are unpopular (especially the first two) with the U.S. public, and so the Democrats rarely make their views plain. We must infer their ideas from their (usually) guarded public statements. Globalism and Euro-envy are explicit, sometimes, in Democratic pronouncements--about the sanctity of the United Nations, the importance of global conferences and "multilateralism" (except in cases like North Korea, where the president already is moving multilaterally), the superiority of the Canadian or German health care system, and so forth. The Democrats are not unpatriotic, but their patriotism is directed at a large abstract entity called The International Community or even (aping Bronze Age paganism) the Earth, not at America. Benjamin Disraeli anticipated this worldview long ago when he called Liberals the "Philosophical" and Conservatives the "National" party. Liberals are loyal to philosophical abstractions--and seek harmony with the French and Germans. Conservatives are loyal to their own nation, and seek harmony with its Founders and heroes and guiding principles. The Democrats don't conceal their globalist ideas, but their appeasement and pacifism are positions they can only hint at. So Democratic senator Dick Durbin had the effrontery to plead with the nation to pray for our Iraq wounded and please not to forget them--as if Republicans need Dick Durbin to remind them to honor our troops. When Democrats dwell on alleged analogies between Iraq and Vietnam, the message is clear. "Bring our troops home," says Harry Reid, and adds the incantation "responsibly"--which magically protects him from all charges of irresponsibility. ("Abolish the Constitution and sink the Navy-- responsibly!") When MoveOn held a candlelight vigil over the summer to support Senate Democrats, the symbolism was plain. We light candles to remember the dead. But if we only remember the dead and not the cause for which they died, we dishonor and make nonsense of the noblest of all sacrifices. And we mock a president who asked that "from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." That is the issue when Americans die in combat. Do we finish the mission and invest their deaths with meaning? Or do we shrug them off, inscribe their names on some sepulchral black wall in a ditch, and walk away? Of course if our mission in Iraq were wrong or foolish or impossible, we would be right to abandon it. But recall that Americans have fought and died in Iraq to destroy a tyranny that was underwriting terrorism, threatening the peace of its region and the world--and torturing its own people to death. Americans died to put Iraq in the hands of a government that would terrorize neither its own people nor any other nor the world at large. Their mission was noble and right. It is incomprehensible that the administration so rarely discusses the moral side of our achievement in Iraq. No doubt it's still impossible, in today's world, to launch a major war and depose a government merely for the sake of humanity, merely to rescue a people that is being torn apart and eaten alive by its rulers, merely on principle--although it is fair to wonder, 60-odd years after the Shoah, when it will be possible. But Americanism has long held that when we are forced to fight for our interests, we ought to fight for our principles too. It's proving a harder fight than we anticipated. We've made serious mistakes along the way. Both statements apply to most American wars. The difference today is that some leading Americans would prefer defeat to victory. Compare today's war in Iraq with the American fight to clear the Japanese out of Guadalcanal, from September 1942 through early February '43. Obviously that was a vastly shorter stretch than our time in Iraq--but losses in the South Pacific were incomparably greater. Imagine Harry Reid's reaction to news like this: During our first landings, four Allied heavy cruisers (three American) were sunk and a fifth chased away in a battle lasting 32 minutes; nearly 1,300 Americans died. (Multicultural enthusiasts who teach our children that white men are the bane of the earth should explain why Guadalcanal's native Melanesians "were uniformly hostile to the Japanese," according to Samuel Eliot Morison, "and friendly to the Allies.") At the start of the Guadalcanal fighting, 1,600 American Marines and GIs died on the ground in a single month. Morison writes that "mid-October marked the nadir of misery" for Americans on that rank and lethal island. But one of the most notorious episodes of the war was still to come: In November the Japanese sank the U.S. cruiser Juneau. Six hundred men drowned; another 100 clung to the wreckage--of whom 90 were eaten by sharks or went mad in the open sea without food, water, or shelter and then drowned alongside their crewmates. The 690 deaths in this one crew included the famous five Sullivan brothers. By the start of February nearly all Japanese troops on the island had been killed, but the rest fought desperately and brutally, as they had from the start; every Japanese soldier was (in effect) a suicide bomber who preferred death to surrender. Guadalcanal was secured at last on February 9. You might argue that World War II has nothing to do with Iraq; after all, the Japanese started the fight by attacking our fleet at Pearl Harbor. But even the Japanese never succeeded in slaughtering civilians on the U.S . mainland. And those who think that our war in Iraq has nothing to do with the 9/11 murderers, or their friends whose ultimate target is America, are living in Fantasyland. People like to write nowadays about the courage and resolution of our troops in World War II--praise that is richly deserved. But the facts suggest that our men on the front lines in Iraq today are just as brave and resolute as our World War II troops. ("Men" meaning "males"; Army regulation AR 600-13 of 1994, confirmed by the Department of Defense, bars women from combat in ground warfare--although women can, of course, be exposed to danger and capture in staff and support jobs, to our national disgrace. Then again, why worry? Doubtless no enemy so religious, so very pious that he is willing to slaughter soldiers and civilians at random in exchange for a generous allotment of virgins in heaven, could possibly contemplate molesting a captive American female.) Victory in World War II required brave soldiers--and civilians who backed them up with a different sort of bravery, vastly easier to achieve but just as crucial in its way. It's not our soldiers (Lord knows) who have turned coward in this war; it's we who have turned defeatist. We civilians--or at any rate the Democratic leaders among us. If you believe in appeasement, defeat in Iraq would show that we were wrong to stop talking and start fighting. If you believe in pacifism, defeat would demonstrate that war is futile even if your motives are good. If you believe in globalism, defeat would suggest that we should have acted strictly in concert with world opinion. In short, if you do believe in appeasement, pacifism, globalism (and many leading Democrats do), your wish for defeat is no evil or traitorous urge. It is merely logical. It also, of course, contradicts traditional Americanism right down to the ground. Americanism is the set of beliefs that has always held this country together in its large embrace. Americanism calls for liberty, equality, and democracy for all mankind. And it urges this nation to promote the American Creed wherever and whenever it can--to be the shining city on a hill, the "last, best hope of earth." Ultimately, Americanism is derived from the Bible. The Bible itself has been a grand unifying force in American society, uniting Christians of many creeds from Eastern Orthodox to Unitarian, and Jews, and Bible-respecting deists like Thomas Jefferson--and many others who respect and honor the Bible whatever their own religious beliefs. Pacifist globalism is radically at odds with Americanism. Where did this new creed come from, and where is it headed? It was imported from Europe, where it originated during and after World War I. It hibernated in America until Vietnam--America's very own First World War, according to the left: a futile bloodbath. Reagan and, later, the Gulf war sent this European creed into hibernation once again. But Iraq is the left's chance to convert large numbers of Americans from Americanism to Euro-style pacifist globalism. If the balance should tip--if a majority or even a large minority of Americans should abandon Americanism--that would be a cultural watershed. And it would mark the start of America's decline just as surely as World War I and its consequences marked the start of Europe's. How did pacifist globalism, grossly unpopular in the Western world before the First World War, rise to a dominant position in contemporary Europe--and then come to threaten Americanism on our own shores? World War I barely exists in American memory. When Americans think about it at all, they are apt to picture a violently buffoonish comic opera with men dying by the million. Which is partly true: On the western front, where Germany grappled with the Allies (led by France, Britain, and later America), the war was indeed fought with murderous irresponsibility on both sides. The nearly incomprehensible destruction (60,000 British casualties at the Somme--on the first day) has obscured the fact that Britain entered this war for almost exactly the same reason she entered World War II. Germany had smashed, splintered, and slaughtered her way into a small neighboring state that Britain had promised to protect: Belgium in World War I, Poland in World War II. The cause was right, but the casualties were so enormous, they turned European thinking back on itself (like bending a steel beam in two, or making a U-turn in an aircraft carrier)--and it's no wonder. Pacifist globalism was a natural response to unspeakable war casualties, just as disabling mental illness was a natural response to awful childhood trauma in the Freudian worldview that once dominated Western thinking. Pacifist globalism has nearly always been popular with intellectuals. But in 1920s and '30s Britain, it suddenly became the creed of the nation--and of Conservative prime ministers with large majorities in the House of Commons: of Stanley Baldwin (said by a colleague to be "for peace at any price") and Neville Chamberlain, his chosen successor. "Many and varied were the suggestions made" on behalf of pacifism, wrote Malcolm Muggeridge; "many and varied the enterprises launched, great the expenditure of energy and passion, enormous the area of paper covered, heartfelt the vows taken, undeniably sincere the words spoken." (Muggeridge notes that "postcards were dispatched to addresses chosen at random from German directories, stating that the writers of them were resolved in all circumstances to practice non-resistance, surprise being expressed that these communications were duly delivered.") Globalism expressed itself, meanwhile, in earnest dedication to the League of Nations--an institution that proved itself even more useless than the United Nations. An impressive feat. Pacifist globalism was so popular it lost World War II for the tragically underprepared French and nearly lost it for the British. The British pulled themselves together and made a heroic stand, but the French will never live down (least of all in their own minds) the humiliation of being overrun by German armor in a matter of weeks; of choosing not even to defend their beloved capital city. Poland put up a stiffer fight than France in the Second World War. America proved immune to pacifist globalism, until Vietnam. The Vietnam war was nothing like World War I, despite the implicit analogies that emerged later. At first it was run badly, but when General Creighton Abrams replaced William Westmoreland as supreme American commander in May 1968, our strategy changed dramatically. With Abrams in charge the war "was being won on the ground," wrote the historian Lewis Sorley, "even as it was being lost at the peace table and in the U.S. Congress." Americans continued to support the war effort nearly until the end. The 1972 presidential election was a referendum on Vietnam; "Come home, America!" preached the antiwar Democrat George McGovern--and lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide. Of all U.S. population segments, 18- to 24-year-old men--who were subject to the draft and manned the front lines--were consistently the war's strongest supporters. "It was not the American people which lost its stomach," wrote the British historian Paul Johnson, "it was the American leadership." But intellectuals succeeded in squeezing Vietnam into the dreaded iron maiden of World War I. They succeeded in smearing it, in other words, as a futile, pointless massacre. The results were inevitable. In the 1970s, Americanism was in danger for the first time since the Civil War. Americans, who had always seen the distinction between just and unjust wars, were in peril of contracting the moral blindness called pacifism--and of laying in stocks of the ever-popular snake oil called globalism. Ronald Reagan turned things around. He brought Americanism back; he repeated what John Winthrop had written in 1630 about America, the shining city on a hill. Americanism had weathered its greatest crisis since 1861. Or so it seemed. But Iraq has made everything fresh and new for the Democratic leadership. If it can paint Iraq as another Vietnam and relive its great triumphs of the 1970s, the damage done to the American psyche might be permanent. Americans might stop believing in liberty, equality, and democracy for all mankind and retreat to the revised European version: liberty, equality, and democracy (of a sort)--for us. Instead of believing Lincoln's words--"with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in"--Americans might become self-satisfied and complacent pseudo-Europeans. Hollow men. Without Americanism, America joins the European robot republics that have no spiritual life and don't even miss it. But it's also possible that the Democratic leadership's wish for American defeat in Iraq will make it clear to this nation (to conservatives and liberals) that today's Democratic party is no longer a responsible party of government--at least at the national level where America's security, vision, and honor are at stake. Possibly "New Democrats" à la Tony Blair will rally round such lonely voices as Joe Lieberman's--but remember that New Labour fought its way out of the political womb and all the way to Number 10 only because of the Tories' ongoing nervous breakdown. More likely, America's political spectrum a decade or more in the future will be defined by two parties both born of today's GOP after a natural and painless mitosis. There's at least as much distance between a Rudy Giuliani and a Mike Huckabee as there ever was between JFK and Nixon, or even Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower. Americans traditionally like their two opposing parties to differ on domestic affairs but agree on basic foreign policy--not because things are nicer that way; rather because foreign-policy arguments are good for our enemies, bad for our friends, and hugely dangerous to ourselves--especially in an age when swarms of maniac, murderous jihadists blacken the Middle East like toxic locusts. Listen to what the Democrats are really saying. Consider what they actually want. And pray God they never get it. David Gelernter is a national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, and the author most recently of Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion. © Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

--

Hillary brings on Sandy "the thief" Berger as "Advisor"

http://richardminiter.pajamasmedia.com/2007/09/12/bergers_comeback.php

As many of you know, Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and I no longer get along.

Once a cordial and helpful source, Berger turned on me in January 2002 when the first installment of a Sunday Times (U.K.) series that I co-wrote appeared. He phoned my hotel room at something like 6AM, screaming that I was accusing him of "murdering 3000 people."

He promised that he was going to ruin and destroy me. I asked him to not forget to perform this vital task. But he proved unreliable and I had to become semi-famous on my own.

Later, the blogosphere renamed him "Sandy Burglar" when he struck a plea deal admitting to stealing and destroying hundreds of pages of classified material stored in the National Archives. He said he needed access to it to prepare his testimony before the 9-11 Commission; it seems equally likely that he wanted to keep it out of the hands of the commission and of future historians and journalists.

My informed sources suggest that what Berger destroyed were copies of the Millennium After-Action Review, a binder-sized report prepared by Richard Clarke in 2000—a year and half before the 9-11 attacks. The review made a series of recommendations for a tougher stance against bin Laden and terrorism. There are 13 or more copies of this report. But only one contains hand-written notes by President Bill Clinton. Apparently, in the margin beside the recommendations, Bill Clinton wrote NO, NO, NO next to many of the tougher policy proposals.

You can see why Clinton might be happy to see these records vanish down the memory hole.

So Berger was stuffing in pants and socks and later shredding the evidence that President Clinton did not want to take a tougher line on bin Laden, following the 1998 attack on two U.S. embassies that killed 224 people (including 12 American diplomats).

Now for the Hillary connection…

So what does the Democratic front-runner and former First Lady do?

She makes Berger one of her top three foreign policy advisers.

The ever-wise Jonathan Adler has some interesting thoughts on this <http://volokh.com/posts/1189474666.shtml> over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

And I have a few questions:

Did she bring him aboard to reward him for his criminal destruction of classified material? Or did she sign him up because of his stellar record in fighting bin Laden in the late 1990s?

More info here: http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/09/do-you-care-if-.html

 

Democrats should Police their own.

 

 

TCWatch Note: The Nashville City Paper has thrown down the following challange to the Tennessee Democratic Party

 

Democrats should police their own

   Tennessee's Democratic Party needs to begin a conversation within its ranks about when enough will be enough regarding the behavior of some Democrats in the Tennessee General Assembly. 

   This week brought a fresh set of allegations and investigations against two troubled sitting members of the Legislature, both prominent Democrats. 

   EDITORIAL The Tennessee  Registry of Election Finance decided this week to have its staff pursue an investigation into allegations State Sen. Jerry Cooper used a substantial amount of his campaign funds for personal use. Cooper is fresh off an automobile accident that left him injured and saddled with a DUI charge outside his district in Rutherford County. 

   The civil development for Cooper comes after another prominent Democrat, State Rep. Rob Briley of Nashville, had his own public meltdown over the weekend. Briley was also arrested outside his district for DUI and a variety of charges after allegedly leading police on a high-speed chase through rural eastern Wilson County. Briley was allegedly intoxicated and a tape of the DUI test and ride to the jail shows abominable behavior unbecoming of any public official. 

   These various charges and alleged infractions are part now of what can only be called a pattern of behavior by Tennessee Democrats in the state Legislature. All but one legislator ensnared in the Tennessee Waltz bribery sting by the federal government were Democrats. 

   We only place this problem at the feet of the state's Democratic Party by default. The common denominator here is that all of these folks are in fact Democrats, and their party should hold them to some measure of accountability for their behavior. And when their behavior becomes unacceptable for a public official, the party should apply the prerequisite pressure to either fix the problem or to get the legislator to step down. 

   There are plenty of good, quality people and public officials in this state who are Democrats and do not participate in the kind of professed and alleged acts enumerated here. Certainly, the allegations against Cooper and Briley are not as serious the Tennessee Waltz charges. It is not a direct comparison. 

    Yet, after a certain point, the question must be asked as to whether the behavior of these public officials has been damaging to our state and its communities. The Democratic Party should take some measure of accountability for its members, as should the state GOP. They are certainly there for them when they try to win office. They should also know when enough is enough.  

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

The Neverending Gonzalez Non-Scandal

The Neverending Gonzalez Non-Scandal

By James H. Warner
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/13/2007

On Sunday, July 29, Chris Wallace interviewed Senator Russ Feingold on Fox News. Wallace observed that Democrats had received thousands of documents related to the firing of the U.S. attorneys. He asked if the Senator could point to one smoking gun that had been discovered in those documents indicating that a crime had been committed. The Senator stammered that he could not name specifics but that he was sure that a crime had been committed.

What crime this might be is never explained. The Democrats are angry because U.S. attorneys were apparently fired for failing to prosecute vote fraud. Democrats always hyperventilate about vote fraud. Whenever it is proposed that voters show photo identification and prove that they are the person they claim to be, Democrats recite sad stories of hypothetical voters who are destitute wretches and cannot afford to obtain photo ID. If, in fact, there is a citizen so poor that he cannot obtain photo identification, one must suppose that he is eligible for welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid. I don't suppose it would be asking too much for the destitute wretch to show the same identification he had to show to prove that he was a destitute wretch and qualified for welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid. Or, for that matter, that he must show in order to cash his welfare check. They seem not to have thought of that, but that is a story for another day.

Today's story is the investigation into the firing of the US attorneys. The Senate Democrats, despite the resignation of the Attorney General, have said they will continue their investigation. It would be interesting to hear what it is they believe they are investigating. Senator Feingold said he was sure a crime had been committed although he had no specifics. Perhaps the Senate Democrats could put their fertile imaginations to work, temporarily laying aside the important task of dreaming up lurid hypothetical dangers for destitute voters, and try to imagine any hypothetical crime that might conceivably have been committed by firing the US attorneys. After all, one of the president's responsibilities, spelled out in the Constitution, is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Since there are laws against vote fraud, for the president to tell US attorneys to prosecute vote fraud, one would think, is merely to carry out his obligation under the Constitution. If the Senate Democrats are upset about this, one must conclude that there are certain laws which they do not want to see "faithfully executed," a constitutionally curious position to say the least.

The fact is, the Supreme Court has decided that once the Senate has given its advice and consent to the nomination of an executive branch employee, their oversight role is finished. In a decision written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft the Court says of the president's ability to remove his subordinates:

The moment that he loses confidence in the intelligence, ability, judgment, or loyalty of any one of them, he must have the power to remove him without delay. To require him to file charges and submit them to the consideration of the Senate might make impossible that unity and co-ordination in executive administration essential to effective action.

The case is Myers v. United States, 272 US 52, at 134 (1926). The Senate Democrats, as they continue their investigation into the imaginary crimes committed when the U.S. attorneys were fired may wish to ask their staff attorneys to explain his case to them. I'm sure they will have no trouble finding the case as it is one of the longest ever written. But don't ask the Justice Department for help on this as they appear not to be aware of the case. Even though Chief Justice Taft said that it was unnecessary to submit these decisions to the consideration of the Senate, the Gonzales Justice Department, inexplicably, has done just that.

A more appropriate response to the demand for documents would have been to tell the Senate that the documents would not be forthcoming and that the interests of the public would be better served if Senate Democrats would spend their time trying to repeat their performance in 1994, passing foolish laws in order to enrage the voters and cause Democrats, once again, to lose control of both houses of Congress for another 12 years. But that would be asking too much of an administration more determined to placate its enemies than to please its friends.

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

Iraq as Al Qaeda Bait - great read

September 12, 2007

Iraq as Qaeda Bait

By James Lewis

The Left thinks Iraq is a killing field for Americans. Actually, it is a killing field for our enemies, at a very great but vitally important sacrifice. That reflects a grand strategy, tailored to the peculiar nature of the global terror threat.

You don't shoot poisonous fire-ants with a BB gun; you just set an ant trap. Ant colonies are highly "distributed" biological societies, much like the world-wide web. They can't be killed with a BB or a pressure hose; even pouring flaming gasoline on an ant hill won't work. 

Instead, you destroy ant colonies by attracting hungry ants to a chemical bait, and then kill them all in one small place. Ant traps work.  

That's the Bush strategy in Iraq. Al Qaeda isn't centralized, with big cities or steel industries like Nazi Germany. So you can't destroy the enemy by hunting them one by one.  Rather, you bait a trap -- provoke them to come to you, and make sure they don't get out alive.

Iraq is a trap for Al Qaeda. Our mere presence in the heart of the Osama's Caliphate-To-Be draws them like ants to sugar. General Petraeus just reported that
 

"...in the past 8 months, we have considerably reduced the areas in which Al Qaeda enjoyed sanctuary. We have also neutralized 5 media cells, detained the senior Iraqi leader of Al Qaeda-Iraq, and killed or captured nearly 100 other key leaders and some 2,500 rank-and-file fighters. Al Qaeda is certainly not defeated; however, it is off balance and we are pursuing its leaders and operators aggressively."  

Most of the Qaeda fighters come from Saudi Arabia and other breeding grounds. Now that the Sunni tribes are turning against them, they are more exposed and hunted than ever before. Wars are fluid and unpredictable, but no one can imagine that Al Qaeda is happy with its victories since 9/11.

In Afghanistan, they have been on the run since 2003, although the Pakistan border regions continue to supply new recruits. But in Afghanistan they are being destroyed before ever reaching the cities. Add that to a sizable numbers neutralized in Pakistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and more. Add to that the cells pinpointed in Europe and America, the Philippines and Indonesia. We are wiping out the fire ants wherever they can be found.

At that attrition rate, every single year we stay in Iraq, we could get rid of another couple of thousand AQ fighters. Yes, we pay a high price -- but nothing like the price that baddies running loose and attacking us at home would exact.

We are demonstrating who is the strong horse, and who is the weak horse. When the message is finally driven home, the enemy will come to his own conclusions.

In addition to Al Qaeda, other jihadi militants, like Iranian Quds officers and Shiite militants, are being caught in Iraq.  A top Hezb'allah operative was just captured there -- and Hezb'allah has been killing Americans ever since they blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon. As the President said when our perverse press pointed out that the terrorists might hit us in Iraq: Bring them on.  That was not an idle boast, but just a statement of the bait and kill strategy. The many critics of that statement simply do not understand or do not want to understand the strategy.

Now take a look at the map of Iran, http://www.iranmap.com/  and notice where our military are today. To the west is Iraq, where American forces move and attack freely. To the east is Afghanistan, where the same is true. South and south-west are Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and the Gulf itself; those Sunni countries now consider Iran to be their biggest threat.

We therefore have hundreds of thousands of military surrounding the next biggest problem, Tehran: to the east and west, and on naval vessels in the Gulf, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. We just had joint maneuvers with the Indian Navy, the Japanese and the Aussies. In Qatar we have major bases. We just sold another 20 billion dollars worth of military equipment to Saudi and Oman, including anti-missile defenses. Farther away, Egypt and Jordan are American clients -- within limits. So, of course, is Israel. In sum, Tehran can be struck from most points of the compass by our air and missile forces. The Israeli Air Force just struck Iranian weapons located in the eastern corner of Syria, right next to Iran.

Iran is a rising threat, and no one knows how that scenario will play out. But would you really want to be Ahmadi-Nejad today? Every time he makes another wild boast, more people become convinced that he cannot be allowed to get nukes. The German government has just been reported as giving up on the European negotiation effort to stop Iranian nukes. Instead, German officials
 

"gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities."

It can't be comfortable to be a regime supporter in Tehran today.

Or would you want to be a Baathist general? A few years ago they were at the top of the heap.

The fact is that we are drastically weakening or destroying our terror-supporting enemies: Saddam is dead, Al Qaeda is being degraded, the Taliban are hemorrhaging, and the Mullahs are surrounded.

Yet all the know-nothings think there is no strategy for Iraq.

There's even a clever ironic twist in terms of domestic politics, because our liberals are constantly screaming Defeat! Defeat! Defeat!  That message of weakness and vulnerability inspires more and more of our enemies to come to Iraq and join in the bloody slaughter of Americans.

But when they get there, they discover they've been suckered. It's not the Americans who are taking a beating, but the jihadis who fell for the headlines and who listen to the American Left.  So even our malicious liberals end up encouraging the enemy to go to Iraq to die.

As President Harry Truman did, George W. Bush recognized the stakes, set in place the right strategy, and was vilified by critics as stupid. But good poker players like Harry S. Truman and George W. Bush know that you don't show your cards too soon, just to make people think you're smart.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

--

check out our blog at   http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

"Ponzi Man" Ray Davis and Hsu are kindred spirits

TCWatch note:  H. Clinton is giving back $850,000 of Hsu dirty money. Tennessee Democratic Party refused to give back their $58,000 Hsu money.

 

 

Hsu Ran With The Money
Captain's Quarters ^ | September 12, 2007 | Ed Morrissey
 

Posted on 09/12/2007 6:26:42 AM PDT by jdm

The Wall Street Journal has tracked down the source of Norman Hsu's cash, and the good news is that the People's Republic of China didn't provide the funds -- at least, not some of them. However, the bad news is that Hsu apparently moved from Ponzi schemes to outright embezzlement as a former Woodstock backer proved as inept at background checks as the Democratic Party:

New documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal may help point to an answer: A company controlled by Mr. Hsu recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969. That money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.

Mr. Hsu told Mr. Rosenman the money would be used to manufacture apparel in China for Gucci, Prada and other private labels, yielding a 40% profit on each deal, according to a business plan obtained by the Journal. Now the investment fund, Source Financing Investors, says Mr. Hsu's company owes it the $40 million, which represents 37 separate deals with Mr. Hsu's company. When Source Financing recently attempted to cash checks from the company, Components Ltd., the investors say they were told the account held insufficient funds.

Source Financing's arrangement with Mr. Hsu's company, according to court documents and investor accounts, echoes an older matter that came to light in recent weeks. In 1991, California officials charged Mr. Hsu with grand theft for failing to repay investors for money he raised to import latex gloves from China.

The Hillary Clinton campaign can stop the cash from going back to the bundled contributors. If Hsu stole $40 million, it explains how all of these families of modest means could afford to contribute eye-popping sums to her campaign and others. It also means that the FBI and Rosenman will want the money back.

This puts a brand new spin on the story, and a very bad development for the people through whom Hsu pushed these contributions. At a minimum, the donors who bundled Hsu's money face potential election-finance violations. The feds could add money laundering to the list of charges -- and since the money got sent around via wire transfers, wire fraud will likely get included. Finally, if the wire transfers show complicity to deceive, all of the contributors who participated may find themselves in the middle of a RICO prosecution, which could mean lengthy stretches in federal prison for everyone.

Furthermore, that would put the Democratic candidates and the organizations in a very uncomfortable position. The FBI would want to know just what involvement they had in Hsu's theft and subsequent manipulations of cash. While it would be unlikely that Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Eliot Spitzer, the DSCC, and a host of other candidates and organizations would have knowingly approved embezzlement, some of their staff members could potentially have participated in the illegal activities that assisted it. In any case, it hardly paints the Democrats in a good light to have to answer depositions in a fraud involving the theft of $40 million, dragged out over the next several months.

However, the story still has some deep mysteries. One of the reasons Rosenman trusted Hsu was the 40% profits he and others received from investments in Hsu's companies in 2000-2004. With these companies exposed as fronts, the question remains how Hsu made those profits, which sucked in Rosenman and others. Did some other deep-pocketed entity front the money for Hsu in order to thoroughly launder the cash? It seems like the perfect long con -- show some flash up front and steal big in the end, but it still requires someone to supply the up-front money.

And if that was the point, why would Hsu bring all of this attention to himself by engaging in high-profile political fundraising? If theft was the point, it makes no sense. If influence and money-laundering was the point, who intended to benefit from it? Rosenman has his own connections to the Clintons and others. Who fronted Hsu?

Hsu's still an enigma. Now, however, we have literally hundreds of potential co-conspirators who will vie for the opportunity to mitigate their legal exposure and testify to Hsu's machinations. The FBI will not act gently, either, and neither will the IRS, which will undoubtedly recheck the returns of all involved in an effort to track the money themselves.

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

repubs demand resignation after DUI arrest

Republicans demand resignation of Rep. Briley after DUI arrest

Report: Briley finished drink at gunpoint after 100 mph chase

By Jim Balloch , Tom Humphrey
Originally published 11:21 a.m., September 10, 2007
Updated 05:09 p.m., September 10, 2007

Rob Briley

Related documents

View documents related to State Rep. Rob Briley's arrest
• The arrest report
• Affidavit of complaint: Evading arrest
• Affidavit of complaint: DUI
• Affidavit of complaint: Implied consent

Republican leaders are calling for state Rep. Rob Briley to resign after his arrest for drunken driving over the weekend, a partisan move House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh called "pretty lowlife."

A heavily intoxicated Briley, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, fled the scene of an accident in DeKalb County on Saturday afternoon, then led police in Wilson County on a 100-mile-an-hour chase before finally stopping, according to police reports and court documents.

The Nashville Democrat was arrested at gunpoint after stopping his SUV in the middle of the road and is alleged to have kicked the window of a patrol car while in custody.

Briley, 40, a lawyer, was booked at the Wilson County jail shortly before 6 p.m. on charges of DUI, evading arrest and violation of the implied consent law.

Naifeh said today that Briley suffers from alcoholism, was in treatment last fall and is preparing to enter treatment again. "I will do everything I possibly can to help Rob Briley down the road to recovery," he said.

Briley is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. House rules require that a legislator indicted by a grand jury on felony charges be removed from leadership positions. The charges against Briley are contained in warrants and have not been reviewed by a grand jury yet. All the charges are misdemeanors except for the evading arrest charge.

According to state law (TCA 39-16-603), it is a Class E felony to evade arrest in a motor vehicle and a Class D felony if the attempt to flee in a motor vehicle "creates a risk of death or injury to innocent bystanders or other third parties."

In cases of misdemeanors, it is up to Naifeh to decide whether Briley will lose a leadership position. Naifeh, speaking to reporters this afternoon, said he will wait until more information is available — and until he has talked with Briley following rehabilitation treatment — to make any decision on the Nashville lawmaker's status.

House Republican Caucus Chairman Glen Casada, meanwhile, issued a statement saying that Briley should resign from the Legislature. A similar statement was issued by state Republican Chairman Robin Smith.

Says Casada: "As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I submit that Rep. Briley is held to an even higher standard as his committee is directly responsible for preventing this type of crime. As an attorney, he knows full well that his actions were a blatant violation of the law and were not fitting for a state representative. His district deserves better. Tennessee deserves better."

Naifeh said he was aware of "naysayers" who were attempting to turn Briley's situation to partisan advantage.

"I think that's pretty lowlife. I have absolutely no use for those people," said Naifeh.

According to warrants filed in Wilson County Sessions Court, Briley was clocked at 72 mph in a 45-mph zone of Sparta Pike.

Watertown Police Department Officer Ricky Lucy fell in behind the speeding Nissan SUV and turned on his blue lights and siren.

Briley glanced back, then sped up, reaching speeds of more than 100 miles per hour, according to the arrest report filed by Lucy.

When Briley finally stopped in the middle of the road, Lucy and another officer approached the vehicle with guns drawn.

Briley got out of the vehicle with his hands raised, but then went back to the SUV and drank from a blue plastic cup, Lucy's report stated.

Briley "had a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage … also had red watery eyes," failed a field sobriety test and appeared to be in a "high level of intoxication," according to the warrants signed by Lucy.

Briley complained to the arresting officers of injuries to his hand and elbow and said he had been taking anti-depressant medicine that occasionally made him dizzy.

Lucy said in his report that he began to give Briley field sobriety tests but that Briley was so unstable on his feet that "I felt any further (testing) would be dangerous."

An empty bottle of Maker's Mark and bottles of medication were found inside the vehicle, according to the report.

In connection with a traffic accident that occurred earlier in DeKalb County, Briley has been cited by the Tennessee Highway Patrol for leaving the scene of an accident, following too closely and failure to give notice of an accident, THP spokesman Mike Browning confirmed today.

In that accident, a 2005 Nissan SUV hit the rear end of a pickup truck on Highway 70 in Dowell Town.

Witnesses in the pickup truck told troopers that the SUV then made a U-turn and left the scene, Browning said.

There were no injuries. The final report of that accident was not immediately available.

Briley was released to the custody of his mother, GeAnne Briley, shortly after 11 p.m. on Saturday. He did not have to post bond. A court date is set for Oct. 31 at 9 a.m. in Wilson County Sessions Court.

He was rearrested today on a charge of vandalism in connection with an estimated $1,500 damage caused when he allegedly kicked the patrol car window.

Briley, grandson of the late Nashville Mayor Beverly Briley, is one of the Legislature's most powerful members. Besides chairing the Judiciary Committee, which deals with all bills involving the criminal justice system, he is a member of the House Ethics Committee and played a central role in shaping ethics legislation that was enacted by the General Assembly last year.

The judiciary committee is scheduled to review a proposal to overhaul of the state's drunken-driving laws next year. Briley has asked the sponsors of several DUI-related proposals to delay their bills in lieu of a comprehensive DUI bill.

Briley is also a member of the powerful House Finance Committee, which rules on all bills that involve spending or taxes. This year, he sponsored 67 bills — 10 of which became law.

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

Appeasement & Surrender in the War on Terror

TCWatch note: The following story illustrates the pitfalls of the Democrat's Plan of Appeasement and Surrender in the War on Terror.

 The Fall of Europe and Birth of Eurabia

by Alexis K

I spent my childhood in the USA and my entire adulthood until now, from 21 to present, some 12 years, in Europe. I lived in more European countries than most Europeans have visited. I speak more European languages than most Europeans knew existed. This year, just a few months ago, I returned to USA because after travelling to Asia on extensive business and spending time in the USA on business, I realised Europe was finally dead.

In every sense of the word Europe is a dead continent. There is a gloomy future awaiting Europeans who have chosen a path, albeit for different reasons, of appeasement and surrender; similar to the position they initially took during the Nazi era.

I will openly state that I compare the socio-political movement of Islamism to Nazism. I will say this despite the political left and their vocal protestations and accusations that in saying this I am the very thing I accuse Islamists of being; a Nazi. I will back up what I say with fact; more than the left can do to debunk what I say.

Firstly and foremost Islamism is not merely a religion, it seeks to be a political entity unless otherwise banned from doing so; the most significant example being Turkey where separation of religion and government is law. Yes other nations claim to be "secular" Islamic nations but this is in fact not true. Malaysia has a quota system and as with every other "good Islamic" nation the people of Malaysia who belong to the minority groups are subjugated, even though they manage to persevere and excel in the society DESPITE quota laws and laws forcing them to convert if they marry a Muslim, laws making higher education harder for them to achieve, and in short, being subjugated as per Islamist belief and doctrine. Malaysia, a good Islamic nation, also regularly denigrates Israel and world Jewry as their former PM continues to do, just as did Hitler and his Reich, and yet nobody ostracises them, or is quite yet willing to say: "You are not welcome in the world community with such thoughts and statements!" This again showing the repetition of the past.

Like Nazism you will see Islam seeks to force its culture on all others holding fast to the belief that IT and only IT is the right path and the right way of life. Nazis too believed this. As with Nazism, Jews are enemy number one. As with Nazism, whereas "Bolshevism" was the political enemy number one in terms of governmental systems, Capitalism has replaced this in the Islamist ideology. The Nazis believed America was grotesque due to the fact that it was a "melting pot"; the Muslims believe America and the West are grotesque because of the freedoms and liberties we afford everyone---and as with Nazism, Islamism also professes that the Jews rule "the world" by proxy, a fact so far from true that if ever the Islamic culture stopped wallowing in self-pity and started following the example of the Jews who assimilated as much as they could anywhere they could and tried twice as hard to get half as far, perhaps the Muslim world would not be as disenfranchised as they are but rather would be attaining some of the tremendous success that Jews and their culture of peace and education have allotted them.

Like Nazism who fed the masses and offered them hope so that their crimes would be overlooked, so too do extreme Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah; herein they recruit the young by offering them education and all that they would otherwise be deprived of due to the corruption and disarray of their countries and in doing this and feeding and putting the parents to work, they find little protest and an atmosphere conducive to preaching their vile hatred and raising a generation willing to die for their ideology.

Just as Nazism did, Islamism preys on the weak and disenfranchised a situation that in Germany was caused by the Treaty of Versailles but in the Muslim nations was caused by the rise of Oligarchs and Oil Tycoons. Just like Nazism Islamism also preys on the age old anti-Semitism (and yes, we all know many Arabs are Semites but we also know the term is used vernacularly to refer to Jew haters.).

Nazism and Islamism violently condemn homosexuality while it is an intricate part of both "cultures". Nazism sought to take over the world and subjugate humans into groups according to their "genetic" worth and Islamism seeks to take over the world subjugating humans in accordance to their religious worthiness.

So this is the first part of how Europe has fallen; it yields, it yielded to the Nazis until it was too late; in fact most countries were not only adopting policies of appeasement but ONLY disagreed with being invaded. Once invaded, however, willingly assisted the Nazis in the gruesome task of annihilating European Jewry; without their help it never could have happened. Ironically, the few countries that protested are also among the few that are protesting the rise of Islamism in Europe today, Denmark for one is a great example. The Netherlands is a mixed example as they actually had a very tolerant history toward the Jews yet in the end had the highest per capita death rates and among the most voracious Jew hunters in Europe. On the other hand, they too had many that opposed what was happening due to their history of tolerance and due to that same history today they are standing up against Islam and being called racists for not tolerating the intolerant.

So how do I assert that Europe is dead? How do I state that Europe has fallen when the Euro is admittedly stronger than the US Dollar, when Europe still has a voice in world matters, or so they think, and when Europeans still feel as if they live on the greatest continent on Earth?

Well for one thing I lived in socialism of which almost every European country is. In fact, I lived in the "so-called" best example of the success of social-democratic states; Sweden. Let me tell you----it is a BIG lie. The reason people do not catch on is because Sweden is a relatively inconsequential nation and very few eyes are focused on it and therefore self-reporting is what the world relies on to ascertain the quality of life. Also people are taught from birth the saying "Sverige är fantastiskt" or "Sweden is fantastic", so when polls are taken Swedes overwhelmingly vote for how great their lives are. The reality is far from the statistics. Jobs are hard to find and I, a dark haired girl from USA, first encountered racism in Sweden; NOT USA. To skew the polls the government "re-schools" adults who are too young to go into early pensions and sends those old enough into early pension thereby making unemployment rates look significantly lower than what they are. Taxes are punitive in nature and can go past 60% on income depending upon what community you live in and how much you earn and tax on services and goods are an additional 25%. Despite the draconian taxation you STILL pay to go to the doctor and unless you are rather sickly, you will pay for your medicines---in fact more than with most US insurance policies. Medications only get cheaper as you reach your yearly "deductible", but nobody tells you this. Dentistry is not free, nor is doctors visits as pointed out and furthermore if you need a specialist you may die waiting as the shortage of doctors is so severe that they often are resorting to sending people to other communities or even countries for care; and this is happening all around Europe, in fact, despite draconian taxation, half of Europe is implementing "forced" privatised health care, I know a man in Germany paying more for his health care than I am for my policy in USA.

To paint a picture of life in Sweden I would call it gloomy and depressing. Most people work to just get to their state pensions, take seven breaks a day and leave punctually at the designated time. Most Swedes and Northern Europeans in general, save all year for their holiday and go on one holiday in the SUMMER time and then take almost the entire summer off essentially closing down the countries, which by and large do not have consumer friendly business hours anyway. The holidays usually consist of tacky charter vacations that put you up in sub-standard resorts which are surrounded by your countrymen and even the natives have learned your language so as to be able to squeeze the few Euros/Kronor you have to spend. Restaurants are set up to cater to your homelands cuisine and culture, and most resorts offer kitchens because most people are called "paper bag tourists" meaning they are too poor to spend money to go out every night so instead go shopping for food and alcohol to save money and prepare most meals at home.

Day to day life in Europe is even gloomier. People are paid monthly, coincidentally on the day before most direct debits are taken for their bills from their accounts. Young couples and younger people usually can go out the first weekend, one night on the second weekend, stay in the third weekend, and live on pasta and whatever else is left over until the cycle starts again. The older generations tend to have slightly more disposable income but then again, they usually are not out a lot.

Now let us move on to the left wing and their dominant role in European society, and the post Holocaust beneficiaries; the Muslims.

After the wilful participation of almost every European nation and the "turning a blind eye" by the world community, six million Jews, people who contributed for centuries incredible amounts to European culture, were hunted, numbered, annihilated in the most systematic, widespread and organised killing machines ever known to man. Europe loves to hate Germany for what happened; but barring Denmark, Bulgaria, Italy (even under Mussolini), and the odd exception, Europeans willingly partook, in fact gleefully partook in the mass murder of European Jews. Without the collaboration of each nation it could never have happened. When Norway, an occupied land demanded their "Jews" be returned, the only time other than when Oscar Schindler managed to get his "Jews" back, the Germans acquiesced to Norwegian demands and brought the Norwegian Jews out of the mouth of Auschwitz and to Thereisenstadt where most survived. Denmark saved all its Jewish population, Bulgaria refused to give up its Jewish population and thus they were never deported. All it took was NO…and it never would have happened. So Europe first and foremost must own its collective guilt in this disgusting crime before it re-writes history and teaches its grandchildren how evil the "Germans" were; they were far from alone.

Having emptied Europe of its Jews, driving some who could out, murdering the rest and the few survivors being met with disdain rather than compassion, the UK and the world were left with no choice but to do what should have been done LONG before WWII, in fact should have been done as per the Balfour Agreement; create a Jewish state in the ancestral homeland of the Jews; Palestine.

Palestine, by the way, since most Europeans do not know this, was never a prosperous, wonderful country of peaceful Palestinian Muslims. Palestine was home to many Jews, Druze, Christians and Muslims. Muslims who mainly moved into the land during the Ottoman Empire as well as the "British Mandate" who saw to that they kept Jews out to appease the majority of their imperial conquest; the middle east, and yet allowed numerous Muslims from trans-Jordan and "French Mandate" to move into the region. The Palestinians as such only came to be in the 19th century. Jews born in Palestine called themselves Palestinians until Israel was created. The History of Israel's creation has been so badly misrepresented by the European press that a complete re-education would be necessary to "un-indoctrinate" Europeans whose bias against Israel is so great there is almost a Pavlovian tone to it.

The left has managed to make most Europeans believe that European Jews were given someone else's land to forcefully take over and expel them and constantly subjugate and kill them. Funny since Israel offered citizenship to ANY Muslim or person living in the area designated to them when the division occurred. Yet the Muslim world simultaneously attacked the new State of Israel and lost embarrassingly, to a group of emaciated concentration camp survivors. It is also never discussed as to why nobody has cried for the Jews land in Europe and all over the Arab world to be returned to them; most of which was confiscated. Nor has it been addressed as to why Israel took in Jews from anywhere and never demanded "the land" they lived on in the other countries for centuries back to be returned but merely went on to create one of the most powerful countries militarily to protect themselves and the only democracy in the region where Knesset members are MUSLIM as well as Jewish, more than almost any Islamic nation can say about Jewish rights in their countries. Most of all, why did the so called Palestinians never get citizenship in the countries they fled to as did the Jews who fled to Israel? Is their no brotherly love among Muslims? Is their hatred universal? Or perhaps, like the left in Europe, the Palestinians lack of citizenship is created to enable a conflict designed to take back the tiny strip of land which just as rightfully belongs to the Jews who lived there for centuries, and the many that were expatriated centuries ago as it would to a group of nomads who wandered upon it within the last two centuries.

So the European dilemma today is traced back to the Holocaust. The emptying of European Jewry left a massive void. It also left a shortage of workers, and a PR nightmare. How would Europe rectify its image as the most racist continent in the world where the most heinous genocide was allowed to occur to one of the perfect welfare state and the champion of the underdog and a racially open continent? Well to begin with the void, completely lacking forethought as to the nationalistic nature of Europeans, was filled by left wing politicians inviting guest workers to fill the voids; Germany the Turks, Netherlands the Moroccans and for political correctness UK and France invited in all those from their former colonies; Scandinavia opened its doors with no more "Jew Quotas" but rather an open hand and heart…not to mention wallet, to anyone claiming to need asylum from the Islamic world.

This demographic shift was a triumph for the rehabilitation of Europe's world reputation, but a disaster in the making. Integration, once the only way a Jew could make it in "Old Europe" (not George W's old Europe, but old Europe as in pre WWII Europe), was now an option most Muslims opted out of. Religion, once the driving force of nationalism and anti-semitism, was dying in Europe, as too were national identities. The people in Europe increasingly hated the Muslims but the politicians continued the path of "the perfect welfare state and humanitarian high roaders". The clash was brewing.

By the time European politicians woke up to see what they had created it was and is too late. The "Welfare State" is a myth, perpetuated by the lack of self-examination and external examination due to the lack of significance of the most allegedly successful welfare states; their obscurity does not exactly cause the world to examine them so self reporting is taken as gospel. The welfare state is a failure in almost every European nation and this is proven by the lack of jobs, lack of hope, high taxes and lack of service seen throughout Europe along with mounting self-reliance by force which is the new way of enforcing socialism in Europe. Forced private pensions, forced health insurance policies, and for those who do not have to pay for a policy, they pay in other ways.

Europe also woke up to a left wing who hated the Muslims but blamed their "troubles" on Israel. "See they are as bad as we are, look how they treat the Muslims". A war cry far from the truth, but a-la Goebbels, a lie big enough that the European populace swallows it whole- a sad reminder of a sad past.

The hatred of Jews is almost inbred in Europe, so to take that hatred and aim it toward Israel to disguise the real motive; anti-semitism, is not a surprise. To blame Islamism on Israel and America's policies, infinitely more fair than Europe's, toward Israel, is certainly another step on the path of Europe's dying continent. Europeans no longer have to hate Jews, the people they hate most, the Muslims, do it for them. The violence is committed by proxy, and the hatred is flamed by European anti-semitism and passivity toward radicalism. Just as with the Nazis, it is easier to appease the violent and blame the victims and hope to not become a victim than to stand up and have beliefs and have values.

Today, all over Europe, Islam is holding Europeans hostage. Politicians petrified to utter words similar to the PM of Australia who clearly told radical Islamists that if they did not like the culture, want to dress and act like the culture, they had no place IN the culture. This message should be emigrating 101….not something politicians are petrified to utter to disenfranchised third generation children of immigrants in their countries.

One can ask where all the worry of offending Jews or Hindus was in countries like the UK who are now afraid of wearing crucifixes as not to "offend" Muslims, who are afraid of placing nativity scenes in public spaces due to offending Muslims by using taxpayers money, or debate whether or not to allow "halal" (the Muslim equivalent of Kosher) to be served in schools to appease Muslims. Where was all this worry for the Jews? The Hindus? Buddhists? It was not there because there was no fear that in not asking these questions one might have a bus explode or a plane flown into a building or a city set afire.

Europe is dead, and it is dying every day. It replaced 6 million Jews whose progeny would have been contributing members of society with millions of ingrates who only want to destroy the culture that give them the very freedom to do so. They traded greed for socialism; never realising that there is indeed an in between. They have traded progress for regression, going back to days of appeasement and leftist ideology. Europe is dying, or perhaps Europe is already dead.

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.