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.

OK--OK--So I have issues with Howie Dean.

You can’t call this the Arab-Israeli war of 06, since the usual belligerents have declined to participate. You could call it World War Three, as Newt Gingrich has suggested; he has a point, but that annoys everyone who wanted the Cold War to be WW3. (Somehow World War Four is less scary if we got another one out of the way without a nuclear swapmeet.) You could call it the Israel-Hezbollah War, but that lets the Syrians and Iranians off the hook.

So let’s just call it Bush’s Fault! At least that’s what Howard Dean proposes. The energetic head of the DNC had this to say:

“If you think what’s going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn’t, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn’t get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

The problem with Moral Authority is its antonym, the Palestinian Authority. Does Dean mean the Oslo accords? President Clinton had been in office less than a year. There‘s a reason they’re not the Little Rock Accords: Norwegian diplomats did all the heavy lifting. (Specifically, suspending disbelief about Arafat’s motives, which can throw your back out if you’re not careful.) Does Dean mean the Camp David negotiations, which ended in the bloody second intifada? Details, details. Moral authority, that’s what counts. Doesn’t stop wars, but it makes the bad guys look extra guilty. Ingrates!

This is not to underestimate President Clinton’s ability to make other diplomats feel good about themselves or produce impressive pieces of paper. But Mr. Clinton is not running in 2008, and neither Gore nor Kerry had his conspicuous gift for oleaginous empathy. Then again, who knows? Perhaps Al Gore would have Moral Authority gushing out his ear if he’d chosen to leave Saddam in power. No question Hezbollah would be impressed - perhaps enough to aim the rockets to the left a little, so they landed on the outskirts of the playgrounds.

But the revelatory moment in Dean’s assertion was its touching faith in Talk and Work. President Gore or Kerry would have been working day after day after day on the issue. Non stop! Sleeves rolled up, dinner at the desk: make another pot of coffee, Mabel, this Golan Heights dispute won’t solve itself. This suggests they believe the difficulties of the Middle East have the weight and consequence of a tariff dispute. This suggests that they don’t understand that the Hezbollah definition of “Disarm” is blowing off the limbs of Israelis. Imagine a typical negotiation:

Fierce-eyed Hezbollah representative: Thank you for the invitation; lovely office. Death to Israel.

Gullible American: Well, that’s just rhetoric; we understand.

Hezbollah: It is not rhetoric. It is truth. The Zionist entity is a festering infected splinter in the lip of the Caliphate.

(pause)

GA: So you’re saying you want some antibiotics as well? We can do that. But you have to show us you’re ready to coexist with Israel.

Hezbollah: We recognize the right of Israel to exist, but only as a footnote in history books.

GA: So we agree on principle, and the rest is just a matter of details. Great! We’ll draw up the treaty for the signing ceremony. You’re going to love the pens. They’re Cross. Smoothest pen you’ve ever used.

Hezbollah: I will save it to plunge into the heart of the last Jew to crawl towards the sea.

GA: Do you need your parking validated?

Repeat until the last accords fall apart, then call for new accords.

Howard Dean is not a stupid man; he knows Iran and Syria are the real actors behind this game. But his words placate the netroots people who think that Bush is stumping the country blaming the Hezbollah attacks on Max Cleland. Fine. If Israel eliminates Hezbollah, humiliates the fascists of Syria and lets Lebanon get on with the Cedar Revolution devoid of murder-gang influence, will that be Bush’s doing?

Of course not. He doesn’t have the Moral Authority, like a Pope. Or Bill Clinton.

Flipping them off

My friend Bobi and I had a conversation about flipping the "bird". And so I thought a little insight and history of that gesture might be informative to all of you sick freaks that read this crap.

The History Of The Middle Finger

Well, now......here's something I never knew before, and now that I know it, I feel compelled to send it on to my more intelligent friends in the hope that they, too, will feel edified. Isn't history more fun when you know something about it?

Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore they would be incapable of fighting in the future. This famous English longbow was made of the native English Yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" (or "pluck yew") .

Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, See, we can still pluck yew!

Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say, the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodentals fricative F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute!

It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows used with the longbow that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird."

IT IS STILL AN APPROPRIATE SALUTE TO THE FRENCH TODAY!

And yew thought yew knew every plucking thing

Why is this so Hard to understand?

STOP THE PEACE EFFORTS

Do I like the idea of peace? Absolutely! But I like the idea of freedom and economic liberty more. Many of the so-called "peace activists" you hear from today will accept any existence, as long as it is an existence without fighting. Living under a despot with no freedom of thought, speech or worship, and certainly no economic liberty, is preferable to some of these people than fighting -- and dying -- to be free.

The Communists had a rather interesting definition of peace back when the Soviet Union was in full bloom. They said that peace would exist when there was an absence of opposition to communism. Nice twist.

You want peace? Let me tell you of one of the most peaceful places in the world. A solitary confinement cell in a prison. There you will find no conflict. You can sleep at night without any fear of someone coming in through the window to harm you or steal your stuff. You can spend every day secure in the knowledge that there will be no rockets raining down on you, no fights, no threats, no violence. Oh .. .there's no freedom, to be sure. But these peace "activists" don't seem to be concerned about freedom. It's just peace -- an end to the violence -- that drives them. The want to make sure that women and children don't die. Fine! Rob them of all freedom, of all human dignity, of all liberty -- and move them into concentration camps where they're guarded day and night by armed soldiers ready to turn away any threat. Peace will reign! Women and children won't die! Freedom will.

I'm also sick to death of the attempts by the peace-at-any-price crowd to draw a moral equivalence between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel.

Hezbollah and Hamas Islamic murderers hide among their own civilian civilizations and lob rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal? To kill civilians and spread terror. The Israelis fire back to kill those who are attacking them. Civilians die. Why? Because the Islamic cowards are hiding behind their women and children. Yeah ... tell me about your moral equivalence.

Hezbollah has fired more than 2000 rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal is not to kill Israeli soldiers. The goal is to kill women and children --- innocent civilians. This is the nature of radical Islam. How could you expect anything else from the Islamic monsters who shot school children in the back in Beslan?

You know, of course, that Hezbollah wants Israel to release some Islamic prisoners. But did you know that one of the prisoners Hezbollah wants released killed a four-year-old girl by slamming a rifle butt into her skull? This Islamic goon crushed the skull of a small Israeli girl with a rifle butt, and the radical Muslims want him released. I suppose there is a grand celebration awaiting him in his hometown if, and when he returns.

Radical Islamists have watched the left in America and in Europe condemn the removal of Saddam Hussein. They have reveled in the criticism leveled against Bush for his efforts to bring a democratically elected government to Iraq. The vilification of Bush has encouraged the Islamic radicals and made them stronger. They now feel that their jihadist goal of bringing the entire world under Islamic rule can be realized. If those who fight them are condemned, and those who appease them are praised, how can you blame them for feeling emboldened?

Israel understands what so many Americans do not. There is a war going on. Islamic terrorists and militants are feeding on the weakness of the West. They're feeding on the weakness shown by the American left that has condemned our president for daring to strike back at Islamofascism.

We gain nothing by asking Israel to hold back.

Vapid Leader--Vapid Party

Times sure are tough for the Democrats. As world attention is drawn to the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, people aren't paying much attention to the left's signature issue: Iraq. Well, Senate Minority Leader (he likes to say 'Democratic Leader,' so people aren't reminded he's in the minority) Harry Reid decided yesterday it was time to pump Iraq back up.

Reid decided that it's time to bring Iraq back to the Senate floor for debate. He declared yesterday that Iraq has spiraled into a civil war. Oh, but Harry Reid wants you to know he has been using restraint. According to him, he has been "somewhat gingerly approaching this. No longer. There is a civil war going on in Iraq. In the last two months, more than 6,000 Iraqis have been killed. That's averaging more than 100 a day being killed in Iraq and we need to make sure there is a debate on this." Poor baby.

Bill Frist's chief of staff called Reid's ploy a 'summer rerun.' That's about right. This is Desperation 101. Democrats, aware that they have absolutely nothing to run on this fall, are playing the only card in their hand: Iraq. It is the reason President Bush is unpopular and they think they can ride the wave. The only problem is sooner or later, voters will want to know what their plan is. Then it will become painfully clear that they don't have one. Nationally, Democrats have nothing to run for, at least nothing they want to promote openly. A platform of higher taxes and bigger government doesn't exactly resonate with most voters. The American people know we can't cut and run and they know we have to support the troops. That pretty much empties the left's tank when it comes to solutions.

Remember: for the Democrats to win, America has to lose in Iraq. It is the Vietnam template being replayed through and through.

Get some real coverage of what this is all about!

For the second morning in a row I've been treated to non-stop coverage on CNN about the evacuation of Americans and others from Lebanon. OK! We get it! People are being evacuated! But this isn't the story! The story is Israel pounding Hezbollah. The story is Israel doing the work of so many other Western nations in ridding the world of a good number of these vicious monsters. And the story is also the Western world getting ready to tell Israel enough .. to drop back ... to hold off ... to allow Hezbollah to regroup and rearm so that Israel can be attacked again.

And what of Lebanon? Yeah, things are certainly rough there. They harbored Hezbollah. They ignored the UN's demands that Hezbollah be disarmed and removed from the Israeli border. They tolerated the Hezbollah's presence ... now they're paying the price. It is sad, truly sad that so many civilians are suffering. Perhaps this could have been averted if they had done something about the presence of these Islamic monsters who were occupying their country. Did the people who are pleading for Lebanon similarly plead for Israel when the Hezbollah would fire rockets into Israel trying to kill Israeli civilians? Somehow, I don't remember that. Perhaps instead of complaining to the world and asking the world to get Israel to leave them alone, they should be asking the world to step in and help Israel rid them of he Hezbollah menace.

How can I say this strongly enough? This isn't between Israel and Hezbollah. This isn't between Israel and the so-called "Palestinians" in the Gaza. This isn't between the U.S. and the Islamic fascists in Iraq. This is between the entire free world and Muslim radicals. This is a shooting, bombing war that is going on in virtually every continent on earth, save Antarctica. This is a world war. On the one side you have Muslims who believe that they are on a mission from god, on the other side you have people of various stripes merely trying to preserve their own way of life.

Dr. Thomas Sowell

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.


Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

Where's Condi?

The bombings will continue until morale improves

With much of the world pushing for a ceasefire in Lebanon, preferably brokered by the United States (because, after all, Israel is just a puppet of the US -- or are we their puppet? It depends on whose turn it is, I guess, and I lost my schedule), I believe it's time to reintroduce those fine folks to a few simple realities.

1) There are three parties with immediate concerns towards a ceasefire: Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah.

2) The government and military of Lebanon are not directly involved in the current fighting. Indeed, it can be argued that their unwillingness to get involved with the affairs taking place within its borders are a direct cause of the fighting.

3) Hezbollah has expressed no interest in a ceasefire, but rather has ratcheted up both its attacks and its rhetoric.

4) Hezbollah is not a nation-state, but rather a terrorist organization with literal barrels of blood on its hands -- a significant fraction of it American.

5) Israel has clearly stated its terms for a ceasefire from the instant they started shooting back:
A) The return of its kidnapped soldiers
B) A cessation of attacks by Hezbollah from Lebanon
C) The securing of Lebanon's southern region to prevent Hezbollah's return.

6) Neither Hezbollah nor any party with influence over them has shown the slightest interest in accepting or even discussing Israel's highly irrational and unreasonable position of "stop killing us, and we'll stop killing you."

7) As Hezbollah is a terrorist organization (which, it always bears repeating, had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group before 9/11, and still holds the #2 position), and it is the official position of the United States to not have any dealings with terrorist groups.

8) Especially when it comes to saving their asses from getting blown to bits by our ally for committing terrorist acts against that ally.

I'd like to see an international effort to rebuild and strengthen Lebanon, once they have been purged of the cancer of Hezbollah. Not only on humanitarian grounds to avoid the power vacuum that will be created by the long-overdue destruction of Hezbollah. If the Lebanese government doesn't step up and firmly take control, the resulting chaos will prove an open invitation for Syria to once again intervene and "restore order" -- and that puts us right back where this whole sad story began.

But all that is contingent on the elimination of Hezbollah -- if not completely, then weakened to the point where the feeble Lebanese government can reassert control over its own territory and prevent its southern tier from being used as a terrorist staging ground.

So should Secretary of State Rice go to the Middle East and work on brokering a ceasefire? Absolutely. At her soonest convenience.

However, I understand that this week she's getting her hair done. Next week doesn't look good, either, as she has a manicure AND pedicure scheduled, and some shoe shopping pencilled in and lunch many, many important lunch meetings... tell you what, Hezbollah: leave your phone number. We'll get back to you.

SATIRE ALERT !!!

Arrogant Israel in Danger of Losing France's Love

Watching the horrific violence unfolding in the Middle East, it’s hard to believe that only six short years ago the land enjoyed an era of unprecedented peace and tranquility, interrupted occasionally by the sound of an Israeli bus rudely exploding. President Clinton’s Oslo Accords proved that the Israeli people and those who want to eradicate them could live together in harmony, provided the Israelis didn’t mind an occasionally exploding bus ride to work. Unfortunately, Israel’s selfish insistence on constantly defending itself has tarnished Bill Clinton’s legacy, and threatens to engulf the entire region in an illegal and unsanctioned-by-France war.

France has a rich history of working collaboratively with others towards a common goal of peace, and have much to offer the Israelis in the way of spiritual advice. Prime Minister Jacques Chirac has strongly condemned Israel’s “completely disproportionate” use of force, urging it to adopt a more diplomatic, and decidedly French approach to ending the bloodshed. But in the height of arrogance, Israel refuses to unconditionally surrender and commence loading its Jews onto boxcars.

There appears to be no end in sight to their extremist arrogance, either. Today, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert arrogantly defied the international symphony of flatulence and vowed to “fight on with full force” against the peace-loving Hezbollah people;. Perhaps he should ask himself exactly what they are fighting for. The return of their soldiers? Freedom? Their very existence?

What point is existence if you’ve lost France's love?

It's a question not only for Israel, but for the United States as well.

Happy Anniversary TED 

On This Day

In 1969 a car driven by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island near Martha's Vineyard; passenger Mary Jo Kopechne died.

Mary Jo could not be reached for comment.

Do ya think this may wake up the American Electorate?

What you're seeing in the Middle East right now -- the fighting in Lebanon and in Gaza -- are the direct and predictable result of Israel's demonstrations of weakness. You do not show any sign of weakness to Islamic fascists. They will revel in it, and will then attack to press their perceived advantage.

Israel pulls it's citizens and settlements out of Gaza. This Israel does as a show of good faith and an inducement to the so-called "Palestinians" to react with a concession of their own and move toward a lasting negotiated peace. After the Gaza pull out Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert remarked that Israel was "tired" and wanted to work harder for peace. Another sign of Israeli weakness. "We're tired. Please leave us alone."

So ... Islamic terrorists in Gaza build a nice little tunnel and use it to attack Israel. They kidnap an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah Islamic fascists in Lebanon conduct a similar attack from the North. They kill several Israeli soldiers and kidnap two. These were clear-cut acts of war against Israel, and Israel is responding.

Newt Gingrich says that we and the rest of the world have to come to terms that we're in the middle of what he calls World War III. OK, he and I have a bit of a disagreement on that. I believe that the Cold War was World War III, and we won. Small point, so I'll bow to Gingrich on the World War III category.

It's been said that this World War, sometimes called the War On Terror, has an enemy that is difficult to define. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know who the enemy is in this world war: it is the savages who practice radical Islam. We know exactly who they are and we know exactly where to find them: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Let's also be sure to mention the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia and a good number of professors in American colleges and universities. This isn't rocket science...it's never been more clear exactly who the enemy is and where to find them.

So what should we do? It's time for the United States, Israel and whoever else values freedom and our way of life to eliminate radical Islam once and for all. The time to speak of toleration, negotiations and appeasement is past. Israel tried this route, and we clearly see what it bought them. Nothing but misery and death at the hands of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam.

Radical Islam needs to be eliminated from the face of the Earth. This must be done militarily, not through any more failed negotiations. Anything short of total annihilation of Islamic fascism is unacceptable. The radical Islamic government in Iran should be toppled and its leaders exterminated. Same with Syria. Israel should be fully unleashed and supported in an effort to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. It's time for them to breathe their last breath and be rewarded with their 72 virgins -- or 72 white grapes, as the case may be.

Unfortunately, that's not what's going to happen. The pro-appeasement forces in the United Nations, Europe and the American Democratic Party will call for a halt in the fight before the enemy has been erased. Once again Israel will have come close to destroying her enemies, only to be sold out by the world community. Too bad.

Inside Israel we have leftists marching and demanding an end to Israel's military moves. The appeasement left is pulling out the same mantras perfected by the left in this country. They're detailing the deaths of women and children, and calling for even more negotiations. Never mind that the negotiating has been going on for more than 50 years. Any rational observer can quickly see that the radical Islamist position on negotiations is that you negotiate to buy time, you kill to take the advantage.

One idiot protestor in Israel told a reporter "I think that Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah and Hamas and release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the hostages. This way this story will come to an end." Yes --- Israel has it's share of leftist idiots too.

This world cannot exist in peace and prosperity as long as we approach radical radical Islam with a politically correct, Mr. Nice Guy hand-off game plan. Israel realizes what's at stake here, Americans need to be reminded.

World War III

We are reaping the entirely predictable rewards from weakness the West has shown toward the mad mullahs who run Iran, and the grotesque gargoyle calling the shots in North Korea. Islamic Jihadists grow bolder and more deadly with every day that passes. They fire rockets into Israel neighborhoods --- Israel responds --- and the American press carefully and methodically catalogues the number of civilians killed as Israel defends itself.

It's war, people. It's the culture of the West, the culture of freedom and religious tolerance, vs. the hate-filled and violent culture of radical Islam. We aren't going to negotiate ourselves out of this one. We aren't going to be able to use our vast wealth to buy peace. Negotiations will show weakness. Money will bring contempt.

Radical Islam must be destroyed. Squashed. The repugnant virus of radical Islam and all of the Islamic terrorists who seek to spread it must be eliminate from the face of the earth. Time to start.

Yes--That New York Times

"All the Troops That Are Fit To Kill"

A terrorist sniper is trying to kill U.S. soldiers, and the New York Times is literally right their with them.

Taking pictures.

Probably spotting.

But don't question their patriotism.