Thanks to the Internet, television borders, like national ones, have grown blurry. A program broadcast in one country can now be seen the same night in another, at least in YouTube-size segments. A good case in point is "Dispatches: Undercover Mosque," a secret investigation by Britain's Channel Four into anti-democratic, anti-Western preaching in reputedly moderate British mosques. The documentary, which was shown in Britain on Monday, was linked via YouTube on the Drudge Report the following day.
Radical Islam in Britain will also be featured tomorrow night on "CNN: Special Investigations Unit," a new series which sounds like something involving David Caruso, designer sunglasses, and murdered fashion models. In fact, this episode, "The War Within," stars Christiane Amanpour, and while it would be going too far to call it an unflinching look at Muslim extremism, it does at least look at it. But let's not give Ms. Amanpour, arguably the most famous female journalist in the world, too much credit. Oriana Fallaci lamented before her death last year that she had come so late to the most important story of her lifetime. She was talking about the growth of Islamic radicalism in Europe, and she was referring to its beginnings in the 1970s.
Now in 2007, we have Ms. Amanpour, chicly turned out in dark glasses and a long dark coat, announcing at the outset that London, which has been not only her home but also her "refuge" from conflicts overseas, is itself embattled, a site of conflict and suicide bombings and fear. Unfortunately, little history or context for the eruption of this problem is provided. A massive, highly politicized Muslim population is just suddenly there, in Britain. There is no reference to the fatwa against author Salman Rushdie in 1989, when there was widespread rioting by British Muslims, let alone to the notorious 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech by the maverick Conservative politician Enoch Powell, in which the issue of immigration was placed dramatically on the front burner of English politics before being swiftly removed for the next three decades.
#1
If anyone is interested, even PBS let one slip past their PC guardians.
The Cell Next Door
Jan. 30, 2007 at 9pm FRONTLINE/World and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation go inside a terror cell -- believed to be the most serious homegrown cell -- accused of planning mayhem and mass murder in Atlanta and Toronto. Self-proclaimed Muslim fundamentalist Mubin Shaikh, who spent two years inside the cell as a police informant, describes the cell's plots and politics, and the film follows these radical Islamists to the training grounds of Pakistan.
Posted by: ed ||
01/22/2007 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And I am not shagging PBS for this. I have nothing but praise for them making this show. Too bad none of the networks have the spine to go near this subject. May the networks ratings continue sliding all the way down to hell.
Posted by: ed ||
01/22/2007 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
let alone to the notorious prophetic 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech by the maverick Conservative politician Enoch Powell
Saturday's much anticipated squaring off between noted Middle East scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes and London's leftist mayor Ken Livingstone - billed as the "Clash of Civilisations or World Civilisations" - was a rout, with Pipes - teaming with Brit Douglas Murray - besting the far less articulate Mayor's team while drawing considerable applause on decidedly hostile ground. Livingstone and his partner Birmingham Councilwoman Salma Yaqoob were rendered speechless on occasion, unable to challenge Pipes' professorial delivery and Murray's oratory.
Dr. Pipes presented the idea that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam, the solution. He dramatically quoted a Quranic text to show that the tenets for civil society were also to be found within Islam, and in concluding his remarks, brought the audience to their feet. He critiqued Samuel Huntinton's theory of clashing civilizations explaining how the struggle was more properly a conflict between civilization and barbarism.
According to eyewitness accounts, Murray "came out with guns blazing" and attacked Livingstone for his claims that all the ills of the world should be blamed on the West, challenging his belief that jihad is "our fault." Murray called multiculturalism an abject failure and pointedly asked why Livingstone had chosen Salma Yaqoob an Islamist, as a debating partner, noting that she is the Vice Chair of the Respect Party [a group which prides itself of being "Zionist Free"] and had openly campaigned for the release of terrorists and referred to the 7/7 bombings "as reprisals."
In stark contrast to Pipes and Murray, the London Mayor's speech was standard leftist boilerplate, alleging the Cold War was part and parcel of the United States' hegemonistic designs for dominion over all and in what must have represented a Stalinist flashback moment for many in the audience, actually blaming America for victimizing the Soviet Union. He then expanded his comments into a general attack on Western values, though he was careful to delimit his espoused multiculturalism, cutting short of endorsing the practice of cannibalism. Contrary to the evidence provided by London's 7/7/05 bombings, a similar but failed plot two weeks later and a seething population of Islamists advocating jihad, Livingstone also proclaimed that the city's considerable Muslim population had contributed much that was good.
The Mayor's debate partner Yaqoob was even less restrained calling Dr. Pipes an Islamophobe and, offering no factual basis, attempting to directly link him to the Bush administration's war policies. In keeping with Livingstone's bogeyman attitude toward the West in general and the U.S. in particular at the conference Yaqoob denied that Islamism presents any threat at all, claiming that terrorist attacks are motivated - and presumably justified - because of Western actions, "imperialism" et al.
The sense of those who witnessed the event was that Dr. Pipes and Douglas Murray won a clear-cut victory, defeating Livingstone and Yaqoob on their home turf and in front of an audience of 5,000.
#1
Interesting post. Red Ken really is a muzzie-lover of the highest order. His plan of having an immigrants' amnesty in London was soundly defeated in a Beeb phone poll last week, too. Maybe people are realising he's lost the plot.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
01/22/2007 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
2 observations:
1. I google'd this and found there was NO media coverage.
#3
Livingstone is a communist, communists control the media in the EU and I am coming to belive to a large extent here in the US. It's an empty victory.
#4
I also have argued from the start that this is a clash between barbarism and civilization. The two cannot coexist, because civilization offers a better way of doing just about everything--as judged by everyone, the civilized man as well as the primitive.
And thus, the only way those individuals who are invested in barbarism can keep their "way", is to utterly destroy civilization--if for no other reason that to give no alternative from which to choose.
All of this is seen in Islam today. They bitterly hate democracy, though it is plainly obvious that it is better. They hate learning. They hate economic development. They end up hating all that is good in life and worshiping death, chaos and anarchy.
They must threaten Muslims with death if they leave, or great brutality if they stray. But they know they cannot keep civilization out--it is too strong to wall off, though they try.
So they must destroy civilization, or they know that civilization will destroy them. And Islam is hemorrhaging followers--2 MILLION a year are leaving their religion and converting to Christianity alone. If they can leave, they do leave. And just ceasing to be Muslims is not enough--they want to discard all its trappings, to be able to say that they are NOT Muslims, they are Christians.
Though this is greeted by Christians, it is not for love of Christianity. It for their utter revulsion with barbarism, with failure, with Islam. It is for the desire of civility.
#5
The only way for the rest of us to deal with those invested "in promoting barbarism" is to rub them out. It'll be a long time before the electorate gets to that point.
#1
"it's certainly extremely bad manners (not unusual for the Chinese in such matters), and if one of those pieces hits another nation's satellite, clearly the Chinese could be held liable" Right.
#2
Treatises aside, even iff GMD were 1000% fully operational today, as long as foreign nations destroy their own orbiting assets there's no real reason for the USA to stop it.
So says the WSJ Opinion Page "Best of the Web" John Taranto
It has been suggested that Sen. Ted Kennedy wants to treat Iraq the way he treated Vietnam and Mary Jo Kopechne. But this may be a bum rap. Yesterday on "Meet the Press," Kennedy had this to say:
I, I suggest that the president has the responsibility to demonstrate and prove to the American people that the surge will work. This is because the surges in the past--when we were in Najaf--Najib in 2004, were not successful. In Fallujah, they weren't successful. In Baghdad this last year, they haven't been successful, 2005 not successful. The burden is on the president to prove to the American people that it will work.
"The surge will work" is an empirical proposition, so the only way to prove it is through experimentation--i.e., we must conduct the surge and see if it works. Thus by demanding proof, Kennedy is endorsing the surge. No doubt the president is grateful for his support.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/22/2007 15:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Again the dems skillfully demonstrate they have no plan, never had a plan, and are not interested in developing one, just that they want to be critical of Bush and get in office. It will be great fun to see that windbag Kennedy stand behind hildabeast and support her.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/22/2007 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
Jimmy Carter's timing is dorky, as always. The same sanctimonious ineptitude that made him the least successful president in US history prompted him to wager the remains of his reputation on advocacy for the Palestinians, precisely when the Palestinians have shown themselves to be their own worst enemies.
Americans invented the war of extermination in the modern world - the total war that only can be won killing so many of the enemy that not enough young men are left to be put into the line. The US south chafes in anger and shame at its defeat [in the Civil War], and the north recoils in horror from its own victory. Americans, in their amnesia and denial, blot out the idea that other peoples also must fight until they have exterminated the recalcitrant among their own populations.
The Palestinian and Iraqi civil wars, in the deepest sense of the term, are the true American solution, that is, the solution consonant with America's actual history. It took exactly 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the Voting Rights Act of 18[9]65 for one-man, one-vote democracy to arrive in the US south. The Middle East, in the time-honored expression, has not begun to fight. More killing, please! RTWT
#2
This form of obsessive self-pity produces the unctuous forms of expression that make it so painful to listen to a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton talk about political morality, with a lip-sucking, voice-throbbing, eye-tearing, fixed-staring, self-pitying, and downright creepy form of bathos that is painful to watch. The difference, of course, is that Bill Clinton is an utter hypocrite, while Jimmy Carter is quite sincere - which makes him all the more nauseating.
When I saw the above screenshot at Hot Air of a new Fox News promo, I immediately thought of Dinesh D'Souza, who in his new book The Enemy At Home says that "the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11." I do not believe that either the left or the right in America is responsible for causing 9/11, which I believe took place because of the expansionist and totalitarian jihad ideology and the renewed strength of some in the Islamic world to further its ends -- with, to be sure, a healthy sense of grievance against the West used for recruitment purposes. But I have long stressed, and continue to believe on the basis of numerous historical precedents, that those grievances, if redressed, would not end the jihad, which would simply continue to recruit on the basis of different grievances.
In any case, I just discovered, via referrals from Powerline, that D'Souza goes farther, and blames me also for Islamic terrorism. I have his book but haven't finished reading it yet -- when I wrote this and this about interviews he conducted, I didn't know this was in his book. But I just found this on page 278:
In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/22/2007 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's too bad. D'Souza's book about Gramscian political correctness and speech codes in the American education industry was an important book and still resonates today (witness the Heidi Cullen "make my ideological enemies unpersons" incident).
Unfortunately, he falls into the trap that many conservatives do, and confuses the hot war with radical Islam and its silent majority of supporters within the Islamic world with the cold war against cultural Marxism here at home. TO be sure, there is some confluence of purpose between leftists living in the West and radical Islam in terms of taking out the West, but they are NOT the same enemy and each will require different tactics to defeat.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/22/2007 7:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
His book on abortion politics, Party of Death, was also spot-on.
This, on the other hand . . . well, what no mo uro said.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/22/2007 8:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Indeed, a shame. Sounds like D'Souza lays out the right's version of the "neo-con conspiracy," with similarly spurious, overwrought, and stupid results. The left sucks for a lot of reasons -- but causing 9/11 is not one of them. Islamic supremacists caused 9/11, and conflating or diverting attention from that is never helpful.
1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it.
Might as well say an end to modern liberalism and its one-sided promotion of of cultural suicide.
until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death.
-- apostates from Islam still face a death sentence, this hasn't changed at all
we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.
2.
A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.
How about a zero quota from Pakistan & such countries "for the duration"? Exceptions must be made for those Muslims who stood by our fighting forces in Afghanistan & Iraq, among other places, and determination of who is eligible for immigration to the US under such circumstances taken out of the hands of the State Department, which is on the other side.
4.
Partition in Iraq would be defeat under another name (and as with past partitions, would lead to yet further partitions and micro-wars over these very subdivisions). But if it has to come, we cannot even consider abandoning the one part of the country that did seize the opportunity of modernization, development, and democracy.
Partition in Iraq would not be a defeat. The only thing holding Iraq together was Saddam's regime of terror. The unity of Iraq is the business of the Iraqis, who seem to have decisively rejected it. OTOH, the American electorate has no idea of how well things have gone in Kurdish Iraq, courtesy of the MSM (and the politicians who fail to direct our attention.) If any US Senator has visited that part of the country, it hasn't made the news.
Nor do I wish to concede that Serbo-fascist ethnic cleansing can appear more rational in retrospect than it did at the time.
Ethnic cleansing has a rationale of its own. See Spengler's take on the related issue, cited here. Some political differences (such as slavery in the pre-1865 US) are sometimes settled violently. The alternative is for countries like the US to put its young people on the line to enforce law & order between groups like the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, a task not in the job description of this country.
The Islamist threat itself may be crude, but this is an intricate cultural and political challenge that will absorb all of our energies for the rest of our lives: we are all responsible for doing our utmost as citizens as well as for demanding more imagination from our leaders.
The American electorate is still asleep to this issue, but very slowly attitudes are changing.
#2
Welcome also Pakistani and Bengladeshi Christians and Ahmadiyyas (? the so-called heretics who claim a Muslim prophet subsequent to Mohammed), openly offering refuge from Muslim persecutions.
Damn, this guy can write. He has such a high-level view and yet is able to spell out what it means for us all. As with Steyn, I can always say "What he said."
Writing of the decline of the West and the United States in particular has been a parlor game from the time of doomsayers Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee to Paul Kennedys pessimism of the 1980s. Now the most recent serial epitaphs center on the Anglo-American experience in Iraq that will soon end, it is foretold, in defeat and a global loss of American prestige to the detriment of the West at large.
The extremists in the Middle East Hamas, Hezbollah, and their Iranian and Syrian sponsors are supposedly empowered as nearby Iraqi Islamists tie down the American Gulliver. Democracy, we are also lectured by lyin' tranzis leftists, realists, and isolationists alike, wont work in the Muslim world. Instead elections only provide a veneer of legitimacy to one-vote/one time terrorists and jihadists like Iraqi Shiites and Hamas. They do have a point there.
Meanwhile, China merrily pushes ahead, piling up U.S. dollars as it trolls the Middle East for oil contracts. Other petrocrats whether a Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez cause international mischief with impunity. And they seem to win a pass from a distracted America that lacks an energy policy, other than borrowing profligately to power its Hummers and Chevy Tahoes. Zing! Ouch!
#1
WAFF.com > was reported that Canada allegedly had only TWO WARSHIPS on NATIONAL/NATION-WIDE PATROL. Rest were tied up in port due to lack of funding. RCAF better off, but still viewed as unlikely to prevail agz dedicated conventional strike. THINK "THE LONGEST DAY" = TWO, AND ONLY TWO, GERMAN MESSERSCHMITTS MAKING ONE PASS OVER BRIT INVASION SECTOR. "Return to base, Bwahahaha, the Luftwaffe has had its great moment, hahahaha".
#2
Wait until the Iran moves, before predicting US demise. My bet is that most of Iran's professional army will turn on the Ayataollahs. When that happens, both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis will have lost their terror daddy.
#3
If we suffer another attack, even the dhims will want to take off the gloves. I mean that in a Shermanesque way.
Is there ANY evidence for this?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
01/22/2007 5:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"If we suffer another attack, even the dhims will want to take off the gloves. I mean that in a Shermanesque way."
I second RC's skepticism that the Democrats would actually respond to another attack that way; by now, they're so in thrall to the Peace Pussies that such an about-face would be impossible.
Of the dozen or so options in dealing with Islamic terrorism (see my list, here), the Dems have consistently expressed a preference for the Law Enforcement Approach, as practiced under Clinton.
Democrats simply don't DO war; they haven't since Lyndon Johnson, forty years ago. And they aren't going to do it in response to any terrorist attack by a band of fanatical Muslims, not even an attack using rogue nuclear weapons. They will not make war for punishment, or for deterrence, or for conquest, or to annihilate the enemy; war is simply no longer a Democrat "thing", period.
My best guess is that what we would see from a Democratic President backed up by a Democratic Congress in response to another mass-casualty terrorist attack on American soil is a drastically souped-up domestic surveillance/policing operation: kind of a "Patriot Act on Steroids". Their insincere, cynical "concerns" for civil rights will magically evaporate like dew under a hot summer sun, and we would very quickly find ourselves living in a de facto police state-- a police state which targets not Muslims but, in emulation of the worst of Euroweenieism, targets "Islamophobia" instead, and the "wingnuts" who are deemed responsible for it.
Something we haven't talked about much here in Rantburg is a question that looms in the darkness: who will be blamed for the next terrorist attack? The terrorists? No. Islam? No. Oppressive, autocratic regimes in the Middle East? No. Democrats, having obsessed for the entire duration of George Bush's presidency on his "unilateralism" and "cowboy foreign policy", are going to blame HIM, along with those who developed the Bush Doctrine, for earning the world's hatred and inviting the attack. Following a catastrophic terrorist attack, the media will willingly-- gleefully, even-- assist the Democrats in whipping up "anti-neocon" hysteria, and in their police-state America it could become even more dangerous to be a conservative-- or even an ordinary Republican-- than a fanatical Islamic jihadist.
Coupled with the domestic crackdown would be a whopping dose of appeasement to the Islamic world, including a cessation of all support for Israel, along with a strong element of isolationism as we pull in our horns to avoid antagonizing the rest of the world.
All things considered, not Good Times. Not one bit.
Over the top? I predict, you decide...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/22/2007 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I was going to write the comment you just did, Dave, but, well.........you just did.
I'd add that even in the absence of a Democratic prez that any and all outside threats/attacks on the U.S. for 25-50 years will be blamed (never mind the contortions required to do so) on W by the left. This has the simultaneous advantage of:
-obviating the need for serious, adult, real-world thought and analysis (said obviation always an important thing among the left),
-removing the risks of changing basic principals and alienating some group of voters, and
-maintaining a meme which is deeply imbedded in the various information industries.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/22/2007 8:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I concur with RC, Dave D. and no mo uro.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
01/22/2007 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"If we suffer another attack, even the dhims will want to take off the gloves. I mean that in a Shermanesque way."
With a Democrat President I think the gloves would come off, and the Media and left would support everything possible, up to an including ethnic cleansing (not genocide or nukes, however).
With a Republican President I think they would pour that energy into blaming the President and Bush for doing this and that wrong and making things worse.
Having said that I'd still prefer a Republican President because I think the odds of that other attack are far less in that scenerio.
#8
Strangely enough, if Billary is Prez, I think she may respond in ways reminiscent of Thatcher. Because of her own innate gumption. The real tendency of all Dummocrats would be appeasement as noted. This would be the worst disaster immaginable. That is why the Pubs must win the election for Prez. I don't believe they can regain House. And Senate looks doubtful as 22 Senate seats up for contention are now occupied by Pubs. So Congress will likely be Demo for some time to come. The candiadte must be chosen carefully. A nitwit like McCain would lose for certain. The winnowing process should proceed quickly, so that favored ones have time to obtain national recognition. Hilldebeast doesn't need recognition. She is going to work on softening her image to appeal to centralist voters. She is going to be very formidable if she gets the Donk nomination.
#9
The Conservatives should get together in a (cigar) smoke-filled room and pick the best conservative candidate. Say Duncan Hunter with Tancredo or Newt as his VP. Then get the other conservatives to drop out of the race and support them in exchange for different positions. Then work on the name recognition for the next year.
Lastly, fight a clean primary so that the nation can contrast with the bloodbath that will be the Democratic primaries. There would be enough difference between a conservative and McCain and Guiliani to make it easy for primary voters to decide.
#10
"With a Democrat President I think the gloves would come off, and the Media and left would support everything possible, up to an including ethnic cleansing (not genocide or nukes, however)."
You may be right, but I doubt it. The notion that there must still be some hard, crunchy Jacksonian-- or Shermanesque-- core hidden beneath the soft, plump, corrupt, self-indulgent surface of the Democratic Party strikes me as little more than wishful thinking, though; I think those days are long-gone. In the event of another mass-casualty terrorist attack on American soil, the party whose immediate reaction to 9/11 was to hand AFSCME union cards to all airline security personnel, competent or not, and whose most recent proposal for success in Iraq involved "responsible redeployment" of our troops to "nearby" Okinawa, is unlikely to give us anything more than what they've given us these last five years: bullshit, ass-covering, and blame-shifting.
But like I said, you could be right; we shall see.
"Strangely enough, if Billary is Prez, I think she may respond in ways reminiscent of Thatcher. Because of her own innate gumption."
I think she's far more likely to respond in ways reminiscent of the first Clinton reign.
She may remind some of the Iron Lady, but the only steel in her resolve will be in her committment to the establishment of World Socialism. Fight terrorists in foreign countries? Forget it-- at least, unless the U.N. bestows its blessing. Terrorism, to her and her kind, is strictly a law-enforcement matter, and what little international character they deem it to have is a matter for the U.N. Security Council to deal with. For Hillary to suddenly have a Road to Damascus Moment and see the wisdom of dealing harshly with the state sponsors of terrorism, would mean repudiating everything her husband did during the entire eight years he was in office. Ain't gonna happen-- not even with a half-dozen of our cities reduced to puddles of bubbling, radioactive slag.
But you could be right. We'll see.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/22/2007 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#11
If Billary is Prez (in the mentioned scenario) she would act like Janet Reno rather than Margaret Thatcher. Several destroyed US cities would just result in a police state, if that. People forget what happened to the Roman Empire, dependent on trade from one end to the other. When its flow of goods & services ceased, it did too, and millions suffered. The Islamic fascists and the Left will have won.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/22/2007 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#13
rj (#9): Methinks you may be onto something. We need someone who's a TRUE conservative, but one with spine, gumption and the wherewithall to fight back in the press. Dubya's got 2 of those 3, and I truly believe if'n he were to "get out front" and explain this war (once a week?) on TV, we'd be a LOT farther along. Steal the MSM's thunder and explain things in simple terms that Americans can understand. Tancredo, and to a lesser extent Newt have that "fire." Don't know as much about Duncan Hunter. Jeebus, the heat Tancredo alone has withstood (on illegal immigration) baffles the mind, but goes to show what a "common" topic that is to ALL Americans.
As far as a face on "stick-to-it-ness" in the WoT, Rudy's got every one of those you mention beat to a "T." He's the face of 9/11 in NYC. Unfortunately, he's no conservative on pretty much any other issue, so he'll be a hard sell for those of us wacky "religious righters". I gotta say, though, I think I'd even hold my nose and pull the lever for Olympia Snowe right now, if Hitlery was my only other choice.
Posted by: BA ||
01/22/2007 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The fact is that the Pubs are facing some real problems in the Presidential elections. If you look realistically at the candidacies of Hunter, Tancredo and Gingrich combined, they wouldn't make as much difference as a fart in a firestorm in 2008. Like it or not, the real choice will be Hillary, Obama, McCain, Romney or Guilani.
#15
If that is the choice, then as much as I disagree with Giuliani on most social issues, I will have to vote for him for President. Hillary would be the worst possible combination of political opportunism and incompetence imaginable - 4 years of her would make people long for Jimmy Carter.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
