|
|
May 06 It took me a while: I am very busy at work and had to work last weekend. But here it is, my letter to Senator Lieberman that I intended to write since my last post. Dear Senator Lieberman. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your steadfast support of our troops and their mission, as well as for your overall support of our war effort against this new totalitarian enemy known as Islamism (different from Islam). Although I do not live in Connecticut, I write to you as a fellow American and a fellow Jew. Just like previous generations of your family, I am a naturalized American, originally from the former Soviet Union. Having grown up in the former Soviet Union, I have a very special appreciation for this country: I have something to compare it to. I am now embarrassed and horrified by the actions of the Democratic Leadership in the US Congress. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently stated that the war is lost. He stated this in the middle of the war, while our troops are in combat. This basically amounts to spreading enemy propaganda. People went to jail for things like this at the end of World War 2. Some, like "Lord Haw-Haw", were even executed. So, it is a disgrace that Harry Reid remains in the leadership position of the US Senate. The Democratic Party kicked you out. Ironically, you are the only one who remained true to the ideals of the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. In fact, it seems that those ideals found their home in the Republican Party of today. By aligning yourself with the modern incarnation of the Party of FDR, the Republican Party, you can change the leadership of the Senate and ensure more effective prosecution of the war against Islamism. I implore you to do just that. Thank you very much. On a related note, a commenter to my last post suggested that, since Bush Administration committed numerous blunders in Iraqi Theater of operations, we should just let it go and give up. My answer to that is that mistakes are made in any war. For example, World War 2 was no exception. However, those blunders are certainly not the reason to surrender. Especially, since they did not result in military defeat. They may still result in political defeat, but only if we do give up. I am trying to make my small contribution to preventing such outcome. Powered by Qumana April 24 ...to fire Harry Reid. I found this via Bill's Bytes: Our country is divided today in a manner not seen since the Civil War. Rogue far-left fanatics, socialists and anarchists, and all those who despise and hate America and would wish it dissolved and replaced by a Marxist multi-culturalist commune of relativistic moral values where all depravities are permissible and the only allegiance is to one's self, and answering not to the will of the American people, but to a "Socialist, Secularist 'Internationale' World Order," have taken over the Democratic Party! Perverting public opinion with an unrelenting campaign of propaganda in the face of public apathy and complacency, much as the Nazis did in the elections of 1933 in Germany that brought Adolf Hitler to power, the Democrats managed to marginally win elections in 2006 , in some cases winning local elections by merely a few hundreds or a few thousands of votes in constituencies of millions of people, and abrogate the reigns of power from the silent majority! ……………………………………………………………………………. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to hold Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to his word for the sake of our troops and the very survival of our nation. Thus I write the following open letter to Senator Joe Lieberman: Dear Senator Lieberman, In this most crucial time in our nation's history, and even as our troops lie in harm's way while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does everything in his power not only to encourage Al-Qaeda and our enemies, telling them that "the war in Iraq is lost," but doing everything in his power to ensure and achieve said defeat at any cost - even at the expense of the blood of our Servicemen by denying them the very bullets with which to defend themselves - I besiege you Senator Lieberman to keep your word and switch sides and become a Republican, in the dire necessity of wresting power, and the Senate Majority Leadership, from Reid and his defeatist Democratic ilk. Those of us concerned for Israel also realize, from the actions of Senator Reid, House Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Murtha, and their Democratic cohorts now in power in Congress, that it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that they would leave Israel to its fate, were Israel to have need of us surrounded by a sea of hostile enemies as it is, with as much enthusiasm as they now work to achieve our defeat and for us to cut-and-run in Iraq, have tried to appease Syrian dictator Al-Assad in flagrant violation of established State Department and Administration policy, and keep making overtures of appeasement to a hostile Iran fueling the insurgency in Iraq and defiant of the world community in its dogged insistence on developing nuclear weapons! All of us concerned about our troops and our achieving victory in Iraq, with the safety and survival not only of Israel but our own as well, and with the direction our country is taking under this present Democratic leadership - with the resulting dire consequences not only adversely affecting our nation's future, but verily the consequent course of history and the future of the world and Western Civilization - see it as imperative that we take the reigns of power from their hands... and only you can do it, Senator Lieberman! I would like to remind you, that though you become a Republican out of the present exigencies we face as a nation, that at heart you will always be a Democrat in the proud tradition of FDR, Truman, and Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, that it is the Democrats who repudiated you and made you run as an Independent in 2006 because you were not enough of a "leftist" and a "defeatist" for their tastes, and that it is this Democratic Party hijacked by the far-left, the peaceniks, anarchists, and other fringe groups, which has left you and betrayed you, much as it has America's traditional conservative Democrats! (emphasis mine - Eric-Odessit) America is at a crossroads, Senator Lieberman, it faces one of its darkest hours even as our troops in the battlefield are being used as "political pawns," at the risk of their safety and their lives, by such power mongering, unscrupulous, demagogues as Senator Reid, and or betrayed by Democratic leftist ideologues in Congress! The fate of our nation, of Israel, and of Western Civilization hangs on the balance. The Islamofacist terrorist enemy must be defeated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever it rears its ugly head of intolerance, oppression, and death, or we let it fester at our peril. It will come knocking at our door once again, much as it did on 9/11! The time is now, Senator Lieberman! Fulfill your promise, and your commitment to our troops in the field, switch Parties now, become a Republican, end the impasse about the war funding, and wrest the Leadership of the Senate from infamous Harry Reid, the Democrats, and America's enemies! Our future is in your hands! Sincerely, AR I don't know which of the Hyscience posters signs "AR", but I could certainly sign this letter myself. I wrote a while ago that Senator Lieberman would have to say: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party threw me out”. Since the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate decided to surrender, perhaps now would be a good time for Senator Lieberman to make good on his threat and change the leadership in the Senate. Hyscience posted Senator Lieberman's contact information on their site. I am repeating it here: Washington, DC Office 706 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4041 Voice (202) 224-9750 Fax Connecticut Office One Constitution Plaza 7th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 549-8463 Voice (800) 225-5605 In CT (860) 549-8478 Fax You can e-mail Senator Lieberman from his official website at: http://lieberman.senate.gov/ I intend to use this information over the coming weekend. Please do the same. Powered by Qumana April 21 It is too late now to treat it as some news now, but it is not too late for me to comment. My heart goes out to the victims and their families. Things like that did not affect me as much as now before I had kids. But now I always think to myself: "What if my daughter was there?" I also feel very sorry for the shooter's family. Not only did they loose their their son and brother, but knowing that he was actually the evil monster that did this must be unbearable. Now the dust settles a bit, and the whole story gets politicized even more than it was in the immediate aftermath. It is all very predictable. The Left screams for gun control. Their ideal is to ban all guns. In fact, as it turns out, the guns were (and still are) banned on Virginia Tech campus: BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses. University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus. Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student's name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech's ban on guns dates back several decades. Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university's internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion. "I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear." Here it is again, the ridiculous argument about guns somehow instilling fear in people. But the ban on guns did not stop Cho from bringing guns on campus and killing a bunch of people. The gun rights advocates logically point out that had some students who were already licensed to carry weapons been able to bring them to class, the number of victims would have been drastically reduced (via Pamela of Atlas Shrugs): In reality, Virginia Tech was, as many bloggers put it, a "danger-free zone for armed criminals." The school was one of many to prohibit all guns on campus. Last year, legislation to allow exceptions for licensed and trained gun owners failed to pass the Virginia legislature. Virginia Tech officials falsely believed their policy meant more security, not less. Its spokesman, Larry Hincker, described the school's anti-gun policy in 2005 by saying: "We believe guns don't belong in the classroom. In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear." He proudly noted that students who had tried to bring handguns onto school property had been promptly suspended. John Lott, a gun-control scholar, says the problems with such laws is that good intentions aren't enough. "What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals." He notes that some 40 states now have some kind of law allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed firearms. In most of those states, between 2% and 6% of all adults have such permits, thus giving citizens in a community the size of a university the knowledge that someone other than the local police will have access to self-defense. So, banning guns on campus was not much help: Virginia Tech thus went out of its way to prevent what happened at a Pearl, Miss., high school in 1997, where assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a school shooter. Or what happened at Appalachian Law School, in Grundy, Va., in 2002, when a mass murder was stopped by two students with law-enforcement experience, one of whom retrieved his own gun from his vehicle. Or in Edinboro, Pa., a few days after the Pearl event, when a school attack ended after a nearby merchant used a shotgun to force the attacker to desist. I understand that many people would argue that college students are not known for responsible behavior. But it seems to me that people who were already qualified and licensed to carry guns should have been allowed to do so. You see, as it turns out, police are not obligated to protect anybody. They just have to catch the criminals after the crime has been committed. I actually first realized this after I read an article on the site for "Jewish NRA". I could not find it now, but go ahead and browse this site. While you are there, look at this article (via Pamela of Atlas Shrugs). This explains how to end school shootings. It is pretty obvious that guns should not have been sold to Cho, a very disturbed individual with a couple of stalking complaints against him and referral to a mental health facility. A good computerized data base would have prevented this. That would be the gun control part. But in case of a terrorist act or someone who just snapped there would be no previous data available. Even if the guns are outlawed, people who intend to do harm will find a way, including obtaining guns illegally. Armed citizens who are qualified to use firearms would be the only way to minimize the damage. Powered by Qumana I found (don't remember how) this from MEMRI: Saudi Columnist: 'The Right of Return Is an Illusion'
In two recent articles in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, Saudi columnist Yousef Nasser Al-Sweidan argued that the Palestinian refugees' right of return is an idea that cannot be implemented, and that the only solution is for the refugees to be naturalized in the countries where they currently reside. The following are excerpts from the articles:
The Right of Return - An Idea that Cannot Be Implemented In the first article, published March 5, 2007 and titled "On the Impossible [Idea] of the Right of Return," Al-Sweidan wrote: "...The slogan 'right of return'... which is brandished by Palestinian organizations, is perceived as one of the greatest difficulties and as the main obstacle to renewing and advancing the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians based on the Road Map and a two-state solution. "It is patently obvious that uprooting the descendents of the refugees from their current homes in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and other countries, and returning them to Israel, to the West Bank, and to Gaza is a utopian ideal and [a recipe for] anarchy. More than that - it is an idea that cannot be implemented, not only because it will upset the demographic [balance] in a dangerous and destructive manner, and will have [far-reaching] political, economic and social ramifications in such a small and constrained geographical area, but [mainly] because the return [of the refugees] stands in blatant contradiction to Israel's right as a sovereign [state], while the Palestinian Authority lacks the infrastructure to absorb such a large number of immigrants as long as the peace process... is not at its peak..." The Refugee Problem is the Result of Mistakes By the Host Countries "Clearly, the refugee problem is mainly the result of cumulative mistakes made by the countries where [the refugees] live... such as Syria and Lebanon, which have isolated the refugees in poor and shabby camps lacking the most basic conditions for a dignified human existence. Instead of helping them to become fully integrated in their new society, they let them become victims of isolation and suffering... Later, the worst of all happened when Arab intelligence agencies used the Palestinian organizations as a tool for settling scores in internal Arab conflicts that probably have nothing to do with the Palestinians... "The Israelis, on the other hand, were civilized and humane in their treatment of the thousands of Jewish refugees who had lost their property, homes and businesses in the Arab countries, and who were forced to emigrate to Israel after the 1948 war. The Israeli government received them, helped them, and provided them with all the conditions [they needed] to become integrated in their new society... "The lies of the Syrian Ba'th regime, and its trading in slogans like 'right of return,' 'steadfastness,' 'resistance,' 'national struggle,' and all the other ridiculous [slogans], are evident from the fact that, to this day, dozens of Palestinian families [remain] stranded in the desert on the Syrian-Iraqi border, because the Syrian regime refuses to let them enter its horrifying Ba'th republic and return to the Yarmouk [refugee] camp. "The Arab countries where the Palestinians live in refugee camps must pass the laws necessary to integrate the inhabitants of these camps into society. [In addition, they must] provide them with education and health services, and allow them freedom of occupation and movement and the right to own real estate, instead of [continuing] their policy of excluding [the refugees] and leaving the responsibility [of caring for them] to others, while marketing the impossible illusion of return [to Palestine]..." The Refugees Don't Need Another 60 Years of Misery In the second article, published March 16, 2007 and titled "Naturalization is the Solution," Al-Sweidan wrote: "There is no doubt that the Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon - who have for many long years been fed by their Arab hosts on impossible dreams and on shiny promises that were soon broken - do not need another 60 years of misery, wretchedness and suffering... in order to figure out for the thousandth time that all the talk about the 'bridge of return' is [nothing but] nonsense and deceit - a fairytale that exists only in the old, worn-out demagogy of the Arab propaganda... "In reality, there is no 'bridge [of return]'... except for the bridge that we now must pass... called the peace process and normalization of relations between the Arabs and Israel. Undoubtedly, the Arabs cannot continue to avoid the implementation [of the peace process], which brooks no further delay. [Any delay] will have a heavy price for the Arab societies in the present and in the future, considering the sharp strategic changes [occurring] in the Middle East. [These changes] demand an immediate and final solution to the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and [require] the two sides to direct their joint energies and efforts towards confronting the Iranian nuclear threat which imperils us all." The Inevitable Solution is to Naturalize the Refugees in the Host Countries "As the Middle East peace process gains momentum, and as the regional and international forces remain committed to the need to resolve this [conflict]... there is a growing necessity for a realistic, unavoidable and bold decision that will provide a just solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees by naturalizing them in the host countries, such as Syria, Lebanon, and other countries. "Even though this is a humanitarian [project], it requires intensive efforts on the legislative, economic, logistic, and administrative levels, in order to integrate the Palestinians organically into the social, economic and political fabric of the Arab societies... "By every conceivable and accepted criterion, naturalizing the refugees [in the Arab countries] is the inevitable solution to [this] chronic humanitarian problem. The fact that [this solution] constitutes an important part of the overall peace process and of the historic reconciliation between the Arabs and the Israelis will help to reinforce [the naturalization process] and to perpetuate it." I could not decide which part is a good part to excerpt, so here is the whole thing. It is particularly remarkable that this journalist compares Israel favorably to the Arab countries and talks about the forgotten refugees: the Jews from the Arab countries. There is a good reason why they are forgotten: they got integrated into Israel and no longer are refugees. Powered by Qumana Little Green Footballs posted this on Friday: A candidate for the Green Party in Vancouver reveals the sick mentality of the Truther “movement,” as he stands by an editorial in which he took joy in the mass murder attacks of 9/11: Green candidate stands by remarks praising 9/11. (Hat tip: Joel.) A federal Green party candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway is standing behind a controversial editorial he wrote more than four years ago in which he describes the falling of the World Trade Center twin towers as “beautiful.” The editorial, entitled, A Revolting Confession, was first published on Nov. 28, 2002 in an alternative newspaper, The Republic of East Vancouver, which Kevin Potvin founded. I have cousins in Vancouver, so I decided to ask them about this a$$hole. Also, since I myself happen to be Jewish, any leftist creep who might be Jewish causes personal embarrassment to me. "Potvin" sounds Jewish, so I asked my cousins about that also. Here is my cousin Sveta's answer: Hi Eric, Kevin Potvin is not Jewish, he was born in a small town in Ontario and now lives in a bad section of Vancouver. He owns and operates an extremely left wing, biased by his own admission , newspaper that I never heard of until now. He wrote that insane article 4 or 5 years ago and nobody noticed except morons that read his rag. Now he is in the news because his article was reprinted in the mainstream Canadian magazine. He wants to run in the next federal election as a representative of a Green Party, a party that has no issues besides environment and has no representatives in the parliament. Thanks to that article , Green Party is now in the lime light and it makes all the 'tree huggers' very upset that this moron is speaking under their party banner. There are calls for him to leave the party and to issue 'deep apology'. But over all it is a very marginal news item and I don't think is worthy of anyone's attention. Take care, Sveta So, I am happy to report that this idiot is sufficiently marginalized. Good for our neighbors to the North. Powered by Qumana Freedom Now, my friend and fellow member of the Sand Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior, disagreed with my posts on the British-Iranian crisis. His comments are here and here. Now, obviously, this is a disagreement between friends, people who share the same goals, like defeating Islamo-Fascism and defending Western Civilization. This is what loyal opposition used to be about: arguing about the means to achieve common goals. But I digress. Back to my argument with my friend. He does not think that the Brits surrendered to the Iranian demands. He also thinks that mine and others' disappointment about the whole thing drives a wedge between us and Britain, undoubtedly one of our most loyal allies and the most significant ally at that. I don't think that my criticism of the British rules of engagement and the Royal Navy personnel is enough to drive that wedge in. So, I would like to ask my friend to explain why I am wrong on that point. I would like also to ask my friend to explain why he does not think that the British Government surrendered to Iranian demands. I suspect that the release of the Iranians we captured in Iraq is coming. That would constitute our surrender along with the Brits. Let me elaborate a bit on my own point. What I lamented in my posts (and nothing changed since) is the attitude. The attitude of not treating the war we are in like a real war. This attitude is shared to a large extent by our own Government, by the Administration that both my friend and I support. Instead of defining the enemy at least by ideology, the enemy is defined by merely tactics that he uses, i. e. War on Terror instead of War against Islamism. Political Correctness runs amok. The Government makes no effort to explain why we have to fight. The explanation of the war, including the Iraqi theater, is left to the bloggers. Believe it or not, propaganda is a vital part of the war effort. And it is totally neglected. The mainstream media plays the role of Axis Sally, and the Administration makes no effort to counter it. No achievements, no heroic deeds are reported. In my post I mentioned the BBC refusing to air a docudrama about a Victoria Cross winner in Iraq. But our MSM is no better. And apparently the British rules of engagement require asking for approval from London before firing on hostile forces. We are losing the war of public opinion, and, if things don't change, we will lose the war itself. Powered by Qumana April 10 It might have been apparent from my numerous links to The Churchill Centre site that I am a great admirer of Sir Winston Churchill. I consider him the greatest statesman of the 20th Century. There are some others that come close. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher come to mind. But Churchill led the Free World all alone at the time of great peril. Some people say that America won World War 2, others say that Soviet Union won that war. But without Churchill standing up to the Nazis there would not be the war to win. People of Europe would basically have a choice between Stalin and Hitler: not a good choice to have. Well, I found the photoshop below via Bill's Bites (originally posted here):  After seeing this picture I wanted to cry myself. Basically the British rules of engagement were akin to a Spitfire or a Hurricane pilot observing German bombers approaching England, but being ordered not to shoot them down until the pilot makes sure that they actually intend to bomb, which would happen after the bombs start dropping. Here is Austin Bay's analysis of the British surrender. There is nothing to excerpt. Just read it. And here is Dennis Prager's article. It is all very sad, really. Powered by Qumana This is via LGF: The producer of a tax-financed documentary on Islamic extremism claims his film has been dropped for political reasons from a television series that airs next week on more than 300 PBS stations nationwide. Key portions of the documentary focus on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a non-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism, constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state. Martyn Burke says that the Public Broadcasting Service and project managers at station WETA in Washington, D.C., excluded his documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, from the series America at a Crossroads after he refused to fire two co-producers affiliated with a conservative think tank. Just read this and the LGF post. Powered by Qumana April 09 I found this via Atlas Shrugs. A bunch of mothers, whose kids are fighting the Islamo-Nazis in Iraq, visited their congressman and told him what they think of his vote to set the deadline for withdrawal. Just watch it. I doubt that these mothers really want their kids to be in combat. I am sure they would prefer their kids be safe at home. But they know that there is a job to be done, and their kids are doing it, while Democrats in Congress make their job harder and more dangerous. Powered by Qumana
|
|
|
|