Thursday, July 28

Signs that Allah (God) is not on Your Side:

  • Your truck full of explosives fails to bring down the World Trade Center. (1993)
  • The Cyanide you included in the bomb was incarnated in the blast.
  • You end up in jail with a 240 year sentence.

  • You get caught at the US Border with a trunk full of explosives. (Millennium Bomber)
  • You get 22 years in Prison for being the millennium bomber (God was smiling on him!)

  • Your first boat bomb sinks before you can attack the USS SULLIVANS with it.
  • Your second boat bomb fails to sink the USS Cole, or even permanently destroy it.

  • You bomb two American Embassies in Africa and kill mostly Africans.

  • You can't strike the White house with your hijacked jet because you cannot find it

  • Out of the five sides of the Pentagon, you manage to hit the side that was just renovated,
    - and reinforced,
    - and still half empty

  • Your co-conspirator's planes fail to bring down the Twin Towers upon striking them, allowing a large number of people to escape.

  • Your Terrorist Paradise of a country manages to hold off the Soviet Military for a decade yet a handful of American soldiers takes over your country in a matter of days.

  • You shout for years for the death of America, but the country always seesm to grow stronger, while yours stagnates.

  • You can't light your matches to setoff your shoe bomb
  • You get life in prison for trying to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb

  • Your missile fails to hit an airplane full of Israeli tourists as it takes off in Africa.

  • A Tsunami wave misses America and instead wipes out hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims.

  • Polio has been wiped from the planet except in Muslim countries

  • You receive a life sentence for calling others to join in global Jihad.

  • You get a 75 year prison sentence for conspiring to support al-Qaeda and Hamas, and you're a cleric.

  • Your backpack full of explosives is a dud.
  • Your co-conspirators backpacks full of explosives are also duds.
  • Your safehouse is raided by the police
    - You learn what a 50,000 volt shock from a stungun feels like.

  • Your parents identify your picture as a terror bomber
    - They also tell anyone who knows where you are to tell the police

  • A fatwa is issued declaring your activities a crime against ISLAM

  • Your butt is in a cage in Guantanamo

Many people fail to understand that the God in Islam is the same Christian God and the same Jewish God. Now if you are praying for success in Jihad against the West and the west is praying for protection, it seems that God must choose sides.

From the list above, it certainly seems that God is not too into Jihad. So before you do something you might want to get a second opinion on whether or not what your doing is right. How about asking your parents?

Thanks to for certifying this post as Classy and showcasing it in his Some Call It A Bonfire/Carnival Of Classiness

Also thanks to Environmental Republican for the link.

Also thanks to The Red Ink for the link.

Also thanks to In the Right Place for the link. (Who manages to work around Bloggers lack of Trackbacks.)

Update 19 February 06:

Thanks to Jawa Report and Stop the ACLU for the links!

If you like this post, you might also enjoy this one:

Islam was not Hijacked

Monday, July 25

Obama 2008? Mr. Electability?

I was driving back from Long Island to DC and as I drove I was looking to see how far I could get before seeing a Kerry bumper sticker. Each trip I seem to get farther south. This time the first Kerry sticker was spotted in Delaware. They seem to be extinct in Long Island, which is probably the normal result seeing that the elections were last year and the guy did lose. (And what remains of the man’s image is s shell of what it was when he “Reported for Duty” not that it was much, especially for non-Democrats.)

One bumper sticker almost put me in shock. It was a OBAMA 2008 sticker. Was this owner of this car serious? I went to pass the car and the driver appeared to be a normal middle-class white guy in his late thirties. Did someone put this sticker on the car without his knowledge? I doubt it as he also had a “Sorry World” sticker on it. I was in a slight state of shock for the rest of the trip, that people could actually be serious about putting Obama out there as a serious Presidential candidate.

Back at home I tried “Obama 2008” in Google and came up with a multitude of sites covering the idea and even more sites selling Obama 2008 gear. I must say that I am taken aback. I try to stay on top of things going on in both parties, but I would not dream that after the last loss, that people would suggest Obama as a Presidential candidate. After all, this is the Senator who recently commented that he believed that Lincoln would have thought of a black man being elected to the Senate as “ironic” while questioning Lincoln’s role as the “Great Emancipator.”

Well I have questions for Mr. Obama; If Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator, then who was? What do you think of the role of the Democratic Party during the Civil War which included the following:

“few Democrats believed the emancipation of the slaves was worth shedding Northern blood. Indeed, opposition to emancipation had long been party policy. In 1862, for example, virtually every Democrat in Congress voted against eliminating slavery in the District of Columbia and prohibiting it in the territories.”

As it so happens, during the war, Obama’s own State Legislature passed a law calling for peace with the south. There was a name for these Civil War democrats. They were called Peace Democrats:

A quick summary can be found at:
Peace Democrats.
Many Democrats within this group hoped that the Union could be salvaged, but felt that military means were not justified. This faction asserted the following:
- The North was responsible for pushing the South into secession

- The Republicans were committed to establishing racial equality, a prospect opposed by many working class immigrants who wanted to protect their low-paying jobs and by racists

- Lincoln had become a tyrant and was bent upon destroying civil liberties
- The war was a national tragedy and must be ended, even if that meant granting independence to the Confederacy.
Funny thing about the points above is that (with minimum editing) they perfectly describe the actions of the Democratic Party today.

I think if Senator Obama is interested in commenting on our Country’s Great Leaders, perhaps he can start with criticizing those who were in his own party first. I don't know, perhaps this is a cruel joke. Perhaps the Democrats are being smart this time and are flushing out those who will poison their own wells well before the serious race starts. After all, just imagine the Monday morning quarterbacking after an Obama Presidential run. Not pretty.

Update: 22 October 2006

So, the Democrats seem to have a vacuum where their 2008 candidates should be. That combined with Obama playing it safe and sane, which seems to be turning him into a viable candidate.
First-term Senator Barack Obama has the charisma and the ambition to run for President. But, as JOE KLEIN reports from the campaign trail, he's not quite ready to answer the tough questions. - Time
Since when has not being able to answer tough questions stop a run for President? Could it be that he is not looking to just feed people BS? It's probably all academic as the chances of the Democrat Party backing him as a candidate in 2008 is pretty slim. There are others in line who will want a chance first. However, if he can do well in Iowa, like Kerry, then perhaps the other states will jump on the electability bandwagon. That might have more to do with who the Republicans put forward as their candidate.

I still think this early Obama talk is meant to burn out any chance he might have for 2008.

As for the tough questions, perhaps Mr. Obama can work up some answers for these:

Questions for 2008 Presidential Candidates - v.1

Thursday, July 21

The Newest in Terrorist Wear

It did not take the super privacy rights activists to design their response to NY's announcement that they will randomly search bags of persons entering the NY Subway System:

Sure, being searched is a hassle. Then again so is ending up in the hospital, or ending up dead because the police decided not to search people belongings for backpacks filled with explosives.

I am not sure if the person behind this shirt even thinks there is a terrorist threat or problem. If they do, how does he expect us to find the terrorists before they strike NY, again.

You can bet that NY is on their hit list. Making a strike in the US will earn them many more 'points' in their jihad than what they have accomplished in London.

Now I hope that the Mayor bothers to take a second to reply to the stupidity behind the shirt and point out that nobody is forcing anyone to use public transportation and people do not have an unrestricted right to use public transportation.

I would also like to point out that anyone wearing this shirt will probably automatically be stopped for a random search. After all, you have caught the Police's attention and you are telling the police, via the shirt, that you refuse to be searched and that is exactly the same thing that the Terrorists would do.

Stalin would be proud of Mr. Tony Lu, designer of the shirt. You see, if enough people start wearing these shirts and manage to subvert the police's attempts so search those entering the Subway, they will create the opportunity for terrorists to enter the system unsearched. That makes Mr. Lu a Useful Idiot for those who wish to hurt us.

How about catching a clue. The police have way to much to do already. For some reason they decided that they want to peek inside your backpack. Do everyone a favor and take the ten seconds to open the thing up. They will immediately realize that they are not interested in you at all. Of course is a free country and you can refuse their request/order, but that decision might cost you a couple of hours of your life in delays or even a trip to the police station.

Oh yeah, be sure to leave your drugs and whatever else illegal you might be carrying around at home if you plan to use the subway, because if they find a backpack full of drugs you'll be off to jail too. Hmmm, this search idea is sounding better all the time.

NYers to NYPD: 'I Do Not Consent to Being Searched' - Village Voice (Should be "NYER to NYPD...")

Police to begin checking bags on subways - Newsday


I like this shirt better:

I found the shirt through a posting on:

Confederate Yankee

Sunday, July 17

Karl Rove Tricks the Democrats, Again and Joe Wilson Needs to be Investigated, Still.

The left-leaning media has been attacking Karl Rove like there is no tommorrow lately, convinced that they have him by the balls this time, and by assosiation, President Bush. This is all about who leaked the 'Secret' that Ambassador Wilson's wife was (possibly) a covert CIA Agent.

I had first talked about Ambassador Wilson in my Signs of a Real Conspiracy post. I also identified the real leaker of the Ambassador's wife's profession; the Press. At least the investigation realizes that to an extent, as NY Times reporter Judith Miller is currently sitting in jail for refusing to disclose her source. this leads me to believe that it must be a Democrat, perhaps the Ambassador Himself. After all, he was talking to any member of the press who would listen, and lets not forget it was the NY Times that Wilson's Op-Ed was published a couple of days before. That would tell me that there was a good chance that Ms. Miller had access to Ambassador Wilson. It is only assumed that a Bush Administration official leaked the identity of his wife. My guess is that Ms. Miller is going to sit out her time in jail because revealing her source will be embarrassing to the Democratic Party. Would the press really go to jail to protect a member of the Bush Administration? Back to the issue at hand, Karl Rove.

The other reporter in the middle of this story is Times reporter Matt Cooper. Mr. Cooper's boss had no problem disclosing that Cooper talked to Rove mentioning the Ambassador's wife. The press has gone bananas over this revolation. Too bad none of these expert reporters noticed that Cooper already knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA by the time he called and talked with Rove. Of course that does not matter, because the press has proof that Rove was involved in this, so he must be the source. And for a while, the press coverage seemed to be working, as even conservative sites were suggesting that Rove should go, if for no other reason that to make the distraction go away.

Now we have a revelation made public this weekend that Rove immediately reported his conversations with the press concerning Wilson's wife:

"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley.

"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this." - My Way News

So where do we go from here? Rove has mentioned that he learned that Valarie Plame, Wilson's wife, was a CIA operative from Robert Novak, the reported who actually published her identity.

The AP reported Thursday that Rove acknowledged to the grand jury that he talked about Plame with both Cooper and Novak before they published their stories but that he originally learned about the operative's identity from the news media, not government sources.

Republicans cheered the latest revelations Friday, saying they showed Rove wasn't trying to hurt Plame but instead was trying to informally warn reporters to be cautious about some of Wilson's claims.

"What it says is, Karl Rove wasn't the leaker, he was actually the recipient of the information not the provider," Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman said on Fox News. "So there are probably a lot of folks in Washington who have prejudged this, who have rushed to judgment who are trying to smear Karl Rove."

So, we have the following questions that the press has yet to ask/investigate:

Who told Novak?

Who told Miller?

Why has there been no investigation of the CIA, Wilson, and Plame concerning their own investigation to disprove the Bush Administration about Iraq's attempts to buy Uranium from Niger, especially after two investigations (US and UK) determined that Wilson's investigation gave support to the theory, not disproved it, as Wilson claimed?

Instead of the press taking a serious look at the story, they will instead opt to sit in the air conditioned White House, and continue to take pot-shots and White House Spokesman Scott McClellan. That's Ok. Let them have their day. As Karl Rove warned Cooper, "if I were him (them) I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
Eventually, the full story will come out.
John Tierney: Why all the fuss? - International Herald Tribune
Plame security breach? It just ain't so, Joe - BY MARK STEYN, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
Somewhat Related (and Amusing)

Saturday, July 9

Brand Loyalty – Buy American

It is in the news often about what to do about keeping manufacturing jobs in the US and what the Government needs to do to stop the movement of jobs out of the US. Lots of the solutions being tossed around deal with a form of protectionism and official policy. However, one option has not been mentioned; buying American. The act of consumers taking the simple act of searching out and buying products made in the USA.

This is a simple idea and one that has been around for a long time, but “buy American” rings hollow these days. But why? There are many products that are made in the US. You can often find them right next to those cheap(er) products that come from China. Are they much more expensive? Not really. For smaller products the difference might be 25 or 50 cents to a dollar or two depending on how expensive the item is. The difference in price of more expensive items can be much greater, but so can the level of quality. Then again, sometimes the American product actually costs less.

For example, I just bought a can opener. The one I had was over ten years old and no longer functioning well. So in the Supermarket today, I had three to choose from. Two were $7.99 and both of those were made in China. The last one was $8.99 and made in the US. We bought the American-made can opener. It was a Swing-a-Way. When we got home, I threw the old one away. It also happened to be a Swing-a-Way. Provided this one also lasts ten years (it is guaranteed to) the difference in price comes out to ten cents a year. Well worth the additional cost to have it made here.

When I am out with people they would find it odd that I would be running through the clothes or flipping around boxes and items looking for the little mark stating where the product is made. Most people could care less. Yet at the same time they get upset over manufacturing jobs being moved to China. Sometimes looking for the Made in USA mark can be frustrating like when I was living in Finland and traveling around the EU when you ran across a statement like “Made somewhere in Europe.”

Many people are loyal to particular brands and I am partial to certain brands also and I will often look at them first. But if they are not made in the US I will look at the other available options. In the end I could care less what brand I purchase, especially if I have a choice between a product made here and a foreign-made name-brand item. Chances are that I will purchase the one made here.

So I am somewhat disappointed when an American company is in the news for moving manufacturing overseas, especially one that I like. Because it is one more item that I then have to search for its American-made competitor and become their new customer. Does this make a difference? Perhaps not, but half of the American economy centers on purchases made by you and me.

Friday, July 1

Why the Democrats are Losing Elections

Washington, DC has a relatively new newspaper in town. I have little free time to kick back and read a paper; besides I can read all the news I want from the new. But I have found this paper interesting, and best of all it’s free. So I am now in the habit of grabbing a copy each morning on the walk to my car. Just in case I get a moment to flip through it. It time I do, I find it most interesting.

Take the 30 June edition. It has an opinion piece titled “The Republican Advantage.” The opinion places the blame on why Democrats are losing elections on the election process and the way our government is setup to create a balance of power. For facts, the writer, Steven Hall, points out that democratic candidates won 51 % of votes cast for Senatorial Candidates yet the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate. Of course the 51% Democratic majority is nationally. When it is broken down by state, then we have the results as reflected in the Senate.

Now Mr. Hill claims that the Senate is the “most unrepresentative body in the world.” I find this hard to swallow. Any person who managed to stay awake in school knows that the senate is designed to give each state equal representation. Sure, there are many more people in NY that have to share New York’s two Senators than say in Montana. But their job is to represent your state, not you personally. So it does not mater if you live in a great state or a crappy state, your guaranteed two Senators. (Your not guaranteed a famous Senator though, Like Mrs. Clinton.)

Your Representative is in the House of Representatives. More populous states have more representatives. This of course is also biased against Democrats according to Hall as each Democratic Representative represents more citizens than Republican Representatives. Now this might be true, considering that no matter how few people live in a state, they still get at least one Representative. The total number of Representatives is fixed at 435. So as the population of the most populous states gets larger, each representative will naturally represent more citizens. The low-population states can lose citizens and still maintain at least one Representative.

This might be slightly unfair to urban centers, but it is not exactly fair to the country folk either. For example, there are many Representatives representing parts of New York City and only one Representative each for all of Montana, Alaska, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Each of these states has three total representatives when you include the Senators. New York has 29 Representatives. California has 53 (plus two Senators.) Each of these two large states has more votes in congress than all the small states I mentioned.

Now the system was setup this way to balance between the urban states and the country states and lets face it, if the Presidential election was a straight popular vote, candidates would spend all their time in the most populous states and avoid the middle ‘flyover’ part of the country. Mr. Hall points out that according to a populous vote, Gore would have been elected President in 2000. However he neglects to mention in his article that President Bush won the populous vote this time around.

I found his article an interesting read. I think the story would have been more complete if he mentioned the Opinion Journal piece:

The Empty Cradle Will Rock, How abortion is costing the Democrats voters--literally.

This is a great evaluation on how abortion is reducing the number of Democrat leaning voters to a much greater extent than Republican leaning voters:

“The more ideologically Democratic the voters are (self-identified liberals), the more abortions they have. The more ideologically Republican the voters are (self-identified conservatives), the fewer abortions they have.”

I would have loved to have read his interpretation on how apportion is biased against Democrats.