A TrollCast on the Circus CNN called a Debate
Debate
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Terrorist Summit
As the majority of the leaders of the Middle East meet in Annapolis Md. to try and work out plans for peace,(which is a joke in itself) another summit is about to take place. Imamadjihad has called for his surrogate minions of death to join him in the heart of Terror, Tehran.
Iran to host militants for 'alternative' Mideast meet
Iran said on Tuesday that it had invited Palestinian militant factions to a meeting in Tehran aimed at countering a US-hosted Middle East peace conference seeking to kickstart the peace process.
"These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling for the freedom of their land," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.
Iran is one of the most vocal backers of Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and pledged millions of dollars in 2006 to the then Hamas government crippled by a Western aid cut.
The Islamic republic does not recognise Israel and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provoked outrage by calling for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.
Elham indicated the Tehran meeting would be a riposte to the conference bringing together Israeli and Palestinian leaders which started in Annapolis outside Washington on Tuesday.
"It means that the Annapolis conference is not representing the Palestinians and not talking on their behalf, but on the contrary is moving against their rights," he said.
More than a dozen Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran's top regional ally Syria, have sent representatives, leaving Tehran conspicuously isolated.
On Monday Ahmadinejad told Saudi King Abdullah in a telephone call that he "wished" the kingdom was not taking part in the peace conference.
Tehran's arch foe Washington, which is hosting the meeting, dismissed the Iranian criticism as "not surprising," and charged that Tehran backs the extremists sidelined by the talks.
Iran
Iran to host militants for 'alternative' Mideast meet
Iran said on Tuesday that it had invited Palestinian militant factions to a meeting in Tehran aimed at countering a US-hosted Middle East peace conference seeking to kickstart the peace process.
"These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling for the freedom of their land," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.
Iran is one of the most vocal backers of Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and pledged millions of dollars in 2006 to the then Hamas government crippled by a Western aid cut.
The Islamic republic does not recognise Israel and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provoked outrage by calling for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.
Elham indicated the Tehran meeting would be a riposte to the conference bringing together Israeli and Palestinian leaders which started in Annapolis outside Washington on Tuesday.
"It means that the Annapolis conference is not representing the Palestinians and not talking on their behalf, but on the contrary is moving against their rights," he said.
More than a dozen Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran's top regional ally Syria, have sent representatives, leaving Tehran conspicuously isolated.
On Monday Ahmadinejad told Saudi King Abdullah in a telephone call that he "wished" the kingdom was not taking part in the peace conference.
Tehran's arch foe Washington, which is hosting the meeting, dismissed the Iranian criticism as "not surprising," and charged that Tehran backs the extremists sidelined by the talks.
Iran
Monday, November 26, 2007
Don't let the door hit you in the ASS on the way out!
Lott a career politician that has done some good over the years, but who has become a major part of the problem in the Republican Party. The icing on the cake was his attack on Talk Radio because they led the charge to stop Idiots like Lott from granting AMNESTY to 30 Million ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Lott Says He'll Resign by End of Year
Nov 26 01:28 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and JACK ELLIOTT JR.
Associated Press Writers
PASCAGOULA, Miss. (AP) - Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, announced Monday he will retire from the Senate before January, ending a 35-year career in Congress in which he rose to his party's top Senate job only to lose it over a remark interpreted as support for segregation.
"It's time for us to do something else," Lott said, speaking for himself and his wife Tricia at a news conference.
Lott, 66, said he had notified President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Sunday about his plans. Barbour, a Republican, will name someone to temporarily replace Lott.
"There are no problems. I feel fine," Lott said.
Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, who helped broker a bipartisan immigration bill that went down to defeat this year despite President Bush's support for it, will run to replace Lott as the Republicans' vote-counting whip, said spokesman Ryan Patmintra.
Lott described his 16 years in the House and 19 in the Senate "a wild ride—and one that I'm proud of."
He said he was leaving with "no anger, no malice."
Lott's colleagues elected him as the Senate's Republican whip last year, a redemption for the Mississippian after his ouster five years ago as the party's Senate leader over remarks he made at retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Lott had saluted the South Carolina senator with comments later interpreted as support for southern segregationist policies.
Asked about his conversation Sunday with President Bush, Lott said, "He was very kind in his remarks. Over the years we've had our ups and downs, good times and bad times, both of us."
Bush did not stand behind Lott after his remarks about Thurmond, increasing pressure on the lawmaker to step down from the No. 1 Senate job.
"He said that he felt like I'd be missed in my role" as Senate minority whip, Lott said.
After the 2006 elections, when Democrats recaptured the Senate, Lott was put in charge of lining up and counting Republican votes as whip, the No. 2 job behind minority leader Mitch McConnell.
Lott, who said he wanted "to be able to leave on a positive note," said he began thinking about retiring in August. His term runs through 2012.
His 2006 comeback was an apt outlet for the Mississippian's talents. He was the rare majority leader who seemed to relish the vote- wrangling duties that some of his predecessors loathed.
Lott becomes the sixth Senate Republican this year to announce retirement. Democrats effectively hold a 51-49 majority in the chamber, including two independents who align themselves with Democrats. His retirement means that Republicans will have to defend 23 seats in next year's election, while Democrats have only 12 seats at stake.
Lott expressed some frustration with the pace of progress on legislation under Democratic leadership, and said it was clearly better to be in the majority.
Republicans like Trent Lott are the reason that the Democrats have control. He is the picture perfect representation of a Conservative corrupted by Beltway Ietus. This old ass has no passion, no ability to lead, no spine to fight, and is just a waste of a Senate Seat. He was wronged and railroded over his comments to Strom Thurman, but has gotten away with being a poster child for every thing thats wrong with our party. People like Lott are so deeply rooted in their state political machine that the only way to remove them is death.(natural of course) They control the political machines, the money, and the agenda. As long as his ilk continue to dominate the party we are doomed!
Lott
Lott Says He'll Resign by End of Year
Nov 26 01:28 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and JACK ELLIOTT JR.
Associated Press Writers
PASCAGOULA, Miss. (AP) - Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, announced Monday he will retire from the Senate before January, ending a 35-year career in Congress in which he rose to his party's top Senate job only to lose it over a remark interpreted as support for segregation.
"It's time for us to do something else," Lott said, speaking for himself and his wife Tricia at a news conference.
Lott, 66, said he had notified President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Sunday about his plans. Barbour, a Republican, will name someone to temporarily replace Lott.
"There are no problems. I feel fine," Lott said.
Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, who helped broker a bipartisan immigration bill that went down to defeat this year despite President Bush's support for it, will run to replace Lott as the Republicans' vote-counting whip, said spokesman Ryan Patmintra.
Lott described his 16 years in the House and 19 in the Senate "a wild ride—and one that I'm proud of."
He said he was leaving with "no anger, no malice."
Lott's colleagues elected him as the Senate's Republican whip last year, a redemption for the Mississippian after his ouster five years ago as the party's Senate leader over remarks he made at retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Lott had saluted the South Carolina senator with comments later interpreted as support for southern segregationist policies.
Asked about his conversation Sunday with President Bush, Lott said, "He was very kind in his remarks. Over the years we've had our ups and downs, good times and bad times, both of us."
Bush did not stand behind Lott after his remarks about Thurmond, increasing pressure on the lawmaker to step down from the No. 1 Senate job.
"He said that he felt like I'd be missed in my role" as Senate minority whip, Lott said.
After the 2006 elections, when Democrats recaptured the Senate, Lott was put in charge of lining up and counting Republican votes as whip, the No. 2 job behind minority leader Mitch McConnell.
Lott, who said he wanted "to be able to leave on a positive note," said he began thinking about retiring in August. His term runs through 2012.
His 2006 comeback was an apt outlet for the Mississippian's talents. He was the rare majority leader who seemed to relish the vote- wrangling duties that some of his predecessors loathed.
Lott becomes the sixth Senate Republican this year to announce retirement. Democrats effectively hold a 51-49 majority in the chamber, including two independents who align themselves with Democrats. His retirement means that Republicans will have to defend 23 seats in next year's election, while Democrats have only 12 seats at stake.
Lott expressed some frustration with the pace of progress on legislation under Democratic leadership, and said it was clearly better to be in the majority.
Republicans like Trent Lott are the reason that the Democrats have control. He is the picture perfect representation of a Conservative corrupted by Beltway Ietus. This old ass has no passion, no ability to lead, no spine to fight, and is just a waste of a Senate Seat. He was wronged and railroded over his comments to Strom Thurman, but has gotten away with being a poster child for every thing thats wrong with our party. People like Lott are so deeply rooted in their state political machine that the only way to remove them is death.(natural of course) They control the political machines, the money, and the agenda. As long as his ilk continue to dominate the party we are doomed!
Lott
Friday, November 23, 2007
Over 10,000 Acts of Terror since 9-11
click on number
The Religion of Peace has committed over 10,000 acts of terror since 9-11.
This seems to be something that is being ignored by The Main Stream Press, The Democrats, and for the most part The Republicans. I ask you my fellow non-jihadists why do you think that is. I don't have the answer. I can make a few guesses.
The MSM is ignoring that number because they no longer do their job, which is to inform the people. Instead they believe they are a branch of the government or a political party that is both unaccountable and un-reproachable for their actions, or the lack there of. Addressing the FACTS is no longer part of their job description. Instead the have de-evolved into subhuman Elitist leaches sucking on the Tit of society. Providing nothing back except what they feel they can shape to their benefit and agenda. When was the last time a "Reporter" held a Politician to a Yes or No answer?
The Democrats as a party have completely adopted the communist socialist agenda as their heart and platform. Everything for everybody, and we will tax the rich to give it to you. Never mind that that system has been proven to fail every where in the world that it has been implemented. They will do it and make it work, and if you disagree your a neo-con bigot that hates your fellow man. They don't have the nerve to admit that they are socialists. No they're "Progressives" and the sad part is most people are to stupid to even look up the fact that that term means socialist/communism. The entire party would make Lenin proud.
The Republicans aren't much better. They also have lost their soul, and have become Democrat Lite. No longer does the party stand for smaller government, less taxes, and moral value. They are worst than the Democrats because they are lost. The Dems know what they are, they just don't want to tell you. The Republicans on the other hand no longer know who, or what they are. Swallowed by the greed of earmarks and the power they can no longer even speak out against things that they know are wrong. They fear the loss of their seat more than they fear watching their constituents die at the hands of some crazed idiot screaming Allah Akbar. Even more simply they fear what will be written about them in the NY Times rather than the wrath of the voter.
For that matter why should either party fear the voter? The only people that vote are the loyalists. People who wouldn't change their vote if the person on the other side was Jesus or the person on their side was Bin Laden.
Where does all this leave us? A drift in a sea of wretched refuse with a bulls eye on our backs for the Jihadis. Who, let me say it again, have committed over 10,000 acts of terror since 9-11. They enemy cares nothing for our internal rifts. To them we are all the targets. We are the unbelievers, the ones who must submit or die.
Rome is about to burn and we are awash in fiddlers.
TERROR
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Monica Lewinski has the same "Experience" as Hillary
Other than a wedding ring Monica Lewinski can claim the same experience as Hillary with the presidency. They both serviced Bill Clinton after all, and Hillary can not prove she did anything more than Monica.
Hillary's Faux Experience
By Tony Blankley
Having spent much of my adult life in politics, it would be silly at this late date to be shocked by the discovery of insincerity and misleading statements coming from leading candidates for president. But if I have seen too much of the world to be shocked, at least I still can be appalled. And the gentle lady, the junior senator from the Empire State continues to appall.
Consider the following Associated Press story from earlier this week:
"The economy needs help and fast, Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Monday, claiming the experience for the job and saying the nation can't afford to break in a newcomer. ...
"'There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for -- our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history,' Clinton said. 'Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting.'"
For months, Clinton has hinted that Obama, less than three years into his first term, lacks the preparation to deal with U.S. foreign policy challenges. In Monday's address, she suggested the nation's budget deficit, income inequality and lack of comprehensive health coverage also required a more experienced steward.
"We need a president who understands the magnitude and complexity of the challenges we face and has the strength and experience to address them from day one," she said.
Good grief. What plausible claim does Miss Hillary have to experience in managing a national economy, balancing a budget or fixing income inequality? Even on health care, according to her husband, the aspiring "first louse" (he wants to be called first laddie, but I think the derivation from first spouse works better) claims that she didn't have much to do with Hillary Care -- it was his fault.
Is the national media actually going to accept without even a murmur of skepticism Hillary Clinton's claim to possess all the experience gained by her husband as president? If Obama (or for that matter any other candidate in either party) were to claim such experience, a reporter might well ask him on what basis he claims such experience. And by the way, the same charge can be laid at Giuliani (a candidate I am more favorably disposed toward) when he claims experience in foreign policy. While I like his general attitude on foreign policy, he doesn't in fact have experience or expertise in the matter.
This is an important point. There is a difference between a candidate having a particular policy and having experience in managing such a policy. If Hillary claims she has the best ideas about our national economy, she is entitled to claim that. Socialists will agree; capitalists will disagree. But she should not be allowed to claim, without media correction, that she has experience at managing the national economy.
If I were advising a candidate who was running against her, I would lay into her loudly and often with a challenge to her claim of experience. If she actually was managing the national economy from 1993-2000 from her perch as wife of the president, let her release White House documents showing her active participation in such management. When I worked in the Reagan White House, I wrote hundreds of memos on my areas of responsibility. There was a paper trail. If Hillary actually was doing what she implies she was doing, there will be a long paper trail of memos that she either wrote or commented upon.
For example, some of the documents stolen from the National Archives by Sandy Berger, Hillary's national security advisor (I suppose, following Hillary's claim, Bill's appointees also should be considered hers) are believed to be documents written by others with presidential comments in the margin. Let's have Hillary release all the national economic management documents written by her economic advisors with her comments in the margins. Let's see the option memoranda with her decisions indicated or even her own memoranda addressed to the president on the topic. At the minimum, let's see the memoranda produced by economists from the first lady's staff on the topic.
But of course, this is all risible because back during her husband's presidency, she never even claimed to be involved in managing the national economy. Isn't it time for The Washington Post to do one of its excellent deep research pieces in which they review in detail what substantive issues Hillary was deeply involved in from 1993-2000? Other than keeping an eye on Bill, let's find out at what else she actually has experience.
By Tony Blankley
Having spent much of my adult life in politics, it would be silly at this late date to be shocked by the discovery of insincerity and misleading statements coming from leading candidates for president. But if I have seen too much of the world to be shocked, at least I still can be appalled. And the gentle lady, the junior senator from the Empire State continues to appall.
Consider the following Associated Press story from earlier this week:
"The economy needs help and fast, Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Monday, claiming the experience for the job and saying the nation can't afford to break in a newcomer. ...
"'There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for -- our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history,' Clinton said. 'Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting.'"
For months, Clinton has hinted that Obama, less than three years into his first term, lacks the preparation to deal with U.S. foreign policy challenges. In Monday's address, she suggested the nation's budget deficit, income inequality and lack of comprehensive health coverage also required a more experienced steward.
"We need a president who understands the magnitude and complexity of the challenges we face and has the strength and experience to address them from day one," she said.
Good grief. What plausible claim does Miss Hillary have to experience in managing a national economy, balancing a budget or fixing income inequality? Even on health care, according to her husband, the aspiring "first louse" (he wants to be called first laddie, but I think the derivation from first spouse works better) claims that she didn't have much to do with Hillary Care -- it was his fault.
Is the national media actually going to accept without even a murmur of skepticism Hillary Clinton's claim to possess all the experience gained by her husband as president? If Obama (or for that matter any other candidate in either party) were to claim such experience, a reporter might well ask him on what basis he claims such experience. And by the way, the same charge can be laid at Giuliani (a candidate I am more favorably disposed toward) when he claims experience in foreign policy. While I like his general attitude on foreign policy, he doesn't in fact have experience or expertise in the matter.
This is an important point. There is a difference between a candidate having a particular policy and having experience in managing such a policy. If Hillary claims she has the best ideas about our national economy, she is entitled to claim that. Socialists will agree; capitalists will disagree. But she should not be allowed to claim, without media correction, that she has experience at managing the national economy.
If I were advising a candidate who was running against her, I would lay into her loudly and often with a challenge to her claim of experience. If she actually was managing the national economy from 1993-2000 from her perch as wife of the president, let her release White House documents showing her active participation in such management. When I worked in the Reagan White House, I wrote hundreds of memos on my areas of responsibility. There was a paper trail. If Hillary actually was doing what she implies she was doing, there will be a long paper trail of memos that she either wrote or commented upon.
For example, some of the documents stolen from the National Archives by Sandy Berger, Hillary's national security advisor (I suppose, following Hillary's claim, Bill's appointees also should be considered hers) are believed to be documents written by others with presidential comments in the margin. Let's have Hillary release all the national economic management documents written by her economic advisors with her comments in the margins. Let's see the option memoranda with her decisions indicated or even her own memoranda addressed to the president on the topic. At the minimum, let's see the memoranda produced by economists from the first lady's staff on the topic.
But of course, this is all risible because back during her husband's presidency, she never even claimed to be involved in managing the national economy. Isn't it time for The Washington Post to do one of its excellent deep research pieces in which they review in detail what substantive issues Hillary was deeply involved in from 1993-2000? Other than keeping an eye on Bill, let's find out at what else she actually has experience.
Hillary
A Good Read
Post-Christian faith is rooted in fear that "Mother Nature" is weak, vulnerable, and yet full of violent retributive possibilities that must be assuaged by great sacrifices humbly offered by people under the influence of the new priesthood of international regulators.
The United Nations is now the arbiter of truth and our only hope of saving the planet.
The United Nations is Always Right
By Maggie Gallagher
Last week, the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, issued a new warning on global warming that began with this sentence: "We all agree. Climate change is real, and we humans are its chief cause ... we are on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act."
Just a few days later the United Nations released a new report in which it confessed its previous estimate of AIDS cases worldwide was inflated by more than 6 million sick people. In India alone, the number of AIDS patients estimated by the United Nations dropped by more than half, from 6 million to 3 million.
"They've finally got caught with their pants down," Dr. Jim Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley and a former staffer at the World Health Organization, told The Associated Press.
The old, false U.N. numbers were the result of an obviously bad methodology, especially in India; prevalence rates among women in urban clinics were imputed to the population as a whole, thereby oversampling AIDS-prone prostitutes, addicts and people with multiple sexual partners.
So why did the U.N. scientists go with the bad data? According to professor Chin, U.N. officials were reluctant to admit fewer people were infected because that might translate into less funding to fight AIDS, which continues to devastate millions worldwide.
They fudged the data in order to inspire the masses to good actions, in other words.
As far as I can tell, the United Nations is like just about any other large bureaucratic institution -- a mixed body of people and ideals that does some good and is at least as susceptible to corruption as any other human thing. But in Europe, faith in the United Nations is reaching biblical proportions.
Which is why when the U.N. secretary-general reaches for the language of science to establish an absolute truth (global warming is a human-caused catastrophe) grounded in an obvious falsehood ("we all agree"), I find it creepy.
The statements have the form of scientific assertions, but they are clothed in a spirit of dogmatic certainty that is alien to the culture of scientific endeavor. A climate science that cannot predict the weather a month from now may have strong evidence that global warming exists, is human caused and will be a catastrophe, but it cannot possibly have yet produced a proof about which "all agree."
And yet "the masses," aka the public, must be goaded into right action by their betters' judgment.
Thus, a new faith system is emerging in the world, centered in Europe, but with outposts among the educated in many parts of the world. In his new book "Challenging Nature," Dr. Lee M. Silver, a Princeton molecular biologist, calls this emerging cultural system "post-Christian." While Christian-based cultures see human beings as uniquely moral beings given dominion over the Earth by God (hence the moral qualms about human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research, but not about genetically engineered plants or animal research), post-Christians "are more worried about the flora and fauna," notes New York Times science columnist John Tierney wryly. Frankenfoods, overpopulation, and technological progress created by our invasive species threaten as much fear as they inspire hope.
Post-Christian faith is rooted in fear that "Mother Nature" is weak, vulnerable, and yet full of violent retributive possibilities that must be assuaged by great sacrifices humbly offered by people under the influence of the new priesthood of international regulators.
The United Nations is now the arbiter of truth and our only hope of saving the planet.
Every human being is born with an innate need to have faith in something greater and more powerful than him or herself. Offered a choice, I find it hard to see how a rational person could place his faith in something so checkered as the United Nations.
But then, the heart has its reasons which reason knows not.
MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com
The United Nations is now the arbiter of truth and our only hope of saving the planet.
The United Nations is Always Right
By Maggie Gallagher
Last week, the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, issued a new warning on global warming that began with this sentence: "We all agree. Climate change is real, and we humans are its chief cause ... we are on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act."
Just a few days later the United Nations released a new report in which it confessed its previous estimate of AIDS cases worldwide was inflated by more than 6 million sick people. In India alone, the number of AIDS patients estimated by the United Nations dropped by more than half, from 6 million to 3 million.
"They've finally got caught with their pants down," Dr. Jim Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley and a former staffer at the World Health Organization, told The Associated Press.
The old, false U.N. numbers were the result of an obviously bad methodology, especially in India; prevalence rates among women in urban clinics were imputed to the population as a whole, thereby oversampling AIDS-prone prostitutes, addicts and people with multiple sexual partners.
So why did the U.N. scientists go with the bad data? According to professor Chin, U.N. officials were reluctant to admit fewer people were infected because that might translate into less funding to fight AIDS, which continues to devastate millions worldwide.
They fudged the data in order to inspire the masses to good actions, in other words.
As far as I can tell, the United Nations is like just about any other large bureaucratic institution -- a mixed body of people and ideals that does some good and is at least as susceptible to corruption as any other human thing. But in Europe, faith in the United Nations is reaching biblical proportions.
Which is why when the U.N. secretary-general reaches for the language of science to establish an absolute truth (global warming is a human-caused catastrophe) grounded in an obvious falsehood ("we all agree"), I find it creepy.
The statements have the form of scientific assertions, but they are clothed in a spirit of dogmatic certainty that is alien to the culture of scientific endeavor. A climate science that cannot predict the weather a month from now may have strong evidence that global warming exists, is human caused and will be a catastrophe, but it cannot possibly have yet produced a proof about which "all agree."
And yet "the masses," aka the public, must be goaded into right action by their betters' judgment.
Thus, a new faith system is emerging in the world, centered in Europe, but with outposts among the educated in many parts of the world. In his new book "Challenging Nature," Dr. Lee M. Silver, a Princeton molecular biologist, calls this emerging cultural system "post-Christian." While Christian-based cultures see human beings as uniquely moral beings given dominion over the Earth by God (hence the moral qualms about human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research, but not about genetically engineered plants or animal research), post-Christians "are more worried about the flora and fauna," notes New York Times science columnist John Tierney wryly. Frankenfoods, overpopulation, and technological progress created by our invasive species threaten as much fear as they inspire hope.
Post-Christian faith is rooted in fear that "Mother Nature" is weak, vulnerable, and yet full of violent retributive possibilities that must be assuaged by great sacrifices humbly offered by people under the influence of the new priesthood of international regulators.
The United Nations is now the arbiter of truth and our only hope of saving the planet.
Every human being is born with an innate need to have faith in something greater and more powerful than him or herself. Offered a choice, I find it hard to see how a rational person could place his faith in something so checkered as the United Nations.
But then, the heart has its reasons which reason knows not.
MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com
Global Warming
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Tells it like it is...
Hillary's Record
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Campaign Trail: Lamenting the healthy U.S. economy, a certain senator from New York says "it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush." But the Clintons' brand of soap always seems to be a mix of sleaze and socialism.
Campaigning in Iowa on Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., spread doom and gloom about an economy that has produced more than 8 million new jobs over the past 50 months amid a powerful economic expansion.
Hillary has been pushing the theme that being first lady for eight years gave her the experience that will make her a good president.
"Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families," she said in an obvious negative reference to her opponent, Sen. Barrack Obama, D-Ill. "And they cannot afford to keep waiting."
But what exactly is it they are waiting for? Certain expiration of the Bush across-the-board income tax cuts, and his reduction in taxes on investment, policies that caused the economy's current sustained boom?
Is the "experience" our families are waiting to reap the benefits of actually a new version of Hillary's 1993-94 attempt to impose socialized health care on America?
The cleaning up that Hillary claims her husband undertook is a myth. The record shows Bill Clinton inherited from President George H.W. Bush an economy already in recovery.
It also shows that two terms of Clinton Masculinus left George W. Bush in 2001 with an economy already in a downturn.
It wasn't his income tax rate increases or sage words from Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin that produced Intel's Pentium chip and the Internet or the rest of the technological revolution behind the 1990s boom. The seed capital for it all came largely from the low-tax policies of Ronald Reagan years earlier.
Bill Clinton, in fact, never succeeded in getting passed into law what he touted as his vital "jobs bill," a pork-laden $30 billion fiscal stimulus package; only a fraction of it, $220 million, was ever enacted.
Yet government spending is clearly what Hillary's White House job experience would translate into. Her energy policy, for instance, consists of a $50 billion alternative fuels fund and $20 billion worth of new "green vehicle bonds" funding intensified gas mileage regulations.
But businesses won't have to worry — if they can grease the lady's palm. Corning, Inc., Western New York state's stalwart Republican Party corporate donor, found that out in 2004 when China threatened a 16% tariff on Corning's fiber optics products.
By having the Red Chinese ambassador to her Capitol Hill office, Hillary apparently got the Communist government to drop the duty. But it seems to have cost Corning executives $46,000 in campaign contributions.
Sleazy deals and big spending are well-remembered from the days of Hillary Clinton's other half. That kind of experience is no recipe for continued economic health.
Hillary
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Campaign Trail: Lamenting the healthy U.S. economy, a certain senator from New York says "it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush." But the Clintons' brand of soap always seems to be a mix of sleaze and socialism.
Campaigning in Iowa on Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., spread doom and gloom about an economy that has produced more than 8 million new jobs over the past 50 months amid a powerful economic expansion.
Hillary has been pushing the theme that being first lady for eight years gave her the experience that will make her a good president.
"Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families," she said in an obvious negative reference to her opponent, Sen. Barrack Obama, D-Ill. "And they cannot afford to keep waiting."
But what exactly is it they are waiting for? Certain expiration of the Bush across-the-board income tax cuts, and his reduction in taxes on investment, policies that caused the economy's current sustained boom?
Is the "experience" our families are waiting to reap the benefits of actually a new version of Hillary's 1993-94 attempt to impose socialized health care on America?
The cleaning up that Hillary claims her husband undertook is a myth. The record shows Bill Clinton inherited from President George H.W. Bush an economy already in recovery.
It also shows that two terms of Clinton Masculinus left George W. Bush in 2001 with an economy already in a downturn.
It wasn't his income tax rate increases or sage words from Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin that produced Intel's Pentium chip and the Internet or the rest of the technological revolution behind the 1990s boom. The seed capital for it all came largely from the low-tax policies of Ronald Reagan years earlier.
Bill Clinton, in fact, never succeeded in getting passed into law what he touted as his vital "jobs bill," a pork-laden $30 billion fiscal stimulus package; only a fraction of it, $220 million, was ever enacted.
Yet government spending is clearly what Hillary's White House job experience would translate into. Her energy policy, for instance, consists of a $50 billion alternative fuels fund and $20 billion worth of new "green vehicle bonds" funding intensified gas mileage regulations.
But businesses won't have to worry — if they can grease the lady's palm. Corning, Inc., Western New York state's stalwart Republican Party corporate donor, found that out in 2004 when China threatened a 16% tariff on Corning's fiber optics products.
By having the Red Chinese ambassador to her Capitol Hill office, Hillary apparently got the Communist government to drop the duty. But it seems to have cost Corning executives $46,000 in campaign contributions.
Sleazy deals and big spending are well-remembered from the days of Hillary Clinton's other half. That kind of experience is no recipe for continued economic health.
Hillary
Monday, November 19, 2007
Powell..... Colin is a Colon....
What an ASS, the man who has probably done more damage to this administration than anyone else is now Damaging the country. These actions are Worse than his betrayal of the President he was supposed to serve. In case your wondering of what it is I speak of, well that's simple. Colon Powell is responsible for the Valerie Plame leak and cover up. He is the man that should have been questioned under oath as to what he ordered Armatige to do. He is the one who needs to account for Millions of dollars wasted. The months of unnecessary investigation that sent an innocent man to jail for a having a faulty memory. For this act of personal betrayal alone he should be shunned like the leper that he is.
No instead his betrayal continues except this time he doesn't just betray a President, he betrays his country. In trying to undermine the administration this scumbag reassures the Iranians that they have no need to comply with the demands of the UN, and everyone can ignore and should fight against the sanctions. WHY? Because Colon says no one really wants to bomb Iran in the US and our Army is stretched to thin any way. And where does he say all this? Well while he lines his pockets nice and fat with Arab Oil money in Kuwait.
Not only is this man scum, but he has just put you and I at a greater risk to die at the hands of terror. Thanks Colon thanks for showing us what a bitter washed up political soldier is capable of.
Powell: Iran far from nuclear weapon
By DIANA ELIAS, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 19, 1:56 AM ET
KUWAIT CITY - Iran is far from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and despite U.S. fears about its atomic intentions, an American military strike against the Islamic Republic is unlikely, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.
Tehran rejects claims by the United States and some European Union countries that its nuclear program is aimed at secretly producing weapons, insisting it is for peaceful purposes only.
"I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," said Powell, who was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East.
A recent report by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities.
But the International Atomic Energy Agency said it could not rule out that Iran had a secret weapons program because of restrictions Tehran placed on its inspectors two years ago.
Asked if he sees a U.S. war on Iran coming, the retired U.S. general said although no American official will say the option was "off the table," he did not see prospects of a military conflict.
There is no base of support among Americans for such an action, Powell said, adding that the U.S. military already has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Powell was the secretary of state under President Bush from 2001 to 2005. In September 2004, Powell said Iran's nuclear program was a growing threat and he called for international sanctions.
No instead his betrayal continues except this time he doesn't just betray a President, he betrays his country. In trying to undermine the administration this scumbag reassures the Iranians that they have no need to comply with the demands of the UN, and everyone can ignore and should fight against the sanctions. WHY? Because Colon says no one really wants to bomb Iran in the US and our Army is stretched to thin any way. And where does he say all this? Well while he lines his pockets nice and fat with Arab Oil money in Kuwait.
Not only is this man scum, but he has just put you and I at a greater risk to die at the hands of terror. Thanks Colon thanks for showing us what a bitter washed up political soldier is capable of.
Powell: Iran far from nuclear weapon
By DIANA ELIAS, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 19, 1:56 AM ET
KUWAIT CITY - Iran is far from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and despite U.S. fears about its atomic intentions, an American military strike against the Islamic Republic is unlikely, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.
Tehran rejects claims by the United States and some European Union countries that its nuclear program is aimed at secretly producing weapons, insisting it is for peaceful purposes only.
"I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," said Powell, who was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East.
A recent report by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities.
But the International Atomic Energy Agency said it could not rule out that Iran had a secret weapons program because of restrictions Tehran placed on its inspectors two years ago.
Asked if he sees a U.S. war on Iran coming, the retired U.S. general said although no American official will say the option was "off the table," he did not see prospects of a military conflict.
There is no base of support among Americans for such an action, Powell said, adding that the U.S. military already has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Powell was the secretary of state under President Bush from 2001 to 2005. In September 2004, Powell said Iran's nuclear program was a growing threat and he called for international sanctions.
Iran
Sunday, November 18, 2007
It's true: Iraq is a quagmire
But the real story is not something you have heard
Sunday, November 18, 2007
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
We're floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it's too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we're hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.
No, I'm not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I'm channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe. Al-Qaida had little presence in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. But once he was toppled, al-Qaida's chieftains decided to make Iraq the central front in the global jihad against the Great Satan.
"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation," Osama bin Laden said in an audiotape posted on Islamic Web sites in December 2004. "It is raging in the land of the Two Rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."
Jihadis, money and weapons were poured into Iraq. All for naught. Al-Qaida has been driven from every neighborhood in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, the U.S. commander there, said Nov. 7. This follows the expulsion of al-Qaida from two previous "capitals" of its Islamic Republic of Iraq, Ramadi and Baquba.
Al-Qaida is evacuating populated areas and is trying to establish hideouts in the Hamrin mountains in northern Iraq, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces, and former insurgent allies who have turned on them, in hot pursuit. Forty-five al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured in October alone.
Al-Qaida's support in the Muslim world has plummeted, partly because of the terror group's lack of success in Iraq, more because al-Qaida's attacks have mostly killed Muslim civilians.
"Iraq has proved to be the graveyard, not just of many al-Qaida operatives, but of the organization's reputation as a defender of Islam," said StrategyPage.
Canadian columnist David Warren speculated some years ago that enticing al-Qaida to fight there was one of the reasons why President Bush decided to invade Iraq. The administration has made so many egregious mistakes that I doubt the "flypaper" strategy was deliberate. But it has worked out that way. It may have been a mistake for the United States to go to war in Iraq. But it's pretty clear now it was a blunder for al-Qaida to have done so.
You may not be aware of the calamities that have befallen al-Qaida, because our news media have paid scant attention to them.
"The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily," said Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Where are they?"
Richard Benedetto was for many years the White House correspondent for USA Today. Now retired, he teaches journalism at American University in Washington, D.C.
When U.S. troop deaths hit a monthly high in April, that was front-page news in most major newspapers, Mr. Benedetto noted. But when U.S. troop deaths fell in October to their lowest levels in 17 months, that news was buried on page A-14 of The Washington Post and mentioned on Page A-12 in The New York Times. (The Post-Gazette put the story on the front page.)
"I asked the class if burying or ignoring the story indicated an anti-war bias on the part of the editors or their papers," Mr. Benedetto said. "While some students said yes ... most attributed the decision to poor news judgment. They were being generous."
Mr. Peters suspects the paucity of news coverage from Iraq these days is because "things are going annoyingly well."
Rich Lowry agrees. "The United States may be the only country in world history that reverse-propagandizes itself, magnifying its setbacks and ignoring its successes so that nothing can disturb what Sen. Joe Lieberman calls the 'narrative of defeat,' " he wrote in National Review.
If what Mr. Peters, Mr. Benedetto and Mr. Lowry suspect is true, it must have pained The Associated Press to see a correspondent write Wednesday: "The trend toward better security is indisputable." It'll be interesting to see which newspapers run the AP story, and where in the paper they place it.
"We've won the war in the real Iraq, but few people in America are familiar with anything other than its make-believe version," said the Mudville Gazette's "Greyhawk," a soldier currently serving his second tour in Iraq.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
We're floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it's too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we're hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.
No, I'm not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I'm channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe. Al-Qaida had little presence in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. But once he was toppled, al-Qaida's chieftains decided to make Iraq the central front in the global jihad against the Great Satan.
"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation," Osama bin Laden said in an audiotape posted on Islamic Web sites in December 2004. "It is raging in the land of the Two Rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."
Jihadis, money and weapons were poured into Iraq. All for naught. Al-Qaida has been driven from every neighborhood in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, the U.S. commander there, said Nov. 7. This follows the expulsion of al-Qaida from two previous "capitals" of its Islamic Republic of Iraq, Ramadi and Baquba.
Al-Qaida is evacuating populated areas and is trying to establish hideouts in the Hamrin mountains in northern Iraq, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces, and former insurgent allies who have turned on them, in hot pursuit. Forty-five al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured in October alone.
Al-Qaida's support in the Muslim world has plummeted, partly because of the terror group's lack of success in Iraq, more because al-Qaida's attacks have mostly killed Muslim civilians.
"Iraq has proved to be the graveyard, not just of many al-Qaida operatives, but of the organization's reputation as a defender of Islam," said StrategyPage.
Canadian columnist David Warren speculated some years ago that enticing al-Qaida to fight there was one of the reasons why President Bush decided to invade Iraq. The administration has made so many egregious mistakes that I doubt the "flypaper" strategy was deliberate. But it has worked out that way. It may have been a mistake for the United States to go to war in Iraq. But it's pretty clear now it was a blunder for al-Qaida to have done so.
You may not be aware of the calamities that have befallen al-Qaida, because our news media have paid scant attention to them.
"The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily," said Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Where are they?"
Richard Benedetto was for many years the White House correspondent for USA Today. Now retired, he teaches journalism at American University in Washington, D.C.
When U.S. troop deaths hit a monthly high in April, that was front-page news in most major newspapers, Mr. Benedetto noted. But when U.S. troop deaths fell in October to their lowest levels in 17 months, that news was buried on page A-14 of The Washington Post and mentioned on Page A-12 in The New York Times. (The Post-Gazette put the story on the front page.)
"I asked the class if burying or ignoring the story indicated an anti-war bias on the part of the editors or their papers," Mr. Benedetto said. "While some students said yes ... most attributed the decision to poor news judgment. They were being generous."
Mr. Peters suspects the paucity of news coverage from Iraq these days is because "things are going annoyingly well."
Rich Lowry agrees. "The United States may be the only country in world history that reverse-propagandizes itself, magnifying its setbacks and ignoring its successes so that nothing can disturb what Sen. Joe Lieberman calls the 'narrative of defeat,' " he wrote in National Review.
If what Mr. Peters, Mr. Benedetto and Mr. Lowry suspect is true, it must have pained The Associated Press to see a correspondent write Wednesday: "The trend toward better security is indisputable." It'll be interesting to see which newspapers run the AP story, and where in the paper they place it.
"We've won the war in the real Iraq, but few people in America are familiar with anything other than its make-believe version," said the Mudville Gazette's "Greyhawk," a soldier currently serving his second tour in Iraq.
Iraq
A Post from an ExPatriot, Well worth the read
17 November 2007
The Balkanization of America
I just visited Houston, Texas recently and was surprised (or rather shocked) to see that even the menus in restaurants such as IHOP are both in English and Spanish. I was even told that there are several restaurants in Houston where if you don't speak Spanish then you simply won't get any service. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not the least bit xenophobic, it's just that the dramatic changes in my hometown caught me a bit off guard. You see it's been a few years since I was last in the United States and each time I return I find myself amazed at the sociopolitical changes.
On more than one occasion while I was there I didn't recognize what was being said around me and was actually a bit surprised at how many people were speaking Spanish in their dealings instead of English. I went to one store near the downtown area and found myself ignored by the Spanish speaking sales staff as they continued to help the Spanish speaking people around them. I stood there waiting and then eventually just gave up. But what was even more disturbing about the whole thing wasn't the Spanish speaking, it was that there seemed to be a sense of arrogance and what can perhaps best be described as an "ethnic chauvinism" among the Spanish speaking people that was never there before. It was as if they didn't care anymore or were not concerned to assimilate, to learn English or even to speak English, but even then, it was deeper than that, many seemed to harbor a sense of grievance that despite being nurtured by well-meaning federal policies of positive discrimination gave rise to an indescribable feeling of tension that seemed to be omnipresent everywhere I went.
For the first time in my life I felt like I was in a foreign country by returning home, but even that is not really accurate... You see if I would have went to Mexico instead of Texas, the Spanish speaking people there would have at least try to communicate with me and serve me. They would have smiled and made an honest effort to speak English and the banks and shops in Mexico would have gladly accepted my US passport as an ID. But in Texas this time things were disturbing different.
But overall, what I've found most disturbing is the Balkanization of the United States or as it is known by is politically correct euphemism "multiculturalism". You'll have to forgive me, but having lived overseas for as many years as I have, I never received the diversity is strength memo, and if I did, I would have promptly thrown it in the trash where it rightly belongs. There is no strength in diversity and I'm confounded at how Americans could have ever willingly bought into that nonsense. What did it take? Was it the the fear of being labeled an intolerant bigot or of being politically incorrect that somehow collectively coerced all of you into this accepting this mind-numbing mantra as gospel?
Take a cue from a country like Singapore who had to learn the hard way about the wondrous glories of diversity and multiculturalism. A country who was forced to adopt Draconian laws limiting freedom of speech just to ensure ethnic and religious harmony and who has spent countless millions over the years on government propaganda directed at their own citizens extolling nationalism and unity over diversity. Funny how there is no mention of how "diversity is strength" in this little ditty penned by Singapore's Ministry of Information, Communication & the Arts entitled "We are Singapore". Is this what we want for the United States?
How long will it be before these ethnic and racial enclaves that are being nurtured like unhatched chickens begin to poke their beaks through the shell? I fear it won't be long now. From having lived in a multicultural society, I can say from personal experience that rising ethnic chauvinism among immigrants both illegal or legal is not only a warning sign, but is is the ultimate destroyer of peace and harmony and when the winds shift it will get bloody. When that happens there will be two paths for Americans to take and both of them will be unpleasant. Either Americans will stand up and fight for liberty and freedom or they will have to accept certain restrictions to liberty and freedom in order to keep the peace.
Immigration
The Balkanization of America
I just visited Houston, Texas recently and was surprised (or rather shocked) to see that even the menus in restaurants such as IHOP are both in English and Spanish. I was even told that there are several restaurants in Houston where if you don't speak Spanish then you simply won't get any service. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not the least bit xenophobic, it's just that the dramatic changes in my hometown caught me a bit off guard. You see it's been a few years since I was last in the United States and each time I return I find myself amazed at the sociopolitical changes.
On more than one occasion while I was there I didn't recognize what was being said around me and was actually a bit surprised at how many people were speaking Spanish in their dealings instead of English. I went to one store near the downtown area and found myself ignored by the Spanish speaking sales staff as they continued to help the Spanish speaking people around them. I stood there waiting and then eventually just gave up. But what was even more disturbing about the whole thing wasn't the Spanish speaking, it was that there seemed to be a sense of arrogance and what can perhaps best be described as an "ethnic chauvinism" among the Spanish speaking people that was never there before. It was as if they didn't care anymore or were not concerned to assimilate, to learn English or even to speak English, but even then, it was deeper than that, many seemed to harbor a sense of grievance that despite being nurtured by well-meaning federal policies of positive discrimination gave rise to an indescribable feeling of tension that seemed to be omnipresent everywhere I went.
For the first time in my life I felt like I was in a foreign country by returning home, but even that is not really accurate... You see if I would have went to Mexico instead of Texas, the Spanish speaking people there would have at least try to communicate with me and serve me. They would have smiled and made an honest effort to speak English and the banks and shops in Mexico would have gladly accepted my US passport as an ID. But in Texas this time things were disturbing different.
But overall, what I've found most disturbing is the Balkanization of the United States or as it is known by is politically correct euphemism "multiculturalism". You'll have to forgive me, but having lived overseas for as many years as I have, I never received the diversity is strength memo, and if I did, I would have promptly thrown it in the trash where it rightly belongs. There is no strength in diversity and I'm confounded at how Americans could have ever willingly bought into that nonsense. What did it take? Was it the the fear of being labeled an intolerant bigot or of being politically incorrect that somehow collectively coerced all of you into this accepting this mind-numbing mantra as gospel?
Take a cue from a country like Singapore who had to learn the hard way about the wondrous glories of diversity and multiculturalism. A country who was forced to adopt Draconian laws limiting freedom of speech just to ensure ethnic and religious harmony and who has spent countless millions over the years on government propaganda directed at their own citizens extolling nationalism and unity over diversity. Funny how there is no mention of how "diversity is strength" in this little ditty penned by Singapore's Ministry of Information, Communication & the Arts entitled "We are Singapore". Is this what we want for the United States?
How long will it be before these ethnic and racial enclaves that are being nurtured like unhatched chickens begin to poke their beaks through the shell? I fear it won't be long now. From having lived in a multicultural society, I can say from personal experience that rising ethnic chauvinism among immigrants both illegal or legal is not only a warning sign, but is is the ultimate destroyer of peace and harmony and when the winds shift it will get bloody. When that happens there will be two paths for Americans to take and both of them will be unpleasant. Either Americans will stand up and fight for liberty and freedom or they will have to accept certain restrictions to liberty and freedom in order to keep the peace.
Immigration
Friday, November 16, 2007
It's the little things our press always miss
British National Security Council (RWC)
On the plus side with the British, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has plans to form a National Security Council modeled on ours in America.
This is part of Brown’s overhaul of the counter-terrorism work at Whitehall, giving the Prime Minister more control over Britain’s fight against terrorism –a country that has seen deep, pervasive infiltration by radical Islam.
MI5 is currently shadowing and bugging about 2,000 current Islamist extremist suspects. I heard that when I was in London recently and Jonathan Evans, the new director of MI 5 (who took the place of the wonderfully smart and able Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired) confirmed it in a speech the other day. At any given time, MI 5 has more than 30 "active" terrorist cells under observation.
On the plus side with the British, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has plans to form a National Security Council modeled on ours in America.
This is part of Brown’s overhaul of the counter-terrorism work at Whitehall, giving the Prime Minister more control over Britain’s fight against terrorism –a country that has seen deep, pervasive infiltration by radical Islam.
MI5 is currently shadowing and bugging about 2,000 current Islamist extremist suspects. I heard that when I was in London recently and Jonathan Evans, the new director of MI 5 (who took the place of the wonderfully smart and able Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired) confirmed it in a speech the other day. At any given time, MI 5 has more than 30 "active" terrorist cells under observation.
I just get a kick out of Krauthammer
Everytime I look at him I can't help it. 
The picture that comes to mind is the german in the wheel chair in Dr Strangelove. Now does that make me a sick bastard, or just someone with a slanted view of things? What really drives it home is I love the logic of both them.
Reviled and Isolated Abroad?
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.
Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?
France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but pledged solidarity with the U.S. on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.
That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.
All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday noted "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."
As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the last half-century.
So much for the disarray of our alliances.
The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.
So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces, and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.
It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection, but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.
What's changed in the last year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one.
The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.
It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto, or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the UN. It is success or failure in Iraq.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Politics
The picture that comes to mind is the german in the wheel chair in Dr Strangelove. Now does that make me a sick bastard, or just someone with a slanted view of things? What really drives it home is I love the logic of both them.Reviled and Isolated Abroad?
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.
Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?
France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but pledged solidarity with the U.S. on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.
That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.
All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday noted "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."
As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the last half-century.
So much for the disarray of our alliances.
The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.
So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces, and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.
It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection, but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.
What's changed in the last year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one.
The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.
It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto, or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the UN. It is success or failure in Iraq.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Politics
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Greatist Video I've ever seen!
Thank You Lizzie Palmer for making it, and thank you Jammiewearingfool for sharing
Don't Forget to stop my theme or wait till it ends...
Dick Armey Speaks Out on Republicans...
I am not a fan of Dick Armey, but he has called this one correctly.
Why I Think Hillary Will Win 
The former House Majority Leader looks at the issues debate in the presidential campaign.
If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Hillary Rodham Clinton would win.
Hillary’s minor stumbles in last week’s debate notwithstanding, she is simply running the most disciplined and effective campaign. She’s one of the most able politicians in America, and no one should underestimate her desire to be President and her calculating focus.
What you need to understand is that Hillary Clinton is, quite simply, craftier and more aggressive than the rest of the field. I know this firsthand, having battled with the Clinton Administration throughout the 1990’s while serving as a leader in Congress.
She’s only gotten tougher since then.
Early on, there were many fights, but one of the most important was over Hillary Clinton’s 1993 plan to expand government control of the health-care system. We were lucky to stop it, and we did so by standing our ground on the principle of putting patients ahead of bureaucracies. But now she’s back, and the health-care issue is a perfect example of the way she’s learned on the job and evolved her tactics.
Her latest health-care plan is more of the same stuff—greater federal control of our lives—but this time she’s presenting it in a way that is far more politically savvy. She leaves open questions of funding and enforcement, and is actively working to buy off the groups who opposed her plan in 1993.
Hillary Clinton and her agenda are not going to fade away. She is relentless and determined. Once she resolves a course of action in her mind, she is not going to be wishy-washy. The other candidates, and the rest of the world, will quickly learn that Hillary Clinton means business.
No doubt, Hillary Clinton has the Democrat primary all wrapped up. A couple of one-term senators are simply no match for the political machine she and her husband have built. I won’t go so far as to say that it’s not possible for a Republican to defeat her in the general election. But as things stand today, the GOP has a very real set of problems that are larger than any of the party’s candidates.
First and foremost, the Republican brand as effective stewards of the taxpayer dollar is in tatters, and the shredding doesn’t look to stop any time soon. Just yesterday, 138 House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to override the president’s veto of a wasteful and pork-ridden Water Resources bill. That vote was a shameful display of personal politics over the national interest, and it contains the seeds of destruction of whatever conservative principles remain in the Republican party.
The callow accommodation to big-spending Democrats in Congress is one of the ways the Republican party will return itself to the days of serving as a compliant, permanent minority. Happy for table scraps, elected Republicans will simply abandon the ideas of their party in order to “get along”.
No wonder Americans prefer Democrats on the economy, taxes, and spending issues, according to recent polling data. When the choice is between Democrats, and the Democrat-lite ideas the GOP has become so comfortable offering, the Democrats will win every time.
The only way the Republican party will beat Hillary Clinton is to return to its limited-government roots. That’s the only way to rebuild a majority coalition.
For example, today religious conservatives are confused, disillusioned, and somewhat fractured. Too many of the current crop of self-appointed social conservative leaders have embraced an agenda that splits the GOP coalition. Big government ideas— runaway spending on “conservative” social programs, social engineering in the tax code, and greater government intervention into Americans’ personal lives—are the wrong path. This pandering has hurt the GOP in swing states, especially in the Mountain West and Great Lakes states.
To counter Hillary Clinton’s perfectly oiled political machine, Republicans need to return to their Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan roots. They need to present an alternative vision for America—a positive vision that limits government and trusts individuals and leaves families, churches, and businesses free to make their own decisions, and not have bureaucrats and politicians calling the shots.
Right now, the country is headed toward a date with Hillary Clinton, and big government is on the agenda. The only way to change that rendezvous is for candidates to offer a clear, principled, limited government alternative.
The former House Majority Leader looks at the issues debate in the presidential campaign.
If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Hillary Rodham Clinton would win.
Hillary’s minor stumbles in last week’s debate notwithstanding, she is simply running the most disciplined and effective campaign. She’s one of the most able politicians in America, and no one should underestimate her desire to be President and her calculating focus.
What you need to understand is that Hillary Clinton is, quite simply, craftier and more aggressive than the rest of the field. I know this firsthand, having battled with the Clinton Administration throughout the 1990’s while serving as a leader in Congress.
She’s only gotten tougher since then.
Early on, there were many fights, but one of the most important was over Hillary Clinton’s 1993 plan to expand government control of the health-care system. We were lucky to stop it, and we did so by standing our ground on the principle of putting patients ahead of bureaucracies. But now she’s back, and the health-care issue is a perfect example of the way she’s learned on the job and evolved her tactics.
Her latest health-care plan is more of the same stuff—greater federal control of our lives—but this time she’s presenting it in a way that is far more politically savvy. She leaves open questions of funding and enforcement, and is actively working to buy off the groups who opposed her plan in 1993.
Hillary Clinton and her agenda are not going to fade away. She is relentless and determined. Once she resolves a course of action in her mind, she is not going to be wishy-washy. The other candidates, and the rest of the world, will quickly learn that Hillary Clinton means business.
No doubt, Hillary Clinton has the Democrat primary all wrapped up. A couple of one-term senators are simply no match for the political machine she and her husband have built. I won’t go so far as to say that it’s not possible for a Republican to defeat her in the general election. But as things stand today, the GOP has a very real set of problems that are larger than any of the party’s candidates.
First and foremost, the Republican brand as effective stewards of the taxpayer dollar is in tatters, and the shredding doesn’t look to stop any time soon. Just yesterday, 138 House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to override the president’s veto of a wasteful and pork-ridden Water Resources bill. That vote was a shameful display of personal politics over the national interest, and it contains the seeds of destruction of whatever conservative principles remain in the Republican party.
The callow accommodation to big-spending Democrats in Congress is one of the ways the Republican party will return itself to the days of serving as a compliant, permanent minority. Happy for table scraps, elected Republicans will simply abandon the ideas of their party in order to “get along”.
No wonder Americans prefer Democrats on the economy, taxes, and spending issues, according to recent polling data. When the choice is between Democrats, and the Democrat-lite ideas the GOP has become so comfortable offering, the Democrats will win every time.
The only way the Republican party will beat Hillary Clinton is to return to its limited-government roots. That’s the only way to rebuild a majority coalition.
For example, today religious conservatives are confused, disillusioned, and somewhat fractured. Too many of the current crop of self-appointed social conservative leaders have embraced an agenda that splits the GOP coalition. Big government ideas— runaway spending on “conservative” social programs, social engineering in the tax code, and greater government intervention into Americans’ personal lives—are the wrong path. This pandering has hurt the GOP in swing states, especially in the Mountain West and Great Lakes states.
To counter Hillary Clinton’s perfectly oiled political machine, Republicans need to return to their Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan roots. They need to present an alternative vision for America—a positive vision that limits government and trusts individuals and leaves families, churches, and businesses free to make their own decisions, and not have bureaucrats and politicians calling the shots.
Right now, the country is headed toward a date with Hillary Clinton, and big government is on the agenda. The only way to change that rendezvous is for candidates to offer a clear, principled, limited government alternative.
Republicans
Monday, November 12, 2007
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Just the Facts
This year Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.
A Feminazi that Gets It!
MY TURN: Islamo-facism and the death of feminism
Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2007
By Julie Bushey Trevor
In my lifetime I have witnessed the bravery of countless women who have risen to the challenge of ending the oppression of women worldwide. It is puzzling to me why at this time in our history, when women in this country in particular have made tremendous gains in their own status, they have willingly stalled their work toward freedom for certain women; especially the violent oppression of the Women in Islam.
To be sure, the overwhelming majority of Muslims practice their faith while living in democracies, following man-made laws and treating everyone with the dignity and respect due any human being. There are however, those that do not.
Islamo-facism is a term originally used by moderate Muslims both in Iran and Algeria in the 1970s (and still used today) to describe the efforts by radical Muslim (clerics) to thwart efforts toward equality, moderation, democracy and freedom of religion.
Islamo-facists insist in a fundamental Islamic ideology where men and women are not equal; women are considered physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and morally inferior to men. Public facilities therefore are separate (and often inferior) for women; a "gender apartheid" as many call it.
All democracies and laws of the land governing people are opposed by Islamo-facists because they are laws of man, not God. Islamo-facists believe only God's law (Sharia) is to be obeyed. They believe they are advancing women's rights by "protecting" them from the kind of harassment and violence imposed by Americans and other western cultures.
Some Hollywood types have compared Islamo-facists with the Christian Right. Such a comparison is dreadfully uninformed. Nowhere does Christ call us to beat, rape, mutilate the genitals, honor-kill and especially remove the free will of women, homosexuals, Jews or any non-Christian. Christ called his disciples to do his work through prayer, alms-giving, good works and teaching (peaceful proselytizing).
To be sure, there are people in our history and today who use the good name of Christ to advance a violent cause or to insist on adherence to a biblical teaching. We prosecute those people and fortunately they are rare. Islamo-facists ideology and their terror methods are not rare and they are pervasive.
It is very easy to look at the plight of Muslim women worldwide through our privileged eyes and not respond out of "sensitivity" to the Muslim culture. If we do not work to ensure the universal application of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, we become trapped by the concept that all cultures are equal and cannot be criticized. Who loses? Women first, then the rest of the civilized world.
It is not imperialistic or disrespectful to condemn the violent oppression of the women of Islam. It is a moral imperativeespecially for anyone, feminists in particular who say they care about women. I believe that if we work together, the words of Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian "freedom fighter" will come true:
"I do believe that a woman's emancipation begins the moment she breaks this spell and believes that rebellion and resistance against tyranny are her inalienable rights. It is from this moment that no power in the world can prevent the liberation of a woman who has decided to be free."
In America, we know this liberation; let's not withhold it from our Muslim sisters.
Julie Bushey Trevor lives in Stowe.
Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2007
By Julie Bushey Trevor
In my lifetime I have witnessed the bravery of countless women who have risen to the challenge of ending the oppression of women worldwide. It is puzzling to me why at this time in our history, when women in this country in particular have made tremendous gains in their own status, they have willingly stalled their work toward freedom for certain women; especially the violent oppression of the Women in Islam.
To be sure, the overwhelming majority of Muslims practice their faith while living in democracies, following man-made laws and treating everyone with the dignity and respect due any human being. There are however, those that do not.
Islamo-facism is a term originally used by moderate Muslims both in Iran and Algeria in the 1970s (and still used today) to describe the efforts by radical Muslim (clerics) to thwart efforts toward equality, moderation, democracy and freedom of religion.
Islamo-facists insist in a fundamental Islamic ideology where men and women are not equal; women are considered physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and morally inferior to men. Public facilities therefore are separate (and often inferior) for women; a "gender apartheid" as many call it.
All democracies and laws of the land governing people are opposed by Islamo-facists because they are laws of man, not God. Islamo-facists believe only God's law (Sharia) is to be obeyed. They believe they are advancing women's rights by "protecting" them from the kind of harassment and violence imposed by Americans and other western cultures.
Some Hollywood types have compared Islamo-facists with the Christian Right. Such a comparison is dreadfully uninformed. Nowhere does Christ call us to beat, rape, mutilate the genitals, honor-kill and especially remove the free will of women, homosexuals, Jews or any non-Christian. Christ called his disciples to do his work through prayer, alms-giving, good works and teaching (peaceful proselytizing).
To be sure, there are people in our history and today who use the good name of Christ to advance a violent cause or to insist on adherence to a biblical teaching. We prosecute those people and fortunately they are rare. Islamo-facists ideology and their terror methods are not rare and they are pervasive.
It is very easy to look at the plight of Muslim women worldwide through our privileged eyes and not respond out of "sensitivity" to the Muslim culture. If we do not work to ensure the universal application of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, we become trapped by the concept that all cultures are equal and cannot be criticized. Who loses? Women first, then the rest of the civilized world.
It is not imperialistic or disrespectful to condemn the violent oppression of the women of Islam. It is a moral imperativeespecially for anyone, feminists in particular who say they care about women. I believe that if we work together, the words of Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian "freedom fighter" will come true:
"I do believe that a woman's emancipation begins the moment she breaks this spell and believes that rebellion and resistance against tyranny are her inalienable rights. It is from this moment that no power in the world can prevent the liberation of a woman who has decided to be free."
In America, we know this liberation; let's not withhold it from our Muslim sisters.
Julie Bushey Trevor lives in Stowe.
Islam
Feminism
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Here's an Anniversary Celebration our Press seems to have Missed!
Iranians mark anniversary of takeover 
Sun. 04 Nov 2007
The Associated Press
By NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Thousands of Iranians nationwide demonstrated Sunday to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by militant students, state television reported.
Demonstrators in the capital, Tehran, including elementary school students, gathered outside the former U.S. Embassy, chanting anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans. They burned the two countries' flags and warned Washington to learn from the hostile incident.
The takeover, which occurred during Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, severely damaged relations between the two countries. The 52 Americans who were held hostage during the crisis were returned after 444 days, but the U.S. cut off diplomatic ties with Iran to protest the incident.
State television showed video footage of the takeover Sunday and images of the Americans who had been held hostage.
Current relations between the two countries continue to be incredibly tense, with the U.S. accusing Iran of covertly developing nuclear weapons and supporting Shiite militias in Iraq — charges Tehran denies.
"The U.S. has designed a triangle of military, cultural and economic threats against the Iranian nation," Mostafa Pourmohammadi, Iran's interior minister, said during Sunday's demonstration, which happens every year on Nov. 4.
The Iranian official dismissed a new set of unilateral sanctions against Iran that Washington announced recently.
"The Americans threaten once and give in ten times because they know that the Iranian nation is greater and more stable than the threats," said Pourmohammadi.
The U.S. is pushing for a new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Two previous sets of U.N. sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to alter its behavior.
Iran
Hostages
Sun. 04 Nov 2007
The Associated Press
By NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Thousands of Iranians nationwide demonstrated Sunday to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by militant students, state television reported.
Demonstrators in the capital, Tehran, including elementary school students, gathered outside the former U.S. Embassy, chanting anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans. They burned the two countries' flags and warned Washington to learn from the hostile incident.
The takeover, which occurred during Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, severely damaged relations between the two countries. The 52 Americans who were held hostage during the crisis were returned after 444 days, but the U.S. cut off diplomatic ties with Iran to protest the incident.
State television showed video footage of the takeover Sunday and images of the Americans who had been held hostage.
Current relations between the two countries continue to be incredibly tense, with the U.S. accusing Iran of covertly developing nuclear weapons and supporting Shiite militias in Iraq — charges Tehran denies.
"The U.S. has designed a triangle of military, cultural and economic threats against the Iranian nation," Mostafa Pourmohammadi, Iran's interior minister, said during Sunday's demonstration, which happens every year on Nov. 4.
The Iranian official dismissed a new set of unilateral sanctions against Iran that Washington announced recently.
"The Americans threaten once and give in ten times because they know that the Iranian nation is greater and more stable than the threats," said Pourmohammadi.
The U.S. is pushing for a new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Two previous sets of U.N. sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to alter its behavior.
Iran
Hostages
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)