Monday, August 31, 2009

Perhaps the Best Political Editorial from a Newspaper Evaagh !

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reportedly didn't hold back during a recent engagement with The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.

According to The Las Vegas Review-Journal, Reid (D-NV) told that newspaper's advertising director that, "I hope you go out of business."

The Paper did not take his comments lying down. Here's their editorial response. Read it all and smile. The MSN finally showing some backbone.

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry

Stop the childish bullying

This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.

We've seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn't stand scrutiny, much less criticism.

We're still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.

Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.

You could call Reid's remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.

But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.

No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.

If he thinks he can push the state's largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics, I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.

For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.

We won't allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.

That's a promise, not a threat.

And it's a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.

Oooo, Weee!!

Patriotism or prejudice? Teen suspended for criticizing Muslim student

Uh yeah, I'd call this Patriotism. Her choice of words may not have been kind, but in all, she did the right thing.

SPRING HILL, FL -- While showing off her JROTC uniform, 16-year-old Heather Lawrence told us joining the Army is her next big goal, to follow in the footsteps of her father and grandfather.

"Our flag represents everything that our country is," she said.

The teen says an issue over the American flag is why she was written up and handed a five-day suspension from Springstead High School this week for criticizing a Muslim student. Heather says the other girl was sitting down during the Pledge of Allegiance.

"You know, I made a not-so-kind remark, and I do sincerely apologize for referring to the thing on her head because that had nothing to do with it." Heather told us, "But I told her, 'Why don't she act like she's proud to be an American?'"

Despite the open apology to the girl, who wears a hijab, the President of the Tampa/Hillsborough County Human Rights Council says Heather's actions were harmful and the school was right for taking action.

"But whether standing up or not, this issue's not about the pledge of allegiance or anything else." Council President Ahmed Bedier said. "This is about bullying and it's about discrimination."

Bedier says the Muslim student's family contacted him and claims she did stand up for the pledge.

Meanwhile, Hernando school board member Pat Fagan said he doesn't want to comment about the school's decision to suspend Heather, but told us people, in general, should think before they speak.

The Muslim student walked away from Heather's confrontation. A school staff member then reported the incident.

Heather's dad, Mark, told us his family is not racist nor prejudiced and hopes school officials will reduce his daughter's punishment.

"Respect one's rights is the most important thing today for us as Americans to be appreciative of our nation," Fagan said.

Been a tough day

At nine o'clock this morning our oldest daughter and her fiance pulled out of town. She is moving from Philadelphia (where she has lived for the last 5 years while going to school and working) to a small Alaskan town, nearest city Anchorage 100+ miles away.

And, although I am happy for her, I don't think I've ever been sadder in my life.

Why Mr Khan wants to put religion before the law

Some sections of officialdom show common sense when it comes to appeasement, or lack of it, of unreasonable religious demands.

There’s this Muslim geezer in Birmingham, UK, who wants special dispensations on his community service – a punishment handed out after he was racist to an Irish policeman and harassed a judge – because Muslims are in the middle of their Ramadan season, during which they believe they can’t eat or drink during daylight hours.

You can see the rest of the story at my regular blog, Pink Triangle.

This sort of attitude pisses me off, but it's great to see that not everyone is giving in to Muslim whining and whingeing here in the UK. Unfortunately, too many people still are.

Could Obama Get Away With It?

In light of Obama's appointment of Van Jones as "Czar of Green Jobs", one has to wonder what Obama has up his sleeve. I have to admit, this is the first time I have really become concerned that Barack Obama may have "Revolutionary" plans for America.

But, could Obama get away with such plans?

In short, no. I really don't think so.

He might try such a thing, but it ain't gonna work. Not in America.

One thing to remember, is the government is made up of not merely the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary, but also of institutions which are, in many ways, bigger than the three aforementioned branches; the State Dept., the Pentagon, the FBI, and the CIA.

All four of those institutions wield tremendous power, and have plans which are larger, and work out over longer periods of time than any President is in office.

In short, they have their own agendas.

One could say they are a mediating force between the short-sighted agendas of the Executive and Legislative Branches, and the slow to move Judiciary Branch, as represented by the Supreme Court.

In a way, they function as extra-Constitutional checks on our already complex system of checks and balances.

Obama can basically order anything he wants. However, he has to get those institutions to agree with him, before he can execute most large-scale maneuvers, outside of Legislative policy.

Of the four institutions, the State Dept. is the one most pre-disposed to agree with Obama's ideology. The FBI and the CIA are in the middle, and the Pentagon is the institution least pre-disposed to agree with Obama.

Therefore, if Obama were to attempt to use the military for any extra-Constitutional maneuvers, or just merely against the will of the American people, I have a very hard time believing the Pentagon would go along with Obama's request.
Midnight Rider butting in here:

The following statistics are part of a larger post I've been working on but would serve well for Pastorius' "Ain't gonna happen in America" thought.

For anyone thinking Obama may try something "revolutionary", use the military against us, have his own personal civilian force bear this in mind:

"According to the 2007 Small Arms Survey by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies, the United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, owning approximately 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms. According to that same report, about 4.5 million of the eight million new guns amnufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States." (The Invisible Man and His Wife, Concealed Carry Magazine August/September 2009)

Americans are an easy going (too much so) bunch but will not be pushed around and will not take kindly to being forced at arms to do someone else's bidding, foreign or domestic.

Should Obama try something like that, it will not end well.

It's in our DNA.

It's as bad as we think ..TIMES UK:It is easy now to deride the efforts of Neville Chamberlain. But at the time there seemed to be a realistic chance

A prelude to contemporary excuses and justifications? Wholly expected?

It is 70 years since war broke out in 1939, but historic questions remain. "Appeasement" is still a dirty word, but so is "war-monger". President Bush repeatedly used the memory of Winston Churchill in 1940 to justify his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Revisionist historians question whether Neville Chamberlain, the architect of the 1930s appeasement policy, had any choice. One witness was Sir Nevile Henderson, who published his account in Failure of a Mission.

Henderson was Neville Chamberlain's Ambassador to Germany in the period immediately before the outbreak of the Second World War. He arrived in Berlin early in May 1937. As Ambassador he came to know all the leading Nazis, and had several interviews with Hitler himself. He was chosen as the envoy for Chamberlain's policy of appeasement.

Before he left for Germany, Henderson had interviews with the outgoing Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, and with his successor, Chamberlain. "Both Mr Chamberlain and Mr Baldwin agreed that I should do my utmost to work with Hitler and the Nazi party and the existing Government of Germany ... nobody strove harder for an honourable and just peace than I did. But that all my efforts were condemned to failure was due to the fanatical megalomania and blind self-confidence of a single individual."

We are all familiar with a collective portrait of the Nazi leaders derived from Hitler's last days in the bunker and the Nuremberg Trials. Henderson's book was written in the period immediately after the war had begun, even before the fall of France. May 1937 seen from April 1940 is very different from May 1937 seen from our postwar perspective.

"Hitler had been in power for over four years, and during that period had achieved gigantic progress in the military, industrial and moral reorganisation of Germany. It was patent that she could no longer be coerced except by the actual use of force . . . Germany was being militarised from the cradle to the grave."

In 1937, Henderson was invited by Hermann Goering to stay at his hunting lodge and shoot a couple of stags. They discussed Anglo-German relations. "His idea of an understanding between Great Britain and Germany was an agreement limited to two clauses. In the first, Germany would recognise the supreme position of Great Britain overseas and undertake to put all her resources at the disposal of the British Empire in case of need. By the second, Great Britain would recognise the predominant continental position of Germany in Europe, and undertake to do nothing to hinder her legitimate expansion."

Hitler certainly attached importance to the idea of an Anglo-German entente, giving Germany a free hand in Europe. In such an agreement Britain would have inevitably become the junior partner, dependent on Germany and indeed on Hitler.

Henderson recounts the tragic process to war as he observed it; the takeover of Austria in March 1938 accelerated the tempo of the crisis. On March 3, Henderson had an interview with Hitler. "I was received in the old Reich Chancery, and was asked to sit down on a big sofa against the wall facing the window. On my left, on a small stool, was Dr Schmidt taking notes. On his left again, in a semi-circle sat Hitler, and next to him and facing me, Herr von Ribbentrop ... Hitler was in a vile temper, and made no effort to conceal it."

After Austria came Czechoslovakia and the Munich crisis of late September 1938, in which Henderson believed that Goering led a peace party inside the Nazi leadership. At least according to the propaganda spin, there was a meeting at which Goering attacked Ribbentrop for incitement to war -- itself hardly seen as a crime among Nazi leaders. Goering apparently shouted that he knew what war was and did not want to go through it again. If, however, the Führer said "march" he would go himself in the first aeroplane. His one condition would be that Ribbentrop should be in the seat next to him. He also called Ribbentrop a "criminal fool". Both men ended up in the dock at Nuremberg; Goering committed suicide and Ribbentrop was hanged.

At Munich Germany acquired the Sudetenland; in March 1939, Hitler occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia. Step by step, the world was taken to war. On August 23, Germany signs a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union; on September 1, Germany invaded Poland. On September 3 Britain declared war.

On August 25 Hitler gave his last interview to Henderson. This was two days after the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact and six days before the invasion of Poland. In effect, Hitler repeated the offer that Goering had made two years before. He even attempted to counter the argument that such a deal would put Germany in the dominant position.

"The British Empire embraces 40 million square kilometres; Russia 19 million square kilometres, America nine-and-a-half million square kilometres, whereas Germany embraces less than six hundred thousand square kilometres." Hitler went on to propose that Germany should guarantee the British Empire. Hitler's offer was conditional on a settlement of the Polish dispute; Chamberlain himself was pressing the Poles to surrender Danzig.

Hitler stated: "If the British Government would consider these ideas, a blessing for Germany and also for the British Empire might result. If it rejects these ideas there will be war." There was war.

The conclusion seems to be that war could not have been avoided in 1939, because Hitler could never be trusted and because he actually wanted a war. At least the British public knew that Chamberlain had wholly devoted himself to his failed mission of peace. Perhaps Chamberlain was the right Prime Minister in 1937, as Churchill certainly was in 1940.


Now extrapolate

Hoekstra: I think [the President's] finding out that foreign policy is hard.”


Iranian Nuclear Threat Targets U.S., Israel
Sunday, August 30, 2009 5:11 PM
By: Chris Wessling

Concerns about Iran's nuclear capabilities — and their potentially devastating impact on America — are mounting, a special report from Newsmax.TV reveals.

The Islamic republic has test-fired missiles capable of reaching Israel, southeastern Europe, and U.S. bases in the Mideast — and published reports say Iran is within a year of developing its own nuclear bomb.

Security experts warn that even one nuclear device in the hands of a rogue nation could be used against the United States in a devastating electromagnetic pulse attack, an intense burst of energy from an exploding nuclear warhead high above the Earth.

So why isn't the Obama administration doing more to prevent a nuclear nightmare?

“I get very, very nervous about it,” Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter. “I think Iran will have a nuclear weapon. I think now it's only a question of when.”

The United States is caught in the middle of a Mideast faceoff between one of its strongest allies, Israel, and Iran. Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel refuses to rule out a preemptive strike against its adversary, while insisting that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

If the United States tries to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons, its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has vowed a campaign of bloody revenge.

Iran's hatred of Israel “is rooted in ideology,” said Walid Phares of Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The Iranian regime is jihadist, and they do not acknowledge nor accept the idea that a non-Islamic, non-jihadist state could exist in the region.”

Although Iran is thousands of miles from America's shores, its belligerent actions could have far-reaching repercussions. A regional war or nuclear attack could cause an already shaky U.S. economy to collapse.

Even scarier is the growing threat of an electromagnetic pulse attack, security analysts say. Such an attack could destroy all electronic devices over a massive area, from cell phones to computers to America's electrical grid, experts say.

“Within a year of that attack, nine out of 10 Americans would be dead, because we can't support a population of the present size in urban centers and the like without electricity,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy. “That would be a world without America, as a practical matter. And that is exactly what I believe the Iranians are working towards.”

President Barack Obama has committed the U.S. government to a diplomatic approach for resolving the high-stakes nuclear dispute, but Iran has rebuffed Obama's overtures. Meanwhile, Congress is working on legislation to grant Obama the power to impose crippling sanctions on Iran if the talk-first approach doesn't work.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., says such sanctions are long overdue.

“A nuclear Iran is a threat to the Iranian people, to Israel, to the Middle East, to the national security of the United States. And what is Congress doing about it? Nothing. We have proposed legislation time and time again to have real, substantial sanctions leveled against Iran. Now, we like to point fingers and say the U.N. has not done enough, but really we should be pointing the fingers at ourselves.”

The Obama administration has pressed Israel to halt all settlement building and to refrain from attacking Iran, hoping such efforts will lure Iran and other Mideast Arab nations to the negotiating table.

Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, says that sort of approach is wrong.

“[Obama] says Arabs can keep building in the West Bank, Arabs can keep building in eastern Jerusalem . . . but Jews can't. There's no other way to define this than racist.”

Time is running out to stop Iran, Klein says.

“America should say that everything is on the table and we will pursue whatever is necessary – military option, severe sanctions, whatever is necessary to stop these weapons. This is serious business. Al-Qaida has made clear how seriously they can harm American interests, and with nuclear weapons it's just beyond belief the horror that can ensue.”

But some critics are pushing for less intervention.

“Arguing for sanctions against Iran, and threatening them with bombs, or encouraging Israel to bomb Iran makes no sense whatsoever,” said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. “So many other times this argument has been won by pure economics . . . This is what brought the Soviets to their knees – it was financial.”

Others wonder whether the United States missed the perfect opportunity to disarm Iran, failing to take advantage of the widespread turmoil and push for reform that occurred in the aftermath of the country's disputed recent presidential elections.

“Eventually the Iranian regime, if not reformed from the inside, is going to get the nukes, is going to use them in a deterrence fashion, and eventually if there is a confrontation it may use them for real,” Phares said. “This revolt of Tehran may well become another Iranian revolution. Now its success is conditioned by how far the United States and the international community go in assisting this democratic movement.”

The more time Obama devotes to the diplomatic approach, critics warn, the more time Iran has to realize its nuclear ambitions and even sell its technology to other nations or terrorists.

“I think the president's learning a lesson,” Hoekstra said. “I mean, the president was brutal on the previous administration on foreign policy, saying, you know, 'Your policy on North Korea is bad; your policy on Iran is bad.' Everywhere and anything the former president did in foreign policy was terrible [according to Obama], and he was going to come in and fix it. I think he's finding out that foreign policy is hard.”

And what might give urgency to the previous post?


Unless Tehran responds to by late September to international proposals on its nuclear program, history strongly suggests the Israelis will act alone.

As Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged: "The window between a strike on Iran and their getting nuclear weapons is a pretty narrow window."

In October 1956, Israel, Britain and France launched an ill-fated assault against Egypt to seize control of the Suez Canal. The day before, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles grilled Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., about Israel's military buildup on the border with Egypt, but Eban kept quiet about his country's plans.

In June 1967, Israel initiated the Six-Day War without notice to Washington, despite President Johnson's insistence that Israel maintain the status quo and consult with the U.S. before taking action. Only days before the war began, Johnson notified Prime Minister Levi Eshkol in a personal message: "Israel just must not take preemptive military action and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities."

On June 7, 1981, Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak shortly before it was to be fueled to develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons-grade plutonium. Again, Washington was not informed in advance. President Reagan "condemned" the attack and "thought that there were other options that might have been considered."

A few days later, Prime Minister Menachem Begin told CBS News: "This attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel. ... Every future Israeli prime minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way."

Begin's prediction proved true on Sept. 6, 2007, when Israeli aircraft destroyed what was believed to be a North Korean-supplied plutonium reactor in Al Kibar, Syria. Four months earlier, Israeli intelligence officials had provided damning evidence to the Bush administration about the reactor, and the Pentagon drew up plans to attack it. Ironically, according to New York Times reporter David Sanger, President Bush ultimately decided the U.S. could not bomb another country for allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction. An administration official noted that Israel's attack went forward "without a green light from us. None was asked for, none was given."

These episodes demonstrate that if Israel decides that Iranian nuclear weapons are an existential threat, it will be deaf to entreaties from U.S. officials to refrain from using military force

And then what consider an grievously wrong conclusion:

Soon after the operation, Washington will express concern to Tel Aviv publicly and privately. The long-standing U.S.-Israeli relationship will remain as strong as ever with continued close diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military cooperation.

In fact I see a major rupture, a la Honduras, and that is why and when we may see Israel and Russia sign this agreement

The Strategic Vacuum WILL be filled - PHYSICS of the world

In June, the Israelis visited Russia and discused among OTHER THINGS, the Israelis possibly replacing the planned purchase of american F-35's with Russian jets.

At the time the discussion seemed to be about Mig-35's and SU-34's. Good aircraft but only slighter better/newer than the F-16 block 50's and F-15's Eagles of the IAF. Of course the major component that make aricraft of similar performance deadly is avionics, and you can bet those wouldn't be russian.

However after the Israelis left, the Russians announced they were accelerating their deal with India to produce planes for them competitive with the F-22 Raptor, and F-35 Lightning II.

Anyone think the Israelis might rather buy this set of jets?

Anyone think the Russian have any scruples about arms sales?

Moscow weighs sale of fourth generation jet fighters to Iran

MOSCOW -- The Kremlin has been mulling an Iranian request for such advanced fighters as the Su-30 and the MiG-35.

Officials said the request was part of a multi-billion-dollar modernization program Teheran was planning for the air force in 2010.

"The Iranians have been discussing this with us for several years, but now this appears more feasible than before," an official said.

Officials said Teheran envisions the procurement of the Su-30 as taking place in coordination with advanced air defense systems offered by Moscow. They said Russia has been preparing for the delivery of the S-300PMU2 air and missile defense system.

On Aug. 19, Russia's Rosoboronexport, said Moscow was ready to sell a range of fourth-generation aircraft to Teheran. But the state-owned arms export agency did not report any imminent contracts.

"If Iran were interested in military transport planes, or tactical battle aviation, we would look at this request," Rosoboronexport deputy director-general Alexander Mikheyev said.

Iran last purchased aircraft from Moscow in 1990. At the time, Teheran ordered 35 MiG-29 fighters.

Officials said the Kremlin has sought to win Iranian approval to a multi-billion-dollar military modernization deal since 2004. They said Iran has been delaying a decision amid changing military requirements and cash flow problems.

Sukhoi's CEO says new fifth generation fighter could challenge F-22

MOSCOW -- The Russian Air Force has been overseeing the development of Moscow's first fifth-generation fighter-jet. Officials said the fighter, produced by Sukhoi, would fly in late 2009.

"We will spare no effort for this to happen this year, and I believe we have every reason to say this work is proceeding according to plan," Sukhoi chief executive officer Mikhail Pogosyan said.

Commander Gen. Col. Alexander Zelin announced on Aug. 5 that the Russian Air Force would acquire both the Sukhoi Su-35S, above, and the Mikoyan MiG-35S.
Pogosyan, in an assertion dismissed by some Russian analysts, said the latest Sukhoi fighter could challenge the U.S.-origin F-22 stealth fighter, produced by Lockheed Martin. He said he did not envision major delays in the Sukhoi project.

"There are always 'nuances' in the creation of military equipment that are impossible to predict," Pogosyan said. "But I am hopeful we will be able to avoid such nuances."

Executives said Sukhoi Corp., with more than $4 billion worth of projects in India alone, would eventually export its fifth-generation fighter. They said the aircraft would replace such Russian-origin fighters as the Su-30 and MiG-29.

On Aug. 18, Pogosyan signed a $2.5 billion contract with Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin for the supply of 45 Su-35S multi-role long-range fighters as well as other aircraft to the Russian Air Force. Deliveries were expected to take place through 2015.

Russian analysts said Sukhoi's timetable appeared reasonable. But they said production of any new fighter would be difficult amid the global financial crisis.

"There could be at least 10 years between the first flight of the fifth-generation prototype and commercial production," Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said.


Russian sources said Israel and Russia have been quietly discussing the prospect of a strategic defense agreement that would pave the way for the launch of a joint project to develop an advanced fighter-jet. The sources said Russia proposed to provide its most advanced platforms while Israel would install avionics, radar and electronic warfare systems. Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman visited Moscow in June to uncork the talks after Obama made it clear the once rock solid U. S. - Israeli alliance was crumbling.

"The new project would have given Russia an aircraft that could compete with anything operational in the West while Israel would have an independent supply of fighter-jet platforms and engines," an industry source familiar with the discussions said.

After that June visit conversations were reported including:

  • Israel and Russia held exploratory talks here on weapons exports with the goal of resolving differences and potentially enhancing strategic cooperation.
  • Officials said the Kremlin has agreed to an Israeli offer to inform the Jewish state of the weapons requests by such countries as Iran, Lebanon and Syria.
  • "It is very important for us to elaborate a single approach on arms supplies to our regions the Middle East and the Caucasus," Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said.
  • Lieberman met Kremlin leaders during his visit to Moscow on June 2 in what officials said marked the most serious Israeli effort to improve strategic cooperation with Russia.
  • Lieberman, a Russian native and fluent in the language, has advocated strong ties with Moscow amid the expected decline in U.S. relations with the Jewish state.

Recent talks between Jerusalem and Moscow included government officials and companies from both countries. They said Russia would present several advanced prototypes, including the MiG-35 and Su-34, to Israel for enhancement.

While both warplanes are outmatched by the F-22 Obama has slashed its production to less than 200. The F-35 is still believed to be superior but experts over give it a 3 to 1 advantage over competing fighters compared to a 10-30 to 1 advantage for the F-22.

Russia and Israel would work together to develop aircraft systems as well as air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, the sources said. They said the joint project also garnered interest from at least one potential export client. Such cooperation is believed to be able to close the gap with the F-22 and F-22 and that concerns war planners and strategic thinkers.

"Russia has long been whispering a deal that is essentially air frames for boxes," a U.S. consultant involved in the discussions said. "They are talking about a Russian-Israeli hybrid: Israel will provide boxes, components and missiles. In return, Russia will provide the platforms."

GET IT? How do you think our pilots who serve feel about that one? Think denying Israel over bedrooms in the west bank is a freebee?


Israel is just one nation. True, they are a key strategic ally. But just one nation. What are they thinking in Japan where the government just underwent a tidal shift, and we refused them the F-22 as well, while they face a crazed and nuclear armed North Korea and gigantic China? What are they thinking in Czechoslovakia where they put their heads on the block for anti missile platforms and radar?

We know Britain thinks so little of facing Obama they sold a mass murderer of americans to Libya for some barrels of oil and gas.

And what IS Obama's reaction to what is going on around him?


On Sept. 24, President Barack Obama will bring together 14 world leaders for a special U.N. Security Council meeting in New York. On the agenda: how to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The summit is the latest step in the administration's campaign to eliminate nukes, a priority Obama stressed on the campaign trail and formally announced in April during his speech in Prague.

More About The Dhimmitude Of Yale University Press

Previous postings about this topic are HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

After the information as to Yale Press's self-censorship came out in the Washington Post, letters printed in the hard copy of the newspaper were overwhelmingly in support of Yale's decision.

Now comes this commentary in the Saturday, August 29, 2009 edition of the Washington Post:
Yale's Misguided Retreat

In deciding to omit the images from a book it is publishing about the controversy sparked by Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, Yale University Press has handed a victory to extremists. Both Yale and the extremists distorting this issue should be ashamed. I say this as a Muslim who supported the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's right to publish the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in late 2005 and as someone who also understands the offense taken at those cartoons by many Muslims, including my mother. After a while, she and I agreed to stop talking about them because the subject always made us argue.


Speaking at a conference that Khader hosted at the Danish parliament a year after the cartoons' publication, I warned of two right wings -- a non-Muslim one that hijacked the issue to fuel racism against immigrants in Denmark, and a Muslim one that hijacked the issue to silence Muslims and fuel anti-Western rhetoric.

Sadly, both groups are celebrating Yale's decision because it has proven them "right."


The cowardice shown by Yale Press recognizes none of the nuance that filled my conversations in Copenhagen nor discussions I had with Muslims in Qatar and Egypt during the controversy. Many told me they were dismayed at the double standards that stoked rage at these Danish cartoons yet did not question silence at anti-Semitic and racist cartoons in the region's media.

Does Yale realize that it has proven what Flemming Rose said was his original intent in commissioning the cartoons -- that artists were self-censoring out of fear of Muslim radicals?

Yale has sided with the various Muslim dictators and radical groups...
Read the entire essay HERE. As you might expect, the essay has generated pages and pages of comments.

About the author of the essay:
Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-born commentator based in New York, writes and lectures on Arab and Muslim issues. She is a columnist for the Danish newspaper Politiken. Her e-mail address is
So, is Mona Eltahaway one of those hoped-for moderate Muslims? What say you, fellow infidels?

Terrorism 101

From Sultan Knish:

The Real Root Cause of Terrorism

In the conventional political narrative the root causes of Islamic terrorism usually run the class warfare gamut from the generic oppression to outrage at Western foreign policy or more esoteric issues of globalism. And naturally like most people who look into a mirror to find the cause of someone else's anger, their reflection only repeats back to their own agenda.

Surprisingly enough the root cause of Islamic terrorism has very little to do with any of these things, though they are moderately handy talking points when it comes to recruiting future terrorists or touching base with idiot leftist reporters. To understand the root cause, requires understanding the function which terrorism serves in the Arab-Muslim world.

While Western liberals insist on viewing terrorism as a form of political or social activism, within the Muslim world terrorism is a two-sided tool, a way to create friction with an enemy without going to war while promoting the political standing of its leaders and backers. This two-sided concept of terrorism goes back to the nomadic days of bandit raiders that would carry out hit and run attacks that would bring in loot while raising the status of the tribal sheikh and the head of the raiding parties. Given enough time probing the enemy's weakness and raising the stature of the sheikh, such attacks might escalate into all out wars. And while such tactics may seem primitive, Mohammed was able to leverage them to turn his newly created Islamic cult into a major player in the region.

In modern times, the driving ideological force behind Arab-Muslim terrorism has been to recreate a single great state to replace the splintered colonial entities left behind by the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. It was an ancient tribal goal, and one that Mohammed's followers had come closest to achieving in the Arab version of the Thousand Year Reich. Modern versions of this might vary from the Islamic Caliphate to the secular Arab Nationalist version that would be a Socialist dictatorship run by someone like Nasser or Saddam. So while the ideology might vary, the underlying idea was always the same. One great state under one great ruler, who would demonstrate his fitness to rule by subjugating the enemy and thereby bring all of the region under his rule.

Under the ancient raiding codes, showing the most boldness and inflicting the most damage by striking at the enemy demonstrates that fitness to rule. This form of Arab-Muslim internal rivalry routinely spills over into external wars and terrorism, as both sides seek to prove their superiority by killing as many infidels as possible.

So Osama bin Laden's tribal religious conflict with the Saudi rulers was fought with the Soviets and then with America and Europe, more than with the House of Saud itself. Using the pretext of the US troops that the House of Saud had brought in to protect themselves from Saddam, Bin Laden was able to gain religious imprimatur for a war on America to build status for his claim to rule over the holiest place in Islam. The Saudis in turn had been funding a covert war on America for the same reason, as well as to divert wannabe Bin Ladens from trying to seize power.

In the same way Hamas and Fatah addressed their rivalry for nearly two decades by competing to see who could kill more Israelis. Hamas' greater viciousness and murderousness won it the support of Palestinian Arabs, allowing them to triumph in elections and seize Gaza. While Western liberal observers have struggled to frame the conflict in terms of Hamas' social services or Fatah's corruption, these were only side issues. The main event was to demonstrate who could inflict more harm on the enemy. An indirect conflict the Arab Nationalist Fatah and the Islamist Hamas for power over the Palestinian Authority cost the lives of numerous Israelis and foreign tourists, and it had next to nothing to do with any of the usual propaganda complaints about checkpoints or the wall of separation or even the desire for a Palestinian State, which the terrorism repeatedly sidelined. It had to do with an internal conflict expressed indirectly, a problem that is the root cause of much of Islamic terrorism.

That problem is also why there are fairly few actual moderate Muslims. When showing strength or inflicting harm against the enemy is key to leadership, moderation is an express train to nowhere. As terrorists have repeatedly demonstrated, every single Islamic religious law and practice can be set aside in the interest of killing infidels. That is because in practice no Islamic virtue is greater than that of defeating infidels and heretics. That singleminded approach allowed Islam to expand from an obscure cult to an empire. If Judaism embraces study and Christianity embraces evangelism as their key attributes, Islam embraces conquest. There would be no Islam without conquest. There can be no Islamic expansion today without it.

Go read the rest here.

Reichstag Fire (retrospective)

From LL:

It's just a history lesson.

That's all.

This is a clip (below) from the documentary, "The Rise of Evil" and deals with the Reichstag Fire:

Obama Sides With Marxists, Cuts Off Honduras

From Gateway Pundit:

Figures. Obama Cuts Off Aid to Honduras Over His Misreading of the Law

Birds of a feather...

(Michael Ramirez)
The news that President Obama will cut off aid to our ally Honduras did not make many headlines this week but it should have. Barack Obama is openly siding with Marxists Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega in punishing the government of Honduras. 

Not only that but Obama misread the laws to come to his conclusion.
Hans Bader reported at the DC Examiner

The Obama Administration is about to cut off humanitarian aid to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Earlier, the Obama Administration blocked travel to the United States by the people of Honduras.

Both actions are foolish responses to a recent ruling by the supreme court of Honduras refusing to approve the return to power of the country’s bullying ex-president and would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya. Zelaya was earlier arrested by soldiers acting on orders of the Honduras Supreme Court, replaced by his country’s Congress with a civiliansuccessor, and forced into exile. Zelaya’s removal came after he systematically abused his powers: he sought to circumvent constitutional term limits, used mobs to intimidate his critics, threatenedpublic employees with termination if they refused to help him violate the Constitution, engaged in massive corruption, illegally cut off public funds to local governments whose leaders refused to back his quest for more power, denied basic government services to his critics, refused to enforce dozens of laws passed by Congress, and spent the country into virtual bankruptcy, refusing to submit a budget so that he could illegally spendpublic funds on his cronies.

State Department lawyers, who are not experts on Honduran law, plan to declare the ex-president’s removal a “military coup” to justify cutting off aid, even though Honduras has a civilian president, and the ex-president was lawfully removed from office (although his subsequent exile may technically have violated Honduran law).

Journalists nonsensically refer to Honduras’s removal of its ex-president as a “coup” even while admitting that it was ordered by the country’s supreme court. But if it was legal, by definition, it cannot be a coup, since a coup is defined as “the unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government by a small group.”

The ex-president’s removal was perfectly constitutional, say many lawyers and foreign policy experts, including attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State KimHolmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady.

Moreover, the ex-president’s removal was not a “coup” because it was not committed by a “small group,” as the definition of “coup” requires. The removal of Honduras’s president was supported by the entire Honduran Supreme Court, an almost unanimous Honduran Congress, and much of Honduran society. Honduras did not lose its government, but merely replaced one illegitimate part of it: its overbearing president. And his removal from office (as opposed to his subsequent exile) was clearly legally justified.
Allman Brothers Band (w/ Duane Allman!)
Whipping Post

More Violence From Barack Obama's Supporters

From Gateway Pundit:

Pro-Obamacare Tea Party Crasher SMASHES ATTENDEE In the Face With His Elbow & Disrupts Meeting (Video)

More Hope & Change--
Barack Obama gave his marching orders:
Obama: "They Bring a Knife...We Bring a Gun"
Obama to His Followers: "Get in Their Faces!" 
Obama on ACORN Mobs: "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!"
Obama To His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
His supporters followed through...
But, don't expect the state-run media to report on this.

The Tucson area Tea Party Coalition held a meeting at Rincon High School in Tucson this weekend. Over 1,000 people showed up at the event... including one violent counter-protester.

The pro-Obama thug disrupted the meeting screaming-- marched to the front of the room holding a sign------
And, then SLAMMED AN ATTENDEE IN THE FACE with his elbow!

Here's the video:

*** Here is the video of the pro-Obama thug disrupting the meeting before he smashed the attendee with his elbow. And KGUN has a clear shot of the assault.
The protester identified himself as Don Alvarez.

The Tucson Tea Party has much more on the otherwise successful event.

Denmark: "All Danes and Jews Must Die"

From Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch:

23 families have been forced to move out of an apartment complex because of one other family, identified only as "Lebanese," that subjected them to "harassment, violence and threats" on a "daily basis," including their children "throwing rocks and spitting at other families in the building’s playground area. When they were told to stop, their parents came down to the playground armed with knives and clubs."

Elisabeth Dreijer Sørensen, a representative of the 23 families, recounts: "Yes, I got a red cross on my door. And later we learned what it means - that we are infidels, and that we're on the death list."

This "Lebanese" family must no doubt be Maronite!

"Denmark: 'All the Danes and Jews must die,'" from Islam In Europe, August 27:

The family in question is Lebanese. There's no mention of their faith, but what do the Jews have to do with this?

More on this story in the Copenhagen Post (in English). The family has meanwhile been moved to a different place in the municipality, out in the countryside, where the nearest neighbor is 200-300 meters away. It's not the first time the family has been moved. The mayor says it's a shame that this Lebanese family is ruining it for all the other well-integrated immigrants in the municipality (DA).

Danish blog Uriasposten presents a transcript of an interview on Danish broadcaster DR. I bring here just a bit of it:

Mads Steffensen, DR host: They had to listen to words and phrases such as racist, whore [..] all the Danes must die, all the Danes and Jews must die. The residents of Belvederevej in Helsingør feel that they live in a war-zone, it's a life of violence, threats and vandalism. There are two blocks, 23 families, and in one apartment there's a Lebanese family.


Mads Steffensen: The day after the family got a termination notice in a case, which anyways hasn't concluded yet, then you got a greeting, where you live.

Elisabeth Dreijer Sørensen, resident's representative: Yes, I got a red cross on my door. And later we learned what it means - that we are infidels, and that we're on the death list. Yes, the vandalism didn't stop there, because also three cars were scratched, and all four tires were punctured, after they got their notice. But though they've received their notice, they still have three months...

Sunday, August 30, 2009

The Post-Racial Age Has Arrived in Germany

...or: About people born on the right side. Twice.

The post-racial message of America's President Obama has finally arrived in Germany. How have we survived so long without it?

The director of the publicly funded "Workshop of Cultures" (Werkstatt der Kulturen), "theatermaker" and ethnologist Philippa Ebéné, decided Thursday to remove educational panels covering the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini from a planned exhibiton at her premises to the disgust of a district mayor, the curator of the exhibit and the Berlin Jewish community.

The exhibit covers the immensely topical issue "The Third World during the Second World War" and three of 96 exhibit panels are dedicated to the REALLY topical issue of the mufti's collaboration with the Nazis who had a decisive influence on the Holocaust (we reported many times already). Ebéné stated that she refused to display the information on Husseini out of respect for joint Arab organisations. Her decision was supported by migration commissioner of the Berlin Senate, Günter Piening. In a neighbourhood (heavily dominated by Muslims) like Neukölln a "differentiated presentation" was paramount, Piening stated.

"Not differentiated enough". The mufti and his German buddies.

Maya Zehden, a spokeswoman for the Berlin Jewish community, termed Piening's statement "an appeasement attempt" to ignore the fact that "there was no official resistance from the Arabic world against the persecution of Jews" during the Shoah. She accused Piening of showing a false tolerance to German-Arabs in a heavily Muslim-influenced neighborhood.

In an e-mail to the JPost, Heinz Buschkowsky, the district mayor in Neukölln, wrote that it is a sign of "anticipatory obedience to avoid probable protests. I do not consider this position to be good", notabene pointing out that Piening's statement is a "repression of the facts dealing with anti-Semitism."

Meanwhile, Ebéné denied that there was an "agreement" with the local Muslim community to censor the exhibit. She termed media queries regarding an agreement as "Eurocentric." The Jeruslem Post was informed that the exhibit was intended as a "homage to soldiers from African" countries who fought against the Nazis. Indeed, a crucial aspect of WWII so far totally neglected.

When asked about her opposition to the inclusion of the mufti panels, she asked, "was there ever a commemoration event in Israel to honor the [African] soldiers?" In an Interview with Radio Berlin Brandenburg Ebéné, who has a German mother and a father from Cameroon and is thus, so to say by birth and per definitionem, on the right side, stated: I am not white. I have no reason to be afraid of Arabs", which is rather endearing for somebody who is allegedly heavy into informing the world about the African slave-trade.

My take on all this? This is so rock-solid, die-hard, intransigently and impregnally stupid and so full of the usual German "antifa", politically correct, "fight against the right", "multiculti"anti-West and racist crap, that it defies any serious comment, because that would lend her antics a credibility they don't possess. That Ebéné is first confusing Fascism and National-Socialism and then, when challenged, peddling her family's (the German side, that is) history of saving Jewish children to show that she is by birth DOUBLY on the right side, is only the icing on the cake.

Of course, the reaction of the public, the political classes and the media, or the question how Ebéné could end up in such a position at all, are a different matter.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.


From Reliapundit, the Astute Blogger:

• WIKI: Van Jones (born September 20, 1968) is the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).[1]


Van Jones and His STORMtroopers Denounced America the Night After 9/11

Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, "mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world" on the night after Sept. 11, 2001.

The reason this is important is because Van Jones is now President Obama's green jobs czar. He does not appear to have distanced himself from his past communist activities and is now part of the Obama administration's push to turn Sept. 11 into a National Day of Service focused on the promotion of the radical environmentalist agenda.

The vigil was reported by World Net Daily which excerpted parts of a history of the now-disbanded group.

Apparently, after the WND article was posted online, the website on which the original document was posted was overwhelmed by visitors and unavailable. I found the article in the "Way Back Machine" website (, an archival resource. The 2004 document, called "Reclaiming Revolution: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)," may be found on the archival site here. (In case that becomes unavailable, the document "Reclaiming Revolution" is available at the link embedded in this sentence.)

Jones also founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which joined in the vigil according to an Ella Baker Center press release from 2001. The press release contained this passage that quoted Jones:

"Anti-Arab hostility is already reaching a fever pitch as pundits and common people alike rush to judgment that an Arab group is responsible for this tragedy," said Van Jones, national executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. "We fear that an atmosphere is being created that will result in official and street violence against Arab men, women and children."

"Reclaiming Revolution" also blamed the U.S. for 9/11. A passage on page 45 (27 of the PDF file) reads:

That night, STORM and the other movement leaders expressed sadness and anger at the deaths of innocent working class people. We were angry, first and foremost, with the U.S. government, whose worldwide aggression had engendered such hate across the globe that working class people were not safe at home. We honored those who had lost their lives in the attack -- and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas.









Camp Pendleton Story No Longer Uncorroborated ...

However, that does not mean my speculation about the meaning of the story (which can be found here and here) is true.

Noise Advisory


Aug. 26 - Sept. 4, 2009

Wednesday, Aug. 26

- Mortar Live Fire = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Zulu impact area.

- Demolitions Training = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosives into the Whiskey impact area. (up to 60 lbs)

Thursday, Aug. 27

- Mortar Live Fire = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Whiskey & Zulu impact area.

- Demolitions Training = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosives into the Whiskey impact area. (up to 500 lbs)

Friday, Aug. 28


Saturday, Aug. 29


Sunday, Aug. 30

- Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High explosive Munitions (1,759 lbs) into the Zulu Impact Area

Monday, Aug. 31

- Artillery Live Fire = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Whiskey & Zulu impact area.

- Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High explosive Munitions (1,759 lbs) into the Zulu Impact Area

Tuesday, Sept. 1

- Artillery Live Fire = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Whiskey & Zulu impact area.

Wednesday, Sept. 2

- Artillery Live Fire = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Whiskey & Zulu impact area.

- Mortar Live Fire = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Zulu impact area.

- Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High explosive Munitions (1,759 lbs) into the Zulu Impact Area

Thursday, Sept. 3

- Artillery Live Fire = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Whiskey & Zulu impact area.

- Mortar Live Fire = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Zulu impact area.

- Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High explosive Munitions (1,759 lbs) into the Zulu Impact Area

Friday, Sept. 4

- Demo Training = 0600-2359

Ø      Firing High Explosive Munitions into the Zulu impact area.

Approximate Distance of Impact Areas From


City of Fallbrook

City of Oceanside

City of San Clemente


14 km

17 km19 km


19 km

23 km13 km


23 km

26 km9 km

Note, the Orange County Register Newspaper announced these "High Explosive Munitions" back on the 25th of July.

As I have noted previously, I heard F-16's going overhead when I was at my friends home in Coto de Caza. Now, I could be wrong about that. I did not see them. But, what I heard sounded like the same jets they send out over Disneyland, or out to LAX or the OC Airport when there is possible trouble.

One time, shortly after 9/11, when I was working in a high-rise building in Burbank, a F-16 (on a practice run which involved an event at the Rose Bowl) buzzed the building I was in, probably no more than 200 feet above us. Perhaps ever lower. I saw the thing right out my window. 

Man, those things haul ass.

The building shook like you wouldn't believe. Of course, being that it was right after 9/11, and the mission had not been announced beforehand, this scared the hell out of us.

Anyone, point is, I have seen F-16's up close and personal on several occasions. I know what they sound like.

But, I could be wrong. Remember, I'm just a goofball. I'm no expert.

By the way, I don't believe the part about the Marines only using 1759 lbs. of explosives per evening. 

According to the female friend I talked to, the "bombing goes on all night long", and she is hearing bigger explosions "than I have ever heard in the 12 years I have lived here."