Funny you should ask.

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, or 20% of The world population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1990 - Elias James Corey
1999 - Ahmed Zewai

Economics:
(none)

Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad


*****************************************************************
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000, or about 0.02 % of the world population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rab i
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charle S Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - R udolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abra ham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jaco B
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis

The Jews are not promoting brain washing their children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics. The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all:

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.

Any Questions?

SATIRE ALERT !!!

Bush Outsourcing Transgendered Pedophile Teaching Jobs to Thailand

After confessing last week to the brutal 1997 slaying of Jon Benet Ramsey, John Mark Karr was dragged away from the only place a man such as himself could obtain a teaching job in this economy. Doubts have been raised as to the authenticity of his confession, but whether he admits to the murder is irrelevant. The real criminal here is not Mr. Karr, but George W. Bush – or more specifically, his unapologetic policy of outsourcing all the transgendered pedophile teaching jobs to Thailand.

In the so-called “Land of the Free”, males who voluntarily have their genitals cleaved off and undergo hormone treatment until they sprout unconvincing breasts are treated like freaks. But on the streets of Bangkok, you can throw a dead cat ten feet in any direction and 30 hungry people will pounce on it. According to statistics, twenty-seven of those people are in the process of some sort of sexual reassignment therapy. The numbers are much higher in the States, yet for reasons unknown we are far less tolerant of these unique individuals than we’d care to admit. A woman who shows up for a job interview with a five o’clock shadow, an adam’s apple the size of a small town in Iowa, and a hair-do that looks like one of Dan Haggerty’s armpits has been clumsily stapled to her skull is likely to either be mistaken for Ann Coulter or brusquely shown the door. Such intolerance not only chases our most talented Transgendered Americans out of the country, but creates a society where the major concentration of wealth resides in the hands of naturally born males and/or females.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

The City of San Francisco, a refuge for those who would be branded as “deviants”, "preverts", or “liberals” in less enlightened cities, has enacted legislation that will earmark hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for a “Comprehensive Transgender Employment Initiative," a noble effort to economically empower transgendered citizens. Money that would otherwise be wasted on hiring cops or filling potholes will now be used to create employment opportunities for San Francisco’s most underappreciated drag queens. Doors of opportunity that have long been slammed shut in the name of common decency are now open, insuring economic equality for all and keeping America's transgendered pedophiles in San Franscisco where they belong.

If only such a program were implemented at a national level, Jon Benet Ramsey might be alive today, free to pursue gender-reassignment surgery of her own. Instead, a beautiful little girl has lost her life, a brilliant man/woman has lost his/her job, and Bush still sits in the White House, installed by his Evangelical masters to insure that no Transgendered American makes a Living Wage.

What happens when the dog catches the car?

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor illustrates why Democrats cannot be trusted with political power in time of war.

Judge Taylor, who is the chief judge of the federal district court in Detroit, ruled Aug. 17 that it is unconstitutional for the National Security Agency to listen in, without warrants, on telephone conversations between terror suspects abroad and people in the United States.
Her ruling was praised by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats.

"With a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do," The New York Times gushed in an editorial Aug. 18.

But the Times was pretty much alone in its opinion that Judge Taylor's decision was "careful" and "thoroughly grounded."

In its editorial the same day, The Washington Post said Judge Diggs' decision "is neither careful nor scholarly, and is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting."

"There is poor reasoning, and then there is head-spinningly, jaw droppingly poor reasoning," said The Washington Times.

By Aug. 20, The New York Times was backtracking. "Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge's conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision's reasoning and rhetoric yesterday," wrote the Times' Adam Liptak in a news story.

On Wednesday, the Times published an op-ed by University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse which described Judge Taylor as "a law unto herself."

"For those who approve the outcome, the judge's opinion is counterproductive," Ms. Althouse said. "It will be harder to defend upon appeal than a more careful decision. It suggests there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush."

Activist judges like Ms. Taylor who attempt to impose their political views by fiat pose a significant danger to the constitutional separation of powers, Ms. Althouse said.

"Let's consider the irony of emphasizing the importance of holding one branch of the federal government, the executive, to the strict limits of the rule of law while sitting in another branch of the federal government, the judiciary, and blithely ignoring your own obligations," she said.

The Times' discomfort increased when Judicial Watch discovered that Judge Taylor served on the board of a foundation which gave $125,000 to the Michigan ACLU, the lead plaintiff in the case, and did not disclose this apparent conflict of interest.

"Judge Taylor's role at a grant-making foundation whose list of beneficiaries includes groups that regularly litigate in the courts is ... disquieting," the Times acknowledged in an editorial Thursday.

This wasn't Judge Taylor's first brush with judicial impropriety. In 1998, she tried to take from Judge Bernard Friedman (who'd been awarded it on the customary blind draw), the case concerning affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan's law school. She gave up the attempt when Judge Friedman complained loudly, in public.

Even if Judge Taylor had been awarded the case in the blind draw, it would have been improper for her to hear it, because her husband is a regent at the University of Michigan.

Judge Taylor was appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1979. Her cavalier attitude toward conflict of interest rules, and her tendency to use her position to impose by fiat her political views regardless of what the law says are, alas, not rare among Carter and Clinton appointees to the federal bench.

Judge Taylor's excesses are not likely, in this instance, to harm the republic. Indeed, her atrocious reasoning behind a decision shaky on the merits increases the high likelihood it will be overturned on appeal.

Of more significance is what the uncritical embrace by Democrats of Judge Taylor's decision portends for Democrats. We suffered on Sept. 11, 2001, the most devastating attack ever on our soil. The program Judge Taylor wants to terminate, however, can help prevent the kinds of attacks that Britain thwarted this month.

President Bush has made mistakes in his conduct of the war on terror. But thanks in part to Judge Taylor's ruling, voters this November will be asking themselves whether they would rather be governed by a political party that thinks Islamic terror is the greatest threat to Americans, or by a political party which is more concerned about Wal-Mart.

I don't think Democrats will like their answer.

Nevile Chamberlin would be a PROUD Democrat

It should be clear that the Democrat Party simply does not want to be engaged in the war against Islamic fascism. The Democrat Party is clearly becoming the Democrat-Appeasement Party. Good for the Islamic murderers. Bad for us.

Why, though, do the Democrats find it so terribly difficult -- almost impossible -- to even so much as admit that we are actually in a hot, shooting war with Islamic fascism? They simply view this as something that can be settled if we just sit down, be nice, and talk a lot.

Noodle it out. It's all about power. Political power. Regaining power and then retaining it.

Democrats know that the voting public views the Republicans as more likely to act to defend our country when we are under threat. The trick, then, is to make sure that the voters don't feel we're under a threat. Democrats know that if the voters come to understand that there is a grave threat to the security of the American people -- a threat, for instance, from Iran's nuclear program, and from Islamic radicals around the world -- then these voters are not going to be likely to vote for a party that they view as weak on defending America.

Democrats like John Kerry are trying to convince the people that Islamic terrorism is no more than a simple law enforcement problem. Find them. Arrest them. Try them. Jail them. Oh, and by the way, make sure they get their full plate of Constitutional rights in the process ... even though they most certainly aren't entitled to them.

Listen to these appeasers! "The war in Iraq is wrong." "We need to talk to Iran." "We need to make Israel stop killing all those innocent civilians."

Listen, friends. There is no "war in Iraq." There is no "War in Afghanistan." There's the Iraq front and the Afghan front in the world-wide war against Islamic fascism. Instinctively, you know this.

That's what scares the Democrat-Appeasement party so much.

What the hell?

When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq, the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan. European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word. The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago.

In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions.

Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.” At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.”

Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques from which such hatred has in the past often emanated — as if the problem of a Jew being murdered at the Los Angeles airport or a Seattle civic center arises from not protecting mosques, rather than protecting us from what sometimes goes on in mosques.

But then the world is awash with a vicious hatred that we have not seen in our generation: the most lavish film in Turkish history, “Valley of the Wolves,” depicts a Jewish-American harvesting organs at Abu Ghraib in order to sell them; the Palestinian state press regularly denigrates the race and appearance of the American Secretary of State; the U.N. secretary general calls a mistaken Israeli strike on a U.N. post “deliberate,” without a word that his own Blue Helmets have for years watched Hezbollah arm rockets in violation of U.N. resolutions, and Hezbollah’s terrorists routinely hide behind U.N. peacekeepers to ensure impunity while launching missiles.

If you think I exaggerate the bankruptcy of the West or only refer to the serial ravings on the Middle East of Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter, consider some of the most recent comments from Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah about Israel: “When the people of this temporary country lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin [emphasis added].” Then compare Nasrallah’s remarks about the U.S: “To President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and every other tyrannical aggressor. I want to invite you to do what you want, practice your hostilities. By God, you will not succeed in erasing our memory, our presence or eradicating our strong belief. Your masses will soon waste away, and your days are numbered [emphasis added].”

And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.” And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?

An Arab rights group, between denunciations of Israel and America, is suing its alma mater the United States for not evacuating Arab-Americans quickly enough from Lebanon, despite government warnings of the dangers of going there, and the explicit tactics of Hezbollah, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, of using civilians as human shields in the war it started against Israel.

Demonstrators on behalf of Hezbollah inside the United States — does anyone remember our 241 Marines slaughtered by these cowardly terrorists? — routinely carry placards with the Star of David juxtaposed with Swastikas, as voices praise terrorist killers. Few Arab-American groups these past few days have publicly explained that the sort of violence, tyranny, and lawlessness of the Middle East that drove them to the shores of a compassionate and successful America is best epitomized by the primordial creed of Hezbollah.

There is no need to mention Europe, an entire continent now returning to the cowardice of the 1930s. Its cartoonists are terrified of offending Muslim sensibilities, so they now portray the Jews as Nazis, secure that no offended Israeli terrorist might chop off their heads. The French foreign minister meets with the Iranians to show solidarity with the terrorists who promise to wipe Israel off the map (“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran — a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region”) — and manages to outdo Chamberlain at Munich. One wonders only whether the prime catalyst for such French debasement is worry over oil, terrorists, nukes, unassimilated Arab minorities at home, or the old Gallic Jew-hatred.

It is now a cliché to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel.

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress.

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

SATIRE ALERT !!!

John Kerry Rally Packed with GOP Stooges

The presidential elections are two years away and the right-wing fascists are already up to their usual dirty tricks. At a rally before a throng of loyal Iowa supporters yesterday, Senator John Kerry was surprised to find the audience packed with GOP stooges. As he delivered his nuanced oratory, members of the enormous crowd would spontaneously nod off, snore, break wind, or keel over in a blatant attempt to disrupt his speech. Numerous others mumbled something about Wheel of Fortune and wandered away, leaving a handful of empty chairs to create the false illusion of an embarassingly low turnout. Another obvious GOP plant claimed to be a retired Vietnam Veteran, and complained of severe back pains where he had been “stabbed repeatedly by a fellow soldier in a fashion reminiscent of Jingus Khan”.

“And I didn’t get no Purple Heart for it neither!” he cackled as event organizers escorted him from the premises.

An unfazed Senator Kerry dismissed the heckler with a wave of his hand.

“That’s how these people work,” he told the remaining three supporters. “They can’t stand any opposition so they barge in uninvited and shout you down. But that's okay. As my Iowan mother used to say: We’ve seen it all before!”

“B4?” wheezed a startled old codger in the front row, a flutter of white cards tumbling from his fingers. “BINGO!!!!”

How do we fight?

One of the more pressing questions in the ongoing war against Islamofascism is, how do we fight these people?

It's not just an academic question. The opponents of classical liberal civilization have become adept at using the West's principles against us. The Geneva Conventions, for instance, were originally designed to protect both civilian populations and members of lawful armies from mistreatment. Terrorists from Lebanon to Somalia to Afghanistan, with no small amount of help from jurists and journalists in the West, have learned to turn those principles on their heads, regularly using civilian populations as shields from attack, only to turn and claim "atrocity" when attacks are carried out against terrorists hiding amist civilians. They have also used the West's legal systems as defenses, claiming rights to which they are not entitled under the letters of prior treaties, but accepting no responsibility for their own barbaric treatment of captured Western soldiers or civilians.

These conditions are not likely to change. Gunmen in Mogadishu learned early that Americans do not attack women and children; they quite literally hid behind civilian women while shooting at US troops as a result. What then can the response be from the civilized world?

For the Israelis, when Hezbollah intentionally locates its forces within civilian neighborhoods and next to technically neutral "UN peacekeepers," the answer is to attack anyway, albeit after sending warnings to the civilian population to flee (imagine for a moment the leadership of al Queda or Hezbollah even contemplating taking the same measures). In a world without many easy answers, their decision is understandable, if still terrible.

The question still remains for us: how do we fight? We don't want to stoop to the enemy's barbarism, but it's even less palatable to consider acquiescing to that very same barbarism. They must be defeated, but how, and at what cost, both to us or to innocents in between?

In the end, I'm afraid the answer is still the terrible one: unwillingly harming innocents in the crossfire is still preferrable to surrender--especially when surrender means subjugation at best and annihilation at worst. It's an awful, awful choice, but it's one we're going to have to make many times over during the harsh years of the Long War.