Al Qaeda’s 9/11 sneak attack cast suspicion on all Muslims. After the hijackers hid amongst us, pretending to be trustworthy friends while plotting acts of war, how can we know that other Muslims are not doing the same?

American Muslims could undo much of this suspicion by helping to expose the terrorist memorial mosque that architect Paul Murdoch is trying to plant on the Flight 93 crash site

Non-Muslim Americans can tell themselves that the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent is esoteric or unimportant (even if they go by semi-Islamic sounding names like Allahpundit), but every Muslim will instantly recognize this orientation as the central symbol of Islam.

Other Americans can also get confused about the direction to Mecca, thinking that the northeast facing crescent memorial CAN’T point to Mecca because Mecca is south of us. Not American Muslims, who all know that the shortest-distance direction to Mecca is to the northeast, since the overwhelming majority of them face this direction for prayer:

A person facing into the Crescent of Embrace (which remains completely intact in the “broken circle” redesign) will be facing almost exactly at Mecca (the Muslim “qibla,” or prayer direction.)

(more…)

~by lisaed

I wonder if the young followers of Barack Obama remember a game show from yesteryear called “To Tell The Truth.“ It was one of my very favorites as a youngster. Hosted at the time by Garry Moore the idea was for a panel of judges often including Bill Cullen, Peggy Cass and my favorite Kitty Carlisle to determine with their questions which of three contestants was the show’s mystery guest. The mystery guest was typically a member of a certain profession or someone who’d done something otherwise notable. More specifically, two of the three contestants were imposters pretending to be say a commercial airline pilot while the third was the genuine pilot. If the imposters with their bluffing were able to fool the judges into believing they were the airline pilot the imposters would win prize money. It is watching Barack Obama all these months on the campaign trail that has me recalling this beloved game show from my childhood. Only in this special presidential edition of “To Tell The Truth” Obama plays all contestants and we the American people are the judges forced to guess which Barack Obama is the true one and which one is just bluffing.

Is he the Barack Obama from the democratic primary the one who limped over the finish line in the race for the democratic nomination by running to the anti-war left of Hillary Clinton? While his resume is quite thin for a Presidential candidate we have evidence from Obama’s voting record in the U.S. Senate that he rates as the most liberal among his peers. So in this his first incarnation we have contestant #1: Barack Obama the liberal candidate for the democratic nomination. This is the Barack Obama who was less than truthful to us earlier this year about his knowledge of the Reverend Wright’s hate filled anti-American rhetoric. This is the Barack Obama who said in his March speech on race he could no sooner disown the Reverend Wright than he could his “white grandmother” but then turned around and denounced Wright anyway by the end of April. This is the Barack Obama who said after disowning his reverend that he would stay at Trinity United Church of Christ his church of choice for over twenty years with the new young pastor Otis Moss but then turned around and walked away from it anyway by the end of May following the controversial Father Pfleger remarks about Hillary Clinton. Did I mention he’s a good bluffer?

This brings us to contestant #2: Barack Obama the general election candidate. Since locking the democratic nomination on June 3rd, Barack Obama has poof like magic transformed himself from the anti-war liberal of the democratic primary to the running as fast as he can to the center candidate of the general election. In just four short weeks we have seen this new Barack Obama change his mind about public financing. We’ve seen him embrace Antonin Scalia opinions on the death penalty for child rapists and the DC gun ban—changing his own previously held position that deemed that law “constitutional.” We’ve seen Obama thumb his nose at his base changing his mind about FISA and we’ve seen him pledge to expand our President’s faith based initiative. I wonder why Obama didn’t mention such intention during the primary? Obama seizes every opportunity to talk about his faith and I have to wonder is it because he really wants to talk to us about his love for Christ or is it rather that he really really wants us to know he’s not a muslim. And as an aside I wonder how inclined Hillary supporters are going to be to rally round this new general election version of Barack Obama. But I digress. Perhaps most shockingly of all this past Thursday we saw democratic nominee Barack Obama change his position on the war. Giving two press conferences that same day on the subject (the second no doubt for the purpose of damage control) Barack Obama sought to straddle both sides of the Iraq war issue beginning with this:

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Making reference in this first press conference to “training” and the Iraqi soldiers “standing up” Barack Obama was regurgitating the same pro-war Commander in Chief language that we’ve heard from President Bush ad infinitum since he won his second term in 2004. Obama’s words here were also reminiscent of his former foreign policy advisor Samantha “Hillary-as -Monster” Power’s wink wink comments made to the BBC last March about the junior senator’s 16-month plan to end the war in Iraq being a “best case scenario.” And then in his second press conference just a few hours later that same day, Obama backpedaled away from his flip flop I mean “refined policy” re-embracing both his pledged timetable for withdrawal and stronger anti-war rhetoric with this:

“Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office, I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war - responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.”

So we the judges in this presidential version of “To Tell The Truth” are left to wonder just where does Obama stand on the Iraq war particularly now when it has become evident to the American people that the surge has worked not just reducing the level of violence but to also placing this young democracy on the road to some form of political stability. We must wonder is Obama’s Iraq war policy the more nuanced position in press conference #1 (i.e., the new general election Obama) or is it the more cut and dry 16-month plan for troop withdrawal designed to placate anti-war voters from press conference #2 (i.e., the old democratic primary Obama)?

It has become quite clear over these first four weeks of the general election campaign that Barack Obama is an opportunist - a man with no obvious core convictions of his own who will say or do anything to win the White House. Indeed in these past few weeks Obama has given new meaning to the word “CHANGE” as in the only change we can believe in is that he will change his positions like the changing wind. He has also completely undercut his own strategy to paint John McCain as “Bush Third Term” by closely aligning himself in the general election with our President re: faith based initiatives, FISA, and a new found willingness to listen to our commanders in Iraq. And so I find myself wondering if this new Bush light version of Barack Obama could have beaten Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination. And I also find myself remembering how that game show “To Tell The Truth” ended each and every episode and I ask the presumptive democratic nominee for President: “Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?”

Yes, Americans love their game shows and their reality shows but I hope they will expect more than just good political theatre from the next President of the United States. My guess is that a President Obama would revert to the liberal primary version of himself particularly with a strengthened democratic majority in congress. But given the different versions of the democratic nominee we have met on the campaign trail we simply cannot know which is the real Barack Obama. And so I find myself remembering another game show from yesteryear hosted at the time by Bob Barker that I hope not to play in 2009 with a President Barack Obama in the White House and that game show was called : “Truth or Consequences.“

by Bill Harrison

Much has been made in this year’s early presidential campaign of voter concerns about John McCain’s age as an alleged defect for his candidacy. These concerns are clearly indicated in polling on the matter but should they really serve as a cause for worry? History suggests they should not.

By all accounts Senator McCain’s health and energy levels are excellent notwithstanding the injuries he suffered as a result of his service to our country in Vietnam and his bout with skin cancer. And, of course, his genetics would suggest that he is likely to be long-lived if his lively 96 year old mother Roberta is any indicator. But let’s take a little stroll down history’s memory lane of the past century for some examples of “seasoned” leaders who proved crucial to their countries at times of great change and tumult.

Most famously we have the case of Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, born in 1874, who became British prime minister in May1940 having attained the age of 65 and would lead Britain through its “darkest hour” of the Blitz and World War II which ended shortly before his 70th birthday. Although turned out of office in favor of Labor’s Clement Atlee before war’s end, Churchill would be returned to the prime ministership in 1951 shortly before his 75th birthday. During this second prime ministership he successfully ended the Malay rebellion that had plagued the Atlee regime as the British Empire began to unravel.

Across the English Channel we have the examples of two of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century in continental Europe in the form of Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle. Adenauer, fondly (or not so fondly depending on one’s political perspective) referred to as “Der Alte”, became West Germany’s first postwar chancellor at the age of 73 and served in that capacity until leaving office at the age of 87. During this crucial period of German history Adenauer, in concert with De Gaulle, sponsored the German-French rapprochement that has continued to this day along with sponsoring the precursors of what was to become the EU and Germany’s entrance into NATO.

De Gaulle, of course, was a mere younster of 50 when he became head of the Free French forces following the fall of France in the spring of 1940 and the establishment of the collaborationist Vichy regime by the Nazis. Following the end of World War II and playing a brief role in the provisional French government that followed, de Gaulle retired from politics before being summoned to power and forming the Fifth French Republic in 1958 at the age of 68. During this time of crisis for France over independence for the former departement of Algeria, de Gaulle forever marked his greatness by standing up to the revanchist forces who opposed Algerian independence and such opposition was marked by no small threats upon his own life. He remained in power until 1969 and under his leadership France regained some of its former glory by setting forth something of an independent stance between East and West while at the same time standing foursquare behind the forces of liberal democracy against the threat of Soviet communism. If ever a political leader were named appropriately it would be de Gaulle.

Moving further along the timeline of the twentieth century we come to the figure of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir who took office shortly before her 71st birthday on March 17, 1969. Known as the “Iron Lady” of Israeli politics, before that sobriquet was applied to her British counterpart Margaret Thatcher, Mrs. Meir’s term of office was marked by her singlemindedness in hunting down and eliminating the Palestinian perpetrators of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972 and by her stalwart leadership during the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the acceptance of a “two state” solution to the Palestinian question whose framework, no matter how tenuous, continues to this day. But it was her leadership before and during the Yom Kippur War which will mark her place in Israeli history. Against the advice of such firebrands as General David Elazar who urged a preemptive strike on massing Syrian forces on the Golan Heights, Meir resisted (wisely) along with Moshe Dayan knowing that Israel might need outside assistance if the Arabs attacked and that a preemptive strike no matter how warranted might jeopardize that support. As we all know, Israel prevailed in that war following the “surprise” attack by the armies of Egypt and Syria and the smashing of Egyptian forces finally resulted in what would later become the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty signed during the Carter administration which while hardly guaranteeing peace for the region has prevented another Arab-Israeli war during the past thirty years.

Our tour here ends with a man whose 90th birthday we will celebrate next month, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela of South Africa. Mr. Mandela, long held prisoner under South Africa’s apartheid regime, became president of that nation shortly before attaining his 76th birthday and who, with his deputy president the Afrikaaner F.W. de Klerk, ushered in a new era in the history of that rich and beautiful nation which stands today in stark contrast to the horror of its neighbor Zimbabwe under the ruthless oppression of Robert Mugabe. Under Mandela’s leadership South Africa started the process of racial reconciliation that continues to the present and the reintegration of that country into the international community.

In this silly season of presidential politics before the real game begins in late August, there’s little sillier than focusing on a candidate’s age.

By Julian Krasta

The intellectual communities all over the world are waiting in an agony of suspense as to whether John McCain or Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. The suspense is rooted in the hope for granite security and the prospect for lasting peace, which could altogether vanish if, in January 2009, the wrong man raises his hand and takes the oath.

Senator McCain is uncomplicated with respect to the leadership and defense of our country. His fearless patriotism was formed and hardened by an irrefutable fact: The American People’s collective resolve coupled with the actions of our awesome military, in their harshest terms, are proof to our enemies – of the past, present and, yes, future – that we play in a bigger and badder league than they could ever dream.

By stark contrast, Obama requires a daily diet of total compliance and idolization. His word salads are a gross national product of cants and fantasies, and is devoted to injecting chaos into the jellied minds of the crowds of people (here and in countries such as Syria) that play into his fantasies. He has successfully accomplished this because his is a cocktail personality, meaning: He senses other people’s vulnerabilities, he reads their personalities, and performs accordingly. It is the classic sign of a sociopath.

Liberals argue that Senator McCain might be too old, too hotheaded, and too off the mark (and some frustrated Republicans and core conservatives chime in with the fear that he is too liberal-minded). In some respects they are all correct – in some respects. There are even those who poke fun at his banal tone. Again, some of their levity is not entirely unjustified. My view of the Senator, which is shared by many, many other conservative advocates, is quite the opposite. To quote an old saying: “Still water runs deep.”

Moreover, John McCain has served our country faithfully as a Navy fighter pilot (a stone-cold truth not even (Ret.) Gen. Wesley Clark can deny or devalue (notwithstanding Clark’s cheap shots to discredit McCain’s leadership qualifications)). He endured horrible physical pain during his imprisonment in Viet Nam. Primarily, he is lock, stock and barrel more transparent than the Democrats’ candidate claims to be because, good, bad or indifferent, Senator McCain has no hidden agendas. Neither does he feign being anything other that what we see.

Barack has an impressive record of political ineptitude: He and his party strive to expand policies such as welfare (to ensure dependence on the government dole by those below the poverty line in order to fortify their votes). Obama opposes privatizing Social Security, which is supported by Senator McCain – a proposition that would be advantageous to taxpayers in that we would be able to invest and manage our benefits.

Obama opposes school vouchers (one means to the end of our children being short-changed in their education). He used the words “ugly and racist” to depict opponents of the 2007 comprehensive illegal immigration bill, yet it is commonplace (and widely accepted by his supporters and conveniently overlooked by the media) when he repeatedly brings into the fray the fact he is black. This comes from the chosen one of the party that went up against the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution (respectively: abolishing slavery, granting citizenship rights to newly-freed slaves, guaranteeing the right to vote for blacks – Thank you, Larry Elder).

Senator McCain has always been a proponent of nuclear power, and he is calling for no less than 45 nuclear power plants to be built by the year 2030. Barack has said that this might be worth investigating – until he decides to cast his vote in opposition.

Obama possesses a superego and is fully one-dimentional. He has (with the wholesale aid of the liberal mainstream media) caused his supporters, as well as al Qaida and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, to believe that there’s a wizard behind his curtain when, in fact, there is only a brick wall.

Islamist jihadists are determined to dominate this planet, by whatever force necessary, and become our supreme rulers. From the standpoint of their blood-lust adventurism, the very future of the freedoms of the human race has become the issue.

John McCain understands this. Without equivocation, but in peremptory tones, he has said plainly that he is as equally determined to use whatever force is necessary to prevent terrorists from gaining the upper hand and, as President, would not imprudently withdraw our troops from the hot zones.

Obama, on the other hand, is hedonistic with his [politically motivated] litany of “I will end the war” and begin bringing our troops home if he becomes president. This move comes under the heading “Miscalculation and Maladroitness.” It would be as foolish as an impatient homeowner ordering the tent removed from his house before the poisoning process can fully and effectively destroy a vermin infestation “…because the tent is an eyesore.”

This smacks of arrogance and audacity. His myopic presumptions equate to reckless endangerment: gambling with our lives here at home as well as the country we call home to satisfy his aspirations – that is (using another analogy), no less irresponsible as when a parent or guardian leaves a baby or a pet locked in a hot car to go shopping.

Moreover, Obama’s ambition has blinded him to the fact that withdrawing our troops, reducing military spending, and suspending or cancelling defense programs would not only weaken the security of our homeland it would sharply increase domestic unemployment in all related sectors of private, public, and government businesses.

Furthermore, if we lose the strength in numbers of trained military personnel now – or a year or two from now – and our country is attacked again, three to four months would need to pass before capable replacement ground, sea, and air combat troops could be expected to reach required potency and supplant those who had been killed and injured. In that time, we could go beyond the crisis level and face unmitigated disaster because of a lack of trained manpower.

Our enemies could exploit this perceived weakness. They might attack, possibly with lethal chemical weapons, and destroy (but not be limited to) municipal and military communications centers and installations, commercial and military airfield complexes, fire, police and energy stations, water and food supplies, roads and railways, all personnel therein, and every civilian within specific radii of those areas.

John McCain is aware of the foregoing, because he is a long-horn, scarred, intemperate and veteran bull. Faith should be invested in him, in that he would exercise every power vested in him as President to go the distance and cut out the fanatic canker that threatens humanity and prevent such attacks.

Obama is a neophyte. His daydreaming has left him deficient of legislative and leadership experience. With neither to his credit, he wouldn’t be able to stop an asthma attack.

It would therefore come as no surprise to the GOP, conservatives or rational Democrats if, as president, he one day swings open the White House doors, flashes a smile at the beast looming above him (whose entrée into our land he helped engineer), and says:

“What a nice horsey – of course I’ll sign for it.”

(more…)

It looks like despite continued mortar fire, Israel is opening up its border with Gaza, which should at least allow some humanitarian aid to cross into the area.  It also comes during a time when Hamas, despite the continued shelling of Israel, blames the Israeli government for delays in talks over the release of Gilad Shalit.

The BBC reports:

GAZA, July 8 (UPI) — Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Tuesday reopened border crossings between Israel and Gaza after earlier mortar fire prompted their closings.The Jerusalem Post, without naming sources, reported Barak made the decision to allow the movement of goods and humanitarian aid into Gaza at the urging of Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who reportedly told Barak that reopening the crossings would help in negotiations with Palestinian militants Hamas, who control Gaza.

Of course, this may or may not end the hue and cry over “collective punishment.”  Perhaps Egypt should also do something about opening its borders with Gaza….

Israel and Hamas are meeting to secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. A Hamas delegation was set to arrive in Cairo Tuesday to discuss Shalit as well as the option of reopening another crossing, the Post said.

“There are several small offshoots (of the major terror groups) in Gaza trying to disrupt the truce, but we have one address, and that is Hamas,” an unnamed Israeli security official told the newspaper. “We know Hamas has dispatched forces to track down these renegade cells, but (the group) is not (doing) enough.”

The question now is whether or not Gilad Shalit is even alive, or if Israel will move to trade more living terrorists for the body of a brave Israeil soldier.

The irony that I see in all of this is that Hamas is moving closer and closer toward actually being a government.  That they should have to “track down these renegade cells” is awfully reminiscent of the PLO as it moved away from overt terrorism and into the political sphere.  Of course, the reaction to this shift was the rise of Hamas.  Now that Hamas, too, may be moving toward pseudo-legitimacy, the cynic in me is simply waiting for the next major terror organization to rise up and fill those empty shoes.

This may be the cyclical sort of problem Israel will face when negotiating peace with terror groups.  By the time they are actually willing to negotiate peace, they’re no longer the ones who are making war.  A new group has risen, and a new negotiation period has to resume.  Imagine the IRA had made peace with the UK, and a new Irish terror group had taken its place…

I remember, as a child, watching old Western’s in which a prisoner exchange would go down on some dusty, old-West street.  The bad guys would line up on one side of the road, hands on their pistols, faces grim.  On the other side, the good guys, slightly outnumbered, heroic, desparate, would untie the really, really bad guy’s wrists and push him out on to the street.

The bad guys would release the captive hero.  A tumbleweed would roll into view, bouncing recklessly past the good guys, who would glance nervously, their trigger-fingers itchy, their eyes narrowed.

Inevitably something would go wrong.  The good guy would get half way before being shot, or a rookie cowboy on the good guys side would get nervous and accidently fire his pistol.  Even when the prisoner swap went well, the moral of the story was always this: the badguy will still be a badguy, and will live to fight another day, kill again, but the goodguy will too.  The moral was that shades of grey exist in this world, and while you don’t want to see the badguy set free, because you know deep down that he’ll come back worse than ever, you also want to see the goodguy safe and sound.  You want to be reassured that it wasn’t all for nothing.  It’s a tough question–one of the few real morality issues that one encountered in old Westerns.

So, to extend what was bound to be an extended metaphor further, I now take you to the modern Wild West, which just so happens to be Israel.  The Israeli government has signed a prisoner swap deal with Hizbullah, exchanging several prisoners for two Israeli soldiers who may or may not be alive.

Dead men on both sides will be exchanged if the two IDF men, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, are indeed dead. According to the Jerusalem Post:

Members of the IDF Rabbinate were exhuming the bodies of approximately 200 Hizbullah men killed in fighting with Israel from their graves in a cemetery near Safed.

What makes this deal really appalling to me, and to many in Israel and around the world, is the release of Sami Kuntar–this without the release of Israeli Gilad Shalit.

CNN writes:

Kuntar was convicted over a 1979 attack in which he shot and killed an Israeli man in front of his 4-year-old daughter, then smashed her head against a rock with his rifle butt, tossing her body into the sea.

Another daughter, 2, was accidentally smothered by her mother, who tried to keep her quiet as they hid from the attackers.

In fact, the whole capture of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser is said to have been a tactic used by Hizbullah, who apparently were expecting the half-assed Israeli invasion of Lebanon, to secure Sami Kuntar’s release.   I personally am not against prisoner swaps, or the trading of bodies as it may be–but releasing a man who dashed a four-year-old girl’s head in after killing her father in front of her…?  The man deserves worse than death, and certainly worse than freedom and a heroes welcome by Hizbullah.

Al-Jazeera has reported on the exchange with an article titled “Israel to Exhume Bodies of Martyrs Ahead of Swap” which basically gives you the Arab perspective on this exchange.  They write:

The exchange is to occur on three phases, the first of which will include the release of Lebanese detainee Samir Kintar and three others, according to the Ma’an report.

The second phase, Ma’an reported, will begin six days later and the third a few days after that. The news agency further reported that one of the Palestinian bodies slated to be returned under the second phase of the deal would be that of Dalal Mughrabi, a female resistance fighter launched a heroic operation in 1978 killing 36 Israelis. The report does not detail at which stage Hezbollah will release the two Israeli soldiers.

Interesting, this completely different take on the matter.  One man’s terrorist is another man’s resistance fighter, I suppose.  Of course, I call any man (or woman) who kills innocent people a terrorist, whether or not they happen to also be resistance fighers, or whether they buy into the destructive, poisonous notion of martyrdom–instant-heaven, as easy as instant macaroni and cheese, all it takes is one suicidal mission and you’re there, dark-eyed virgins and all.

Al-Jazeera calls Mughabri “a female resistance fighter launched a heroic operation in 1978 killing 36 Israelis.”

Let’s learn a little bit about the “heroic operation” of Ms. Mughabri….

On March 11, 1978, Mughrabi led a band of eleven terrorists who took boats from Lebanon and landed north of Tel Aviv. Upon landing, they met an American photographer, Gail Rubin. Their intended target was Tel Aviv so they asked her where they were. Once she told them, they murdered her.

They then hijacked a bus filled with families going on an outing, seemingly with the intent to take it to Tel Aviv.

An IDF unit chased the bus and finally forced it to stop, and then the shootout began. Mughrabi and her gang started shooting passengers point-blank and then they firebombed the bus itself, trapping the passengers. At least 35 were killed, including 13 children, in what became known as the Coastal Road Massacre.

But I still see no problem with returning her corpse.  Sami Kuntar, however, is another matter.  I don’t believe Israel should hand him over alive.  I think murderers should be treated as such, and Kuntar should rot in an Israeli prison until the day he dies.

[note: Sami Kuntar is also known as Samir Quntar or Samir al-Quntar]

“You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene,” - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

“As the Imam Khomeini said, if each Muslim throws a bucket of water on Israel, Israel will be erased,” - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki

The time for a just and much needed war against the Iranian Regime is drawing near. Israel cannot and will not let these tyrants gain nuclear weapons with which to control and threaten the entire Middle East and beyond.

Perhaps later this Summer, the skies over Iran will be filled with the wings of the glorious Israeli Air Force as they swoop and destroy nuclear power plants and military instillations across the nation. Many will cry foul but the annuls of history will be on Israel’s side, just as it was in the Iraq strike of 1981 and the fabulous victory over the cowardly Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1967. Future generations will for centuries venerate the heroes of 2008, in the mould of the great Bar Kochba. Israel will once again regain it’s aura of invincibility and keep her status as the beacon of democracy, modernity and human rights in the entire region.

The world must support Israel, for a nuclear Iran threatens not just Jerusalem, but the major cities of the civilised world including London, New York, Berlin, Mumbai and Tokyo. For many years Iran’s proxies including the likes of Hezbollah and Syria have been waging war against the Jewish State and the people of Iraq, including the coalition. Now we must strike back and deliver a decisive blow to the head of the snake.

See: Hassan Nasrallah’s speech about Israel.

While electile dysfunction devours huge bits of American attention - certain regimes and their fanboys pay attention too. For years it was widely understood in the ME that Great Satan didn’t act out militarily in an election year - or even the year before an election year. The Lame Duck syndrome.

Only since 911 though - it hasn’t been so clear cut. Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed the general manager of Al -Arabiya television points out the Arab street has fell for the old Great Satan is safe as milk election year jazz before.

“Saddam Hussein was excluding the possibility of such a war, relying on the
views of Arab television analysts. They told him not to worry about the threats
and the massing of fleets. They assured him that anti-war demonstrations, public
opinion surveys, and the approaching end of the President’s first term would
prevent war. How wrong they were! “

(more…)

4 July 1776 fired off a crazy rocking rolling ride that hasn’t stopped ’stirring things up’ on a global scale.

Advancing arrogance into an art form with a remarkable relentless risque commitment to liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, and laissez-faire values.

America differs qualitatively from all other nations, because of her unique origins, nat’l credo, historical evolution, and distinctive political and religious institutions.

Great Satan is magically especial because she was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy.

Loud, proud and rowdy - early America forecast future stuff with a provocative lingo that still fits today. “Don’t Tread On Me!” “Liberty Or Death”, “Live Free Or Die”

The belief in the superiority of the American model is reflected in the perception among Americans of America’s role in the world. That American foreign policy is based on moral principles is a consistent theme in the American discourse – a phenomenon recognized even by those who are skeptic of such an assessment.

This inclination to do right has been virtually unique among the nations of the world - and for this very reason - America has been totally misunderstood. How could a nation so rich, so successful actually, really be so unselfish and so caring?

Critics cry America must have darker motives! America must be seeking imperium - to dominate everyone else, suck up all the oil, to trade and rob blind for America’s selfish purposes.

People from more grasping, less idealistic societies find it nigh impossible to accept that America honestly believes that giving everyone opportunity is the real roadmap for abundance and happiness everywhere - not merely in the magical Great Satan.

Americans honestly believe that securing other people’s freedom is actually like the best guarantee that America can keep her own.

America does not want to dominate the world. Americans want to live in peace and hope other people will too.

America will go out into the world, redress errors, stop unacceptable behaviour, to first challenge then annihilate threats to our liberty.

Creative destruction is Great Satan’s middle name. It is her natural function, for she is the one truly revolutionary country in the world for more than 2 centuries.

She does it automatically, and that is precisely why tyrants hate her guts, and are driven to attack her. An enormous advantage, tyrants fear her, and their oppressed peoples want what she offers: freedom.

Amazingly, some suspect states, illegit leaders and some people have not yet comprehended that America’s primary intention is to preserve and keep our own land and liberty and all it’s prosperity and that America will do anything and go anywhere to make it happen.

Great Satan built the modern world.

And She knows her way around.

Happy BDay America!

Some of the best news this past week came out of Colombia, where Government agents posing as rebels tricked actual rebels into freeing 15 hostages, including Ingrid Betancourt, three American contractors and 11 Colombian police and military personnel.  This really was some amazing work on the part of the Colombian military:

The agents gained the rebels’ trust and rose to the top of FARC’s leadership council as well as a team assigned to guard the hostages.

When the time was ripe, the moles used the authority they’d gained within the group to order the 15 hostages moved from three separate locations to one central area, and the game was on.

Incredibly, the entire mission was carried out without a shot fired.  The agents led their rebel counterparts to believe the helicopter coming to rescue the hostages was an “international mission” like the Red Cross.  They loaded up the hostages, convinced the other rebels to lay down their arms, and then arrested the men and got the hostages out.  Fact is, you don’t hear many stories like this, that end so well.

In other news, an Arab Israeli ran a front end loader into a bus in Jerusalem killing several people and wounding many more.  His family has said he was not involved in politics, and that the apparent terrorist attack was actually just a guy who lost his cool.  It looks as though, perhaps, he was involved in criminal rather than political disputes.

Calling Michelle Malkin, Charles Johnson, A.J. Strata, Ed Morrissey, Richard Fernandez and Ace of Spades

When the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 was unveiled in September 2005, these six high profile conservative bloggers were instrumental in raising the public protest that forced the Memorial Project to agree to a redesign. Charles Johnson stayed with the story until the summer of 2006, and Ace has done two links since 2005, but for the most part, these conservative heroes seem to have decided that the “circle of embrace” redesign is okay.

It is NOT okay. Architect Paul Murdoch described his original Crescent of Embrace design as a broken circle. The redesign is still described as a broken circle, and the unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains exactly as it was in the original design.

In particular, the giant crescent still points to Mecca, and the repetition of this Mecca orientation in the crescents of trees that surround the Tower of Voices part of the memorial proves that the Mecca orientation is intentional. That makes the giant crescent a mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. (more…)

Unlike the previous Gulf War, the United States mustered a smaller coalition of nations willing to engage in the liberation of Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. Much has been made of the weaknesses in the international alliance, in so far as it did not include powers such as Germany and France, two pivotal players on the European mainland. Germany and France, for reasons cultural, strategic, and financial, where unwilling to work with the Bush administration’s stated goals for dealing with Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003, and this has plagued relations between the U.S. and its traditional allies in Europe since.

Yet, other European nations bucked the leadership coming from the old continental forces. A number of these “new” European states were formerly members of the communist Eastern-bloc, and sided with the American mission to topple Iraq’s totalitarian government and establish a democracy in its remains. One of the key nations in this union was Poland, lead by Aleksander Kwasniewski’s government, which headed the nation between 1995 and 2005. (more…)