Outrage of the Day

April 16, 2008

Well, my cuz Jimmah Cahtuh went against the strong advice of the State Department and met with the world-recognized terrorist group Hamas.  The Israeli officials weren’t too happy about it either, denying him official security protection.

He went anyway, and decided that the dead PLO head terrorist Yasser Arafat was worthy of homage, laying a wreath at his mausoleum.  Then the pitiful ex President went on to his meeting with the second in command of Hamas, Nasser al-Shaer.  Who he hugged. 

“He gave me a hug. We hugged each other, and it was a warm reception,” Shaer told The Associated Press. “Carter asked what he can do to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel … and I told him the possibility for peace is high.”

Peace…a nice steaming bowl of taquiyya anyone?

Carter admitted while over there (but certainly not before he left) that he is “quite at ease” with meeting with terrorists, and that “I’ve been meeting with Hamas leaders for years,”

What did he get for his trouble of having Tea With Terrorists?  Islamic Jihad (another terrorist group in ‘Palestine’.  So hard to keep them all apart…scorecard please?) ripped him one.

GAZA, April 15 (Xinhua) — The Islamic Jihad (Holy War) movement in Gaza has slammed on Tuesday the statements of former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, after he termed the rockets attacks on Israel as “a big crime.”

Carter, who is visiting in the region, paid a visit to the southern Israeli town of Sderout, which has been a subject for homemade rockets’ attacks carried out by Gaza militants. Carter said rockets “are a crime against humanity.”

Dawood Shihab, spokesman for the Islamic Jihad movement in Gaza, said in response that “Carter’s statement of describing resistance as a crime against humanity is in itself an overthrow on the morals of humanity.”

It must be so hard, being the Man Who Will Bring Us Together.


Obamessiah? Obama the Arrogant Elitist, More Like

April 16, 2008

Well, remember the little trip Barack Obama made to Billionaire’s Row last week?  You know, the one that was closed to the public, and no press?  Well something of the meeting slipped out.  Something rather…condescending.  The money quote:

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by – it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laughter), then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.  (emphasis mine)

The context here is that an Obama organizer asked him for talking points for when he went into Pennsylvania.  You know, to talk to the little people.  Remember here that this is an event that was closed to the media, and anyone who wasn’t an Obama supporter.  In San Francisco.  On Billionaire’s Row.  He felt free to speak his mind, and why shouldn’t he?  No one’s going to hear what I say here, right?  Listen to the audio for yourself.

First things first.  The part of the speech dealing with clinging to guns, religion, and bigotry, you may have heard already.  The part in the first paragraph I think adds to the hypocritical message of the Obamassiah.  He’s not just telling his like-minded followers that the hayseeds in Pennsylvania and the Midwest are gun-totin’, Bible thumpin, bigoted non-economically oriented hicks.  He’s also telling us that we fools aren’t going to want to hear the message that we won’t be allowed to “go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.” by a…shhhhhh…black man.  Oh, the horror of it all!  My ears can’t stand it!

The Obamaphiles in the media are trying to explain away this mind-numbingly arrogant riff by focusing on the ‘bitter’ part of the statement, and ignoring the rest completely.  For me, the bitter thing is the least of it all.  Ed Morrissey gets it bang on when breaking down the components of this statement. 

  • [T]hey cling to guns…” Cling to guns? Americans have “clung” to guns since the founding of the Republic. It’s such a core value to this nation that its founders placed it second on the Bill of Rights, right after freedom of speech and religion. Speaking of which …
  • or [they cling to] religion …” People don’t become religious because the economy hits a few bumps in the road. Obama may have chosen his religion based on politics, but most people follow a religion out of a deeper sense of spirituality. I can’t think of a more condescending and contemptuous analysis of religious dedication than this statement.
  • or [they cling to] antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…” Small-town voters are bigots and xenophobes; there’s no other way to read the first part of this statement. The second part, about them being “anti-immigrant”, is a non-sequitur. They may be anti-illegal immigrant, but that’s a far different issue. Obama offers no proof that small-town voters are xenophobes, but the Frisco audience didn’t demand any, either. It’s part of their own bigotry that makes them see middle America in those terms.
  • or [they cling to] anti-trade sentiment …” And this is just jaw-droppingly hypocritical. This comes from the same candidate who opposes the Colombian free-trade agreement and wants to throw NAFTA out the window. Who’s clinging to anti-trade sentiment? Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Big Labor.

Shortly after the story broke, Obama came out on Friday saying that he ‘misspoke’

“And nothing ever happens, and of course they’re bitter, of course they’re frustrated, you would be too. In fact, many of you are. Americans don’t vote on economic issues, he continued, because they don’t believe Washington can deliver. “So people end up voting on issues like guns … like gay marriage,” he said. “They take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and the things they can count on. So people, ya know they vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community, and they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response.  (emphasis mine)

Oookaaayyyy…  Of course we’re bitter.  Of course we want Washington to fix our economic woes.  Of course we only have our faith to take refuge in when times are hard.  Notice how he softened the terms from the previous statement in order to make it look like we ignorant fools are taking him way too seriously.  ‘Cling to guns’ becomes ‘vote about guns’.  Cling to religion becomes ‘take comfort from their faith’.  He slips in family and community where it wasn’t before.  ‘Antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment’ becomes ‘get mad about illegal immigrants’.   Allahpundit gets it right saying

If his original statement boiled down to “religion is the opiate of the masses,” think of this as adding, “and what wonderful things opiates are.”

Bill Kristol notices the comparison, and takes it further.

This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.” (emphasis mine)

Then, after taking a beating over the weekend on the punditry shows, even by Democrats like James Carville and Chrissy Matthews, Obama came out on Monday saying:

“Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I’m out of touch, it’s time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality,” Obama told steelworkers in Pittsburgh.  “They are angry and frustrated with their leaders for not listening to them; for not fighting for them; for not always telling them the truth. And yes, they are bitter about that,” he said.

Yeah…blow the whole thing off by saying you ‘chose your words badly’.  Then go on the offensive after your opponents.

Then, when that doesn’t work out too well, come out the next day and say that you ‘mangled’ your words, and your ‘syntax was poor’.  He then went on to tell the Philadelphia Daily News that he

“conflated” two points – the first being that people who have felt abandoned by political leadership turn to their faith, family or traditions like hunting. His second point was that politicians have tried to distract those voters with wedge issues like homosexuality or immigration.

Yes…that’s what I take away from what he was saying, clear back the week before.  And it’s surely what he meant in his first two clarifications.  That weren’t working out so well.  I wonder what the next ‘clarification’ is going to bring?

Okay, now for the humorous stuff:



And via Michelle Malkin, we get this illustrative picture:


The reference, for those who aren’t political junkies like me, is when Obama mentioned the leafy vegetable twice last year, in the rural state of Iowa:

“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” he asked. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

That comment came despite the fact that Iowa does not have any Whole Foods stores, nor do most of its farmers typically grow any arugula.

Now, I may live in Hicksville (proudly, I might add), but I’ve been around the block a time or two.  Until this happened last year, I’d never heard of this fancy lettuce that you have to go pay high dollar for at Whole Foods.  People I know had never heard of it either.  Guess we’re just typical Corncob-Smokin’, Banjo-Strokin’ Chicken-Chokin’ Cousin-Pokin’ Inbred Hillbilly Racist Morons.

On Tuesday this week, Obama had a very interesting thing to say while covering his assets yet again:

“Sometimes hope and anger go hand and hand,” he said today at the Philadelphia City Committee’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner. “People really are angry, they really are fed up, some of them are bitter because Washington’s forgotten them. And because it’s not me that’s out of touch, it’s folks who think that folks are happy when they are out of a job and they have lost their pension and they don’t have health care and their schools are under-funded.”

“Just because you’re mad, just because it seems like nobody is listening to ordinary Americans, that’s not a reason to give up hope,” Obama told the Building Trades National Legislative Conference. “You get mad and then you decide you’re going to change it. If you’re not angry about something you’re going to sit back and let it happen to you. If you’re only angry, you don’t feel hopeful.” (emphasis mine)

What makes this so interesting is that I’ve been reading Jonah Goldberg’s new book Liberal Fascism.  In discussing the radicalism of the 60’s student fascism movement, there is much anger being fueled into their plan for change.  The Black Panthers, the SDS, the Weathermen, all used anger to whip people into a frenzy, then go forth and Change the World.  There are tons of examples of this in Jonah’s book.  I heartily recommend picking up a copy and reading.  Very enlightening.

The SDS’s current incarnation on their front page describes the situation in the 1960’s thusly:

Polite protest turned into stronger and more determined resistance as rage and frustration increased all across the country.

Notice the words rage and frustration, and Obama’s words angry, mad, frustrated.  Notice how he claims that you don’t change things that you’re unhappy with unless you’re mad and angry.

James Miller, a member of the Weather Underground (the later, more politically correct name for the Weathermen), states that their violence had done “more damage to the ruling class…than any mass, peaceful gathering this country has ever seen.”  A delegate to an SDS meeting says “Tactics?  It’s too late…Let’s break what we can.  Make as many answer as we can.  Tear them apart.” 

Saul Alinsky looks down on mere liberals, who simply observe the issue instead of taking action.  As for the Radical?  “Society has good reason to fear the Radical…He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous.  Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of the Conservatives.”  He also tells us “Change means movement.  Movement means friction.  Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.”  (above quotes from Liberal Fascism, Goldberg)

Yes, this is the same Saul Alinsky who wrote Rules For Radicals.  The same Rules For Radicals who tutored Hillary Clinton.  The same one whose student Mike Kruglik mentored Barack Obama on community organizing.

As Goldberg says, “The movement of the 1960s didn’t start out destructive.  In fact, it started out brimming with high-minded idealism and hope.”  Idealism and hope.  Sound familiar, anyone?

Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 20, “Ta Ha”

April 11, 2008

Via Hot Air:

This early Meccan sura “has no rival,” says Muhammad Al-Ghazali, “in its uncompromising affirmation of the Absolute Unity of Allah.” It takes its name from the two Arabic letters that begin it, ta (ﻁ) and ha (ﻩ). Ibn Abbas and other early commentators have suggested that ta ha (طه) is actually a phrase from an ancient Arabic dialect, meaning “O man,” in which case it may be that here Allah is addressing Muhammad, as he does in v. 2 — where once again consoles his downcast prophet, telling him he is not being given the Qur’an in order to distress him. Everything belongs to Allah (v. 6) and he knows all secrets (v. 7), for he has the best names – that is, the highest attributes (v. 8).

Then verses 9-99 tell yet again the story of Moses, which has already been touched on in suras 2, 7, 10, and 17. But, as Al-Ghazali observes, “every time the story appears different aspects of it emerge. Each version has details which are not included in any other version.” But the repeated aspects have their usefulness as well. Al-Ghazali also points out that this sura is very concerned with reminding and bidding the faithful to remember truths that they have already learned: the Qur’an itself is a reminder (v. 3); the believers should pray regularly so as to remember Allah (v. 14); Moses asks Allah to be given Aaron as a helper, so that together the brothers can praise and remember him without ceasing (vv. 29-34); Allah grants this, and warns Moses not to grow slack in remembering him (v. 42); Allah instructs Moses to go speak to Pharaoh so that perhaps Pharaoh will remember or show some fear of Allah (v. 44); Allah never forgets (v. 52), but after the mysterious Samiri fashions the idol of the calf, he tells the people that this is their god, but that Moses has forgotten that (v. 88); Allah tells Muhammad that he told him the whole story of Moses again as a reminder (v. 99); Allah gave the world the Qur’an so as to bring some people to remember him (v. 113); Adam forgot his covenant with Allah (v. 115); Allah will forget on the Day of Judgment those who forgot his signs (ayat, or verses of the Qur’an) in this world (v. 126).

Sufis say that when Moses approached the Burning Bush and heard the voice of Allah (vv. 10-17), he attained the states of fana, or absorption of the self into the deity, and baqaa, life in union with Allah. His shoes, they say, represented his separation from Allah, which is why Allah tells him to take them off (v. 12). According to Ibn Masud Baghavi in Ma’alimut-tanzil, what Moses saw wasn’t actually fire at all, but the heavenly light (Nur) of Allah.

Anyway, Allah equips Moses with the staff that turns into a snake (v. 20) and a hand that would turn brilliant white “without disease” (v. 22), and sends him off to confront Pharaoh. Allah grants Moses’ request to take Aaron along (v. 36) and tells him the story of how he was plucked out of the river by “one who is an enemy to Me and an enemy to him” (v. 39) as a baby and returned to his mother (v. 40). The story is told as if the hearers are already familiar with the outline of the story of Moses from the Book of Exodus.

When Allah tells Moses and Aaron again to go to Pharaoh (v. 44), they respond that they’re afraid “lest he hasten with insolence against us, or lest he transgress all bounds” (v. 46). Allah responds that they should not be afraid, for he is with them, and sees and hears everything – recalling the message of consolation he gave to Muhammad in vv. 5-7. So Moses and Aaron do their duty, telling Pharaoh that Allah is the only God and has “made for you the earth like a carpet spread out” (v. 53), and that punishment awaits the disbelievers (v. 48). But Pharoah rejects their message (v. 56) and says he can match their miracles (v. 58). When his magicians, however, profess their faith in Allah (v. 70), Pharaoh threatens them in language that eerily foreshadows Allah’s own recommended punishment (revealed later) for those who make war against Allah and Muhammad (5:33): he tells them he’ll crucify them, or amputate a hand and a foot on opposite sides (v. 71). Evidently the punishments are fine – the only problem is the person administering them, and for what reason.

Allah saves the Israelites from Pharaoh by parting the sea so that they pass on dry land (vv. 77-79). Moses ascends the mountain to meet Allah, but doesn’t receive the Ten Commandments. Instead, Allah asks him why he hurried up the mountain in advance of his people (v. 82) and tells him that he is testing Moses’ people by allowing Samiri to lead them astray (v. 85). Moses scolds Aaron for doing nothing when he saw them beginning to go astray (v. 92). Samiri explains that he took “a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Messenger” to fashion the calf (v. 96). Muslim commentators generally agree that he took this dust from one of the hoofprints left by the angel Gabriel’s horse, as Gabriel led the Israelites in battle. Moses punishes Samiri, telling him “thy punishment in this life will be that thou wilt say, ‘touch me not’ (v. 97). Ibn Kathir explains: “This means, ‘Just as you took and touched what was not your right to take and touch of the messenger’s foot print, such is your punishment in this life, that you will say, ‘Do not touch (me).’ This means, ‘You will not touch the people and they will not touch you.’” This may be a hint that Samiri is a Samaritan – a people who generally did not (and do not) intermingle with outsiders.

Verses 100-112 warn about the dreadful Day of Judgment. Then verses 113-123 tell us that Allah has sent down an “Arabic Qur’an” so that people may fear him (v. 113) – this is one of the verses that establishes the proposition that the Qur’an is essentially in Arabic and cannot be translated. Allah tells Muhammad “be not in haste with the Qur’an before its revelation to thee is completed” (v. 114). This is because, says Ibn Abbas, Muhammad would recite revelations rapidly as they were being revealed, trying to remember them. He should trust in Allah’s power to make him remember. After that the Qur’an returns to the story of Adam’s fall; Satan tempts Adam to eat from the Tree of Eternity (v. 120) – not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as in Genesis. Allah expels Adam and Eve from the Garden but tells them that those who follow his guidance will not lose their way (v. 123).

Verses 124-135 conclude the sura with more warnings: the disbelievers will be raised up blind on Judgment Day (v. 125); Muhammad should be patient with the unbelievers (v. 130), because their punishment is coming (v. 129); nor should Muhammad envy their worldly goods (v. 131); the unbelievers ask for a sign, but they have ignored all of Allah’s previous revelations (v. 133).

Next week: Sura 21, “The Prophets”: “Closer and closer to mankind comes their Reckoning, yet they heed not and they turn away.”

(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)

As usual, click over and read through the comments.  There is always an enlightening Q&A that goes on with Spencer.

The Westboro Church Haters Get Theirs

April 11, 2008

This just warms my heart.  The second time in one week that people have turned out to show these people up.  The first was last week, this time in Wisconsin.  These animals were protesting and showing their hate for three college kids who were killed in a house fire.  These hateful freaks regularly go to funerals of our soldiers and Marines.  Thankfully, The Patriot Guard comes out to block them from the grieving families.  This time, a bunch of college kids, who I might not agree with on a lot of issues, turn out and run these sorry excuses for people off.  Good for them.  Content warning, these are college kids, after all.

Last week’s heart-warming turnout, with a rickroll twist…

That makes me almost as proud as the people who showed up to run the awful racist  Quanell X off from protesting Joe Horn.  Almost.

Iraq As the Central Front In the Fight With Jihad

April 10, 2008

In today’s Wall Street Journal, the Iraqi Ambassador to the United States Samir Sumaida’ie wrote an editorial laying out the reasons we should stay in Iraq until they have the ability to stand on their own.

Five years after Saddam Hussein was toppled from power, Iraq and the U.S. face important choices for their future relationship – choices that will have profound long-term ramifications for both countries.

…Iraq and the U.S. face important choices for their future relationship – choices that will have profound long-term ramifications for both countries.

I submit that it (the U.S.) cannot afford to lose this fight to its enemies. The destinies of the U.S. and Iraq have become intertwined and their national interests very closely linked.

The convulsions of a society battered by decades of brutality and deprivation are all too evident. But the resilience, tenacity and commitment to national unity are no less evident. The glass may be half-empty, but it is also half full and filling up. Slowly perhaps, but surely. The achievements which Iraqis have accomplished under fire spanning the security, economic and political spheres stand as a testimony to their determination to succeed.

Today, the world is facing a new and dangerous threat of international extremism and terrorism. The epicenter of this confrontation is Iraq. The new enemy is harder to defeat because it is not confined to a state, though some states are involved in its creation and promotion. It is diffused throughout many societies. But this enemy can and must be defeated. As the struggles of the last century shaped our world, this struggle will shape the world for generations to come.  (emphasis mine)

This is hardly the only example of someone realizing that Iraq is the central front in the so-called Global War on Terror. 

In 2005, President Bush made the case, stating

Just as terrorists “regard Iraq as the central front in the war on humanity,” the United States must recognize it as “the central front in our war on terror,”

Indeed, Bush realized this in 2003, when he said

Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there — and there they must be defeated.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s number two man,

said in 2005 the same thing.

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

No less than Usama Bin Laden himself has identified Iraq as the central front, saying in 2004

Bin Laden identified the insurgency in Iraq as “a golden and unique opportunity” for jihadists to engage and defeat the United States, and he characterized the insurgency in Iraq as the central battle in a “Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation.”

The nation of Iran obviously sees the importance of it, shoveling  money, materiel, and military advisors to both Sunni and Shia forces.  According to the leader of Hamas in Iraq, AQI has received money, weapons, and training from Iran, and he sees Iran as wanting to rule, changing the ideology and demographics in Iraq.

The examples of Iran funding and assisting both sides in Iraq are numerous. One after another, after another. Why would they want to do this?  One would think the answer would be obvious.  They are trying to create chaos for two reasons.  One, to get us to lose our political will and leave.  Two, to weaken the internal forces in Iraq, so they can step in and rule, creating the caliphate so hoped for by Mahmoud Ahmedinijad. 

The only people in the world who don’t see Iraq as the central front, it would appear, are people on the Left like the Great Leader Harry Reid, with his infamous statement

“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,”

Never mind that this was months before the surge was even fully implemented.  Never mind that it has turned out to be quite successful.  What do the AQI folks have to say about the defeatists?

This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

This is how the cross worshipping occupiers and their henchmen live. Their morale continues to collapse as the result of the increasing strikes of the Mujahideen, carried out by the grace of Allah.
  (emphasis mine)

We went into Iraq for very good reasons.  Indeed, the evidence of WMD’s in Iraq is still coming out, and Saddam did indeed have many terrorist ties.  However, I believe that there were other strategies involved in President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq. 

One:  If we could establish stable nation-states on either side of Iran, that would surround them, putting ideological, religious, and military pressure on them. 

Two:  the mujahadeen are spread all over the world.  Even in Afghanistan, that is awful territory to try to fight them and root them out.  In Iraq, the field of battle is more open (both literally and figuratively) to doing battle.  We established a location to do battle with the jihadis on our terms, not theirs.  One that is more conducive to our ability to fight, not theirs.  In addition, Iraq is closer to the heart of islam, and it has drawn in fighters from all over the world in a way Afghanistan never did.  This has drawn them into one location, allowing us to kill or capture them instead of them being spread around, doing their planning in secret, and bringing the fight to us on our own homeland.

I wrote in a previous post about hard facts supporting the idea that our enemies pay attention to our media, and react accordingly.  Notice that while the war in Afghanistan is important to the Mujahideen, it is primarily a regional matter, with fighters from there and Pakistan, and primarily a Sunni concern.  Both Sunni and Shia forces from across the whole Middle East, and indeed across the world, have been involved in Iraq. 

Our Left may not see Iraq as central to the future shape of world events, but our enemies surely do.  They pay attention to what our defeatists here say, too.

Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor Receives the Medal of Honor

April 9, 2008

Posthumously.  In September 2006, Monsoor was in Ramadi, at a time when Anbar Province was the most violent place in Iraq.  He and two squadmates were on a roof, searching for enemy fighters.  A grenade was thrown into their sniper’s nest, hitting Monsoor in the chest, then bouncing to the floor in front of them.  He was in a position to save himself, and his two team members were not. 

In the tradition of SEALs, and of other Medal of Honor recipients, Monsoor threw himself on the grenade, with no hesitation.

“He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it,” said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. “He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs’ lives, and we owe him.”

Today, his parents received the Medal of Honor on his behalf at the White House. (Click on picture for video of the ceremonies)


AP has an interesting observation on today’s ceremonies:

I’d love to know what Bush said to his father and vice versa; the body language is interesting. What can anyone possibly say at that moment? Click the image to watch.

Update: The answer to my question.


For all the people on the Left who rail on the President for supposedly sending troops off to die for his oil buddies, for those of you who claim he has no heart, I say this:  Those tears aren’t fake.  It’s not some play acting, like Bill Clinton used to do.  Because he doesn’t parade his feelings around like Clinton did, we don’t normally see this side of President Bush.

God Bless Monsoor, and the other three Medal of Honor recipients in the ‘GWoT’, Jason Dunham, Paul Smith, and Michael Murphy.

Obama Visits Billionaire’s Row

April 9, 2008

Ahhh…the amorphous Zombie catches another great group of photos, this time of Senator Obama visiting ‘billionaire’s row’ in San Francisco.  This shouldn’t seem like anything extraordinary, since politicians are forever seeking out and pandering to the wealthy to raise funds.  The wealthy, of course, are trying to buy access to the politician so they may gain favor(s) with said individual when they get in office. This, however, is the Great Obamessiah!  As he, and as is pointed out in Zombie’s post on the matter,

Obama’s campaign slogan is “Change” — declaring that he alone will change the way things are done in politics.
But what kind of “change” is this? The single most insidious aspect of American politics is that candidates often must pander to and do the bidding of the wealthiest Americans, who have the funds to get the candidate elected. It’s so commonplace, we no longer thing of it as “corruption,” but that’s basically what it is. So when Obama spends all day doing nothing but going to a series of private fundraisers populated exclusively by the wealthy, the only “change” I feel are the coins jangling at the bottom of my pocket.According to this article (and many others), Obama’s campaign is claiming he raises his money from small donors:

“When you’re given the gift of advocacy, you don’t sell it to the highest bidder,” Mrs. Obama said. Mrs. Obama stressed how her husband has relied on “regular folks” instead of big donors. Instead of thousand-dollar donations, the Obama campaign has raised millions on small checks of $20 to $50. Mrs. Obama sees this participatory attitude as a new trend.

Wait just a minute there. If you do the math, one just this one day in the Bay Area, Obama went to four events, three of which had $2,300 minimum donations for tickets, and the other for $1,000 minimum per ticket. Each of the events, from the various descriptions, held as many as 400 people (the Getty mansion has a ballroom that reportedly seats at least 300). 400 x $2,300 = $920,000 per event, times three events = $2.76 million, plus the other event, which undoubtedly puts him over $3 million in contributions for this one day alone. And who knows how many other similar days he schedules in other parts of the country.
Michelle Obama (and other Obama campaign spokespeople) aren’t telling the truth. It seems that a significant portion of Obama’s monthly campaign contributions are coming from “large donors”‘ — i.e. rich people, not just the “$20 to $50” donations they’re constantly bragging about.

An excellent point.  ‘But wait!’ you say…’He is the agent of change, and would surely never lie to us!  You troglodytes must just not understand the purpose here.’ 

No, I’m afraid we do understand.  Barack Obama is just another politician, going to the wealthy, hat in hand, so he can skip out on his promise to bypass the usual way of funding a campaign and go with federal financing. 

For more information on Obama and his….’mistruths’, click over and read my four part (more to come, I have no doubt) series, It Seems That Hillary’s Not the Only One With Pants On Fire.

After you go to Zombie’s page and read the post, and see the pictures of this event.

How you can support General Petraeus

April 8, 2008

General Petraus will be speaking before Congress this week.  Last summer, as Ed Morrissey points out,

He had one Senator call him a liar to his face — a Senator that wants to be President, but has found it rougher going than she predicted.  A major political organization that supports and is supported by many Democrats took out a full-page ad in the New York Times implying that Petraeus was a traitor, using a playground slur on his surname.

General Petraeus returns to Congress this week, a chastised Congress that has tried its best to avoid the Iraq debate ever since Petraeus proved them wrong in the fall and winter, but one that will undoubtedly remain hostile.  Nancy Pelosi has already tried telling Petraeus that he’d better deliver a negative report — or else.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wants Petraeus to have a better welcome back to the US for his report.

Senator Mitch McConnell decided to provide the rest of us an opportunity to show our appreciation, or any other thoughts you might have about the General.

There’s no doubt that Moveon.ogre will be hauling out the same garbage they did last fall, though I doubt the NY Times will be caught giving them preferential treatment this time.

Click on over and let your thoughts be known.

More Sweet Geeky Goodness

April 8, 2008

 Hot Air had this post the other day.  According to Danger Room, the modified 747 is supposed to start test-zapping missiles next year.  They’ve been working on this one for a while, and it seems they’re getting close. 

This could be huge, if it works as planned.  The combination of the ABL orbiting near a danger area, and the Navy’s newly well-tested missles to shoot down anything that slips by, could very well keep us, and Europe safe from whatever the Iranians, Russians, or Chinese might want to sling our way.

Blogs For Borders Blogburst 04/07/08

April 8, 2008

Our friends over at Freedom Folks have released this week’s video blogburst.  I’m guessing that the previous post regarding the Veteran at the University of NM will be in next week’s post…