I'm adding this because this woman could very likely become our First Lady and she seemingly has lots of influence over Obama. From the guys at Powerline and Michelle Marklin and Hugh Hewitt also have some words. Worth the read
This past Friday Michelle Obama gave essentially the same stump speech in Charlotte, North Carolina that she had given the week earlier in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Based on the stump speech, Yuval Levin calls Mrs. Obama "The unhappiest millionaire." Levin's NRO column carries a link to the C-SPAN video of Mrs. Obama's North Carolina speech. It is well worth watching.
Levin characterizes the pervasive themes of Mrs. Obama's stump speech as the "gospel of bitterness." Levin finds Barack Obama to be preaching a similar gospel, albeit one that benefits from "a peppier and more upbeat stump speech[.]" Senator Obama's enormous political skills make it much more difficult to discern the somewhat repulsive views and attitudes that are nakedly on display in Mrs. Obama's stump speech.
Michelle Obama seethes with bitterness. While she preaches the gospel according to Barack, she wears resentment and bitterness on her sleeve. It is therefore painful to listen to her. She's apparently even still angry about her SAT scores. She didn't test well in school, she explains. Somehow, she has overcome.
Mrs. Obama seeks to convey convey the impression -- she expands on the theme at great length -- that Senator Obama's campaign is, to borrow Joe McCarthy's formulation, the victim of "a conspiracy so immense..." It is not clear whether the Obama campaign can overcome the power of these sinister forces.
According to Mrs. Obama, the Obama campaign has been constrained by nameless forces constantly changing the rules of the game and thereby preventing Senator Obama from securing the nomination. Who are "they"? Mrs. Obama says just enough about these nameless forces for us to infer that "they" include the Clintons and their supporters. "They" seem also (incredibly) to include the mainstream media. These nameless forces have approximately the same specificity as the names on Joe McCarthy's list.
In her North Carolina speech Mrs. Obama reiterates the condescending political sociology that she elaborated in her Fort Wayne remarks and that Barack Obama preached at his closed-door fundraiser with the San Francisco Democrats. Given the modesty of her and her husband's family backgrounds, Mrs. Obama denies that she or her husband could be elitists.
Yet Mrs. Obama's political sociology comfortably fits the What's the Matter With Kansas? school of thought held by the Demoratic Party's liberal elite. Indeed, it was an elite group of wealthy San Francisco Democrats to whom Barack Obama was preaching the gospel of bitterness in San Francisco.
Mrs. Obama mocks the notion that she and her husband are elitists. She implicitly asserts that only those born to wealth are capable of looking down their noses at their fellow citizens. She does not think highly of those of us who want to be left alone by advocates of the administrative welfare state such as she and her husband. Moreover, she finds us guilty of making our children the victims of our fears. We are raising "young doubters." (I confess!)
But aren't those in her audience afraid of the sinister forces struggling to hold the Obamas down? Apparently not any more than she is. If her remarks were to be believed, they would by themselves instill deep fears. Her audience seems to understand that her impassioned whining is not to be taken seriously.
She says that she and Barack were born to parents of modest means, not with "silver spoons" in their mouths. Nobody knows the trouble they've seen. The burden of paying for her undergraduate education at Princeton and her law school education at Harvard has scarred her. It remains a motif of her stump speech. No one is accorded a chance to ask her if she thought about attending the University of Illinois, or if she's grateful for any of the financial assistance that facilitated her and her husband's attendance at the finest institutions of higher learning in the United States.
It appears that no one in the Obama campaign has the nerve to speak frankly with Mrs. Obama about how her stump speech might be improved. She could benefit from constructive criticism, because she is woefully deficient in the ability to see herself as others see her. She has just enough self-awareness to omit her admonition to the Los Angeles disciples of Barack:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
As I said last week about Mrs. Obama's Fort Wayne remarks: As long as Senator Obama won't require us to listen to the missus, I might be willing to settle for the compulsory mental readjustments.
PAUL adds: So Michelle Obama didn't do very well on her SATs but was admitted to Princeton? No wonder she's sore.
One of the problems with lowering the bar pursuant to "affirmative action" is that placing the bar back where it was requires raising it.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin have more. At NRO Byron York also devotes a column to the speech.
#2
According to Mrs. Obama, the Obama campaign has been constrained by nameless forces constantly changing the rules of the game and thereby preventing Senator Obama from securing the nomination. Who are "they"? Mrs. Obama says just enough about these nameless forces for us to infer that "they" include the Clintons and their supporters. "They" seem also (incredibly) to include the mainstream media. These nameless forces have approximately the same specificity as the names on Joe McCarthy's list.
---------------
They are the VOTERS.............
Ummm, I thought her dad was making in the $50K range when she was growing up???
Didn't Jimmah' say once that those who made $25K and up were Rich????
#3
I find her bitterness and lack of gratitude and pride in America disgusting. She's an angry bitch that has benefitted at every turn: from affirmative action (her grades were too low to get into Princeton), student loans, an overpaid PR position at a Chicago hospital (with a huge raise after Obama made Senator - go figure!) , political and financial help from shady Chicago pols and bagmen. F*CK her and her bitterness. Keep her out in public, ungagged and unleashed, and he'll NEVER have a chance at POTUS, because their attitude isn't AMERICAN
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/06/2008 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Frank! You sound bitter! Clinging to your guns again, are you?
Nice rant, Frank.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/06/2008 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
Our newspapers and 24x7 news channels went gaga over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stopover in New Delhi last Tuesday. Given the exuberant, almost fawning, media coverage accorded to Mr Ahmadinejad, it would seem as if a great friend of India had come visiting although we didn't quite deserve this honour, having stabbed Iran in the back, so to say, at the behest of the 'Great Satan', otherwise known as the United States of America.
Such is the Left's influence on the media and the awesome disregard of our intellectuals -- or what passes for intellectuals -- who straddle newspapers and television channels, for India's strategic interests, that nobody has bothered to point out that a nuclear armed Iran is something we can do without. If Mr Ahmadinejad, with more than a little help from Russia and China, not to mention Pakistan's rogue nuclear establishment, is able to enrich sufficient uranium to produce an arsenal of nuclear warheads, Israel alone won't have reason to worry.
We have also elected to ignore the fact that Iran has been consistent in voting against India at the OIC even while pretending to be a 'friendly' nation. At the UN, rare is the occasion when Iran has made common cause with India, although the reverse is not true. It does not require evidence collated by the US to assert that Iran is currently forging a Shia brand of radical Islamism, much more insidious and potent than the pernicious ideology bequeathed by Sayyid Qutb to the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, with the purpose of becoming the dominant Islamic state by displacing traditional Sunni powers. In the short term this may not affect India, but in the long term it is bound to scorch us.
Nor has anybody bothered to point out that while India needs Iranian oil (and perhaps also Iranian gas), an increasingly isolated and cash-strapped Iran needs an emerging market to mobilise resources. At a time when Western democracies are loath to do business with Mr Ahmadinejad's regime, selling oil and gas to India makes eminent sense for Iran. Yes, it also makes eminent sense for India to leverage Iran's troubles to its advantage, but that would require a certain craftiness which is absent in those who preside over India's destiny. If this is true of the Congress, it is equally true of the BJP. The Left, of course, craftily conspires against India's national interests. The others really do not matter.
Meanwhile, Amit Baruah, writing in the Hindustan Times about Mr Ahmadinejad's visit, mentions something that does not figure in the other glowing reports that appeared in last Wednesday's newspapers. "In his opening remarks, Mr Ahmadinejad once again questioned the extent of the Holocaust against the Jews in World War II and felt this was used as a pretext to occupy Palestine," Amit Baruah says in his report, adding, "He also raised questions about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and felt these acted as an excuse to occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan."
Amit Baruah is a senior journalist and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of his report. Indeed, the fact that others chose not to incorporate Mr Ahmadinejad's odious anti-Semitic rant in their reports tells a story by itself -- of how our media is careful to excise those comments that may reflect poorly on individuals it places on a high pedestal. Not surprisingly, Amit Baruah's report has been picked up by Islamist Websites.
The man who now leads and inspires born-again Nazis and would like to see the remaining Jews exterminated and Israel "wiped off the face of the world" is not as daft as some people make him out to be. He used his stopover in New Delhi to repeat his outrageous lies -- that the Holocaust is Jewish fiction, Jews masterminded 9/11, and Israel is an illegitimate entity -- steeped in anti-Semitism on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day. He needed a platform and we, to our abiding shame, provided him with one.
Will we now onward allow any and every visitor to berate another nation from our soil? What if someone were to use his or her interaction with the media to denounce China and question the legitimacy of its occupation of Tibet? Have we become so soft a state that nothing matters any more? Is our foreign policy now bereft of all morals, scruples and ethics that were once considered central to our civilisational identity as a nation, as a people?
In sharp contrast to our inability to stand up and be counted, and thus be courted for our inherent strength and power, Israel remains firm as a rock in its determination to succeed against all odds. Unlike India, it is just a dot on the map, a small country that can be traversed between sunrise and sunset. Yet it is a giant among nations, ferocious in war and magnanimous in peace. In the last 15 years, ever since we established diplomatic relations, it has done nothing that can be even remotely considered to be against India's interests. Yet we are reluctant to acknowledge this friendship and stand by it.
On May 8, Israel will celebrate the 60th anniversary of its independence. During these six decades, indeed, from the time David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's independence, it has been at war with its implacable Arab foes, fighting for its survival. But that has not stopped it from emerging as a power to contend with, a David among Goliaths who won't rest till the last drop of Jewish blood has been shed. It has been the victim of unceasing calumny and perversion of history by those who blindly support the tribe of Mr Ahmadinejad and endorse their anti-Semitism.
British journalist and author Melanie Phillips, in a scintillating essay published in the latest issue of the Spectator, pithily sums up Israel's heroic struggle: "On the day after Ben-Gurion declared (Israel's) independence, six Arab armies invaded and tried to wipe it out. With the current exception of Egypt and Jordan, the Arab and Muslim world has been trying ever since... At present, the situation looks particularly ominous. Israel is menaced on several fronts...".
It is Iran which has taken over from the Arabs. In Lebanon, it is funding and arming Hizbullah whose leader Hassan Nasrallah is sworn to Israel's destruction. In Gaza, it is nursing Hamas whose army of fanatics has declared it won't rest till the last Jew is dead. In Syria, Iran is working over time to keep anti-Israeli sentiments alive. All this while building a Bomb to "wipe Israel off the face of the world" and achieve what Nasser failed in achieving 60 years ago.
Such is the 'friend' of India our media fetes.
Posted by: john frum ||
05/06/2008 17:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WAFF.com > NATO CHIEF WARNS THAT MANY OTHER NATIONS WILL FOLLOW IRAN AND NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS.
United Nations officials say they're shocked - shocked! - to learn that the headmaster at one of their top prep schools in Gaza was also the chief rocket-maker for Islamic Jihad. Thankfully, Awad al-Qiq, for the past eight years a science teacher at schools run by the UN's Relief and Works Agency, won't be assembling any more weapons: An Israeli airstrike last week took out his bomb-making operation - plus him.
Now the UN agency, which Israel has long accused of complicity with terrorists, must explain how it let a high-ranking terrorist take charge of its Rafah Prep Boys School. He was guilty, of course: Islamic Jihad actually ID'd him as "chief leader of the engineering [i.e., bomb-making] unit." His home was bedecked with Islamic Jihad posters - and an Islamic Jihad flag was draped over his body at his funeral. Indeed, Islamic Jihad gave him the ultimate sendoff tribute: firing a barrage of his rockets into Israel in mourning. So much for UNRWA's self-proclaimed "zero-tolerance policy toward politics and militant activities."
Of course, that policy was pretty well shown up as a joke when a UNRWA teacher named Saeed Seyam was named interior minister of the Hamas-led government in Gaza and immediately vowed never to arrest any Palestinian for "resisting the occupation." According to Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), UNRWA confirmed last December that families of suicide bombers have received money from the agency. The United States, incidentally, pays 30 percent to 40 percent of UNRWA's budget - $505 million last year alone.
For years, Congress has tried to ax US funding for UNRWA, with little success. It's time to try again.
#1
Yes, they're shocked over at UNRWA! Shocked, I tells ya!
Israel said Sunday that the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) supports Hamas and demanded the UN investigate the agency and its head, Peter Hansen.
Hansen has "for years has expressed anti-Israeli, biased, unrestrained positions and statements," Dan Gillerman, Israel's UN ambassador, told Israel Radio.
Israel released a picture which it says shows a UN vehicle being used to move a rocket for the militants. The UN said the picture showed a stretcher being loaded into an ambulance.
Hansen said he believes there are Hamas members on UNRWA's payroll, but they have to follow UN rules on remaining neutral.
"Oh I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime. Hamas as a political organization does not mean that every member is a militant and we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another," Hanson told CBC TV.
"We demand of our staff, whatever their political persuasion is, that they behave in accordance with UN standards and norms for neutrality," he said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs said, "should Mr. Hansen's comment not be taken out of context and should it reflect UNRWA's position, we are deeply concerned, and will immediately seek clarification from Mr. Hansen directly and from UN authorities."
#2
Relatives recalled with pride that Qiq had met John Ging, UNRWA's Gaza operations director. But while fellow teachers had come to pay their respects, they saw no U.N. representative.
Qiq's sister said his wife and five children were worried by the lack of news on any pension payment: "Awad did a lot for UNRWA," she said. "The family hoped UNRWA would support them."
What's Islamic Jihad's pension plan like, sis? And any doubts he'll get one from UNRWA?
John Bolton, Americas ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for US air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in Iraq. Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming Americans overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be far higher if Washington took no action.
This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians were not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do, he said. Then the ball would be in Irans court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.
Mr Bolton, an influential former member of President George W Bushs inner circle, dismissed as dead wrong reported British intelligence conclusions that the US military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to Iraqi fighters.
A US military spokesman revealed last week that the elite Quds Force of Irans Revolutionary Guards had drafted in personnel from Lebanons Hizbollah to train fighters from Iraqs Shia militias.
Colonel Donald Bacon, a spokesman for the coalition in Baghdad, said captured fighters had told interrogators that thousands of Iraqi fighters were undergoing training in the Islamic Republic.
The main camp is located near the town of Jalil Azad, near Tehran, according to coalition officials.
The capture of Qais Khazali, a major figure in the Shia insurgency alongside Ali Mussa Daqduq, a senior Lebanese Hizbollah guerilla, last year yielded a treasure trove of information on Hizbollahs activities in Iraq.
Ali Mussa Daqduq confirmed Lebanese Hizbollah were providing training to Iraqi Special Group members in Iran and that his role was to assess the quality of training and make recommendations on how the training could be improved, said Col Bacon. In this role, he travelled to Iraq on four occasions and was captured on his fourth trip.
Five Britons kidnapped in Iraq are believed to have been put under the control of Quds Force agents after failed attempts to barter the men for Khazali and Daqduqs freedom.
The importance of the Quds Force to stability in Iraq was demonstrated last week when a five-member Iraqi delegation was sent to Tehran to meet with its commander, General Ghassem Soleimani. The delegation was despatched by the Iraqi government to plead for an end to Iranian meddling in its enfeebled neighbour.
#2
Hey, Doc, is Goat Boy the American's purty mouth still around, or was he blown to smithereens a few months back? And get some ice for that thing on your head...
#3
He seems to be very delusional. Or maybe someone is giving him bad information.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/06/2008 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Do you think that two teenagers should engage in heavy petting?....I mean if both are mature and know their limits?
Posted by: Woody Allen ||
05/06/2008 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
HMMMMMMM. so ZAWAHIRI, Osama's close iff not closest cohort, formally admits that AL QAEDA attacked and destroyed the WTC, and attacked the Pentagon, and is directly responsible, accountable, or jointly for two other attacks agz the USA.
Suicide bombing was initially embraced by only a couple of Islamist groups: al Dawa, an Iraqi Shia group, and the Lebanese Shia organisation, Hezbollah. Later, it was copied by others moved by nationalism and, more frighteningly, ethnic sub-nationalism. Toward the end of the 1980s, suicide terrorism began to spread beyond Lebanon and Kuwait in the Middle East: first to Sri Lanka but then, as the 1990s unfolded, to India, Argentina, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, and Tanzania.
Apart from the Eelam Tigers of Sri Lanka, most of the stuff has been motivated by religion. From 2001 to 2005, 78 percent of all the suicide terrorist incidents were religion-driven. Indeed, of thirty-five terrorist organisations employing suicide tactics in 2005, 86 percent were Islamic. These movements have been responsible for 81 percent of all suicide attacks since 9/11. By 2005, more than 350 suicide attacks took place in at least twenty-four countries including the United Kingdom, Israel, Sri Lanka Russia, Lebanon, Turkey, Italy, Indonesia, Pakistan, Colombia, Argentina, Kenya, Tanzania, Croatia, Morocco, Singapore, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq.
But the mechanics of suicide-bombing is not religious at all. It is adopted because it makes terrorism so easy. If you dont use martyrdom based on religion you have to arrange for the getaway of the terrorist you have sent out to do the job. The terrorist must know that he would definitely make his escape after the act of terrorism or he will not do the job. In the case of suicide-bombing, the terrorist knows he is going to his death and therefore seeks to do the utmost level of damage possible. The organisation that uses him benefits from the fact that no trace of the perpetrator is left for the victim state to make out who has done the job.
In the case of Al Qaeda, each bomber was handpicked by bin Laden himself but also was then asked to swear an oath of loyalty, pledging to carry out a suicide operation. Each was filmed for a martyrdom video to be released after the attack. According to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man who thought up the 9/11 attack, all but one of the nineteen hijackers made such a tape. The lone exception was the terrorist who thought his oath could be hypocritical and therefore Allah might not accept his sacrifice!
The suicide-bomber is indoctrinated/brainwashed into believing that he would go to heaven as a martyr. The martyr not dying physically and enjoying the pleasures of paradise is recorded in the Quran in relation to historical events which occasion the Revelation. But the pivot of the suicide bomber phenomenon is religious extremism prevalent in the society from where the bomber is chosen. Extremism is not a specialisation. It is flowing from the pulpit and TV screen in most Muslim states, including Pakistan. Research in Pakistan by an Islamabad doctor after interviewing the TNSM returnees from jihad against America in Afghanistan has found that the warriors were picked up from the mosque rather than the madrassa.
In Pakistan, extremism of faith leads to another result. Al Qaeda bombers function in a Muslim milieu and rely on society to oppose the state and embrace the act of suicide-bombing. This has not worked when the bombers have operated in non-Muslim societies, as in the case of Chechen terrorists in Russia. Despite the fact that Muslim bombers kill innocent Muslims, it is the state which is isolated and condemned and not Al Qaeda. The more Al Qaeda kills Muslims in Pakistan the more the population will become alienated from the state. And that will happen not because the state has failed to resist and eliminate Al Qaeda but because Al Qaeda is right and the state is wrong.
The Muslim-kill-Muslim function of Al Qaeda suicide-bombing has escalated into sectarian killings. When this happens, the Muslim population instead of becoming united before opposing the state now divides before condemning the state. This new version is more lethal in the degree to which the state is rejected, and therefore Al Qaeda has supported the sectarian brand of suicide-bombing more than the other brand in recent times.
On May 31, 2005, a suicide-bomber attack in Karachi during evening prayers inside Ali Raza Imambargah, killed as many as 19 and wounded 38. The force of the blast was so severe that it cracked the buildings dome. This attack came just weeks after May 7 at another Shia mosque, which killed 23 and injured almost 100 people during the Friday prayers. The Ali Raza imambargah attack was most probably in retaliation for the assassination of the Sunni Muslim head of Jamia Banuria in Karachi, Nizamuddin Shamzai, the previous day.
Suicide bombing appeals through martyrdom and is more successful if the victims are Muslims. For instance, it has not succeeded as a tool of persuasion in Europe the same as it has in Pakistan which leads the world in being the victim of this warfare. Therefore, the natural inclination on the part of Al Qaeda to kill Muslims in Pakistan rather than Christians in Europe and America is understandable. Al Qaeda doesnt appear to be original if you compare it with the 19th century European anarchists and their rationale for killing innocent fellow-Christians.
The central idea of Al Qaeda is to create anarchy after which it might set about creating the global khilafa its website promises. The khilafa will of course be in one state first before it spreads and controls the rest of the Islamic world. What will be the technique to spread out from, say, the mini-state of South Waziristan to the rest of the Islamic world? The answer is easy: suicide bombing. It inverts some of the most important concepts to achieve this. Killing Muslims becomes more useful in terms of influence and persuasion; and Islamophobia becomes a positive intra-Muslim value if Muslims fear Islam as the beginning of their becoming good Muslims.
Today, Al Qaedas suicide-bombers affect the Pakistani mind by staging suicide-bombing; but it forms the Pakistani mind more effectively in its favour by switching off suicide-bombing for a period of time. If we kill Americans through suicide-bombing, America will not become Muslim. If we kill Pakistanis through suicide-bombing, Pakistan will become a more strict adherent of Islam. In that is the first building block of the khilafa.
Dying to Kill: the Allure of Suicide Terror;
By Mia Bloom; Columbia University Press New York 2007
Posted by: john frum ||
05/06/2008 06:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Columbia University Press New York 2007
Our own hallowed institutions are so corrupted by Saudi money that free people are actually willing to print such vile and putrid ideals. A very sad day, indeed.
Just an excerpt - Caught Via Ace of Spades, and, amazingly enough, the source is the Snuffalufugus Post
...Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."
Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called "a chilling effect" on our exercise of free speech. I have, in my own small way, experienced this chill first hand. First, and most important, my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be among the hunted. Because of the failure of Western governments to make it safe for people to speak openly about the problem of Islam, I and others must raise a mountain of private funds to help pay for her round-the-clock protection. The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali's, the risk to each would be radically reduced. WOW, someone at Arianna's playpen let an adult in! RTWT, as they say...
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/06/2008 18:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't expect the post to stay up long at the Snuffalufagus Post. The comments are pretty much all blaming Harris for even bringing the topic up.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/06/2008 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
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.
United Nations officials say they're shocked - shocked! - to learn that the headmaster at one of their top prep schools in Gaza was also the chief rocket-maker for 
John Bolton, Americas ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for US air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in Iraq. Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming Americans overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be far higher if Washington took no action.
