THE QANA SMOKESCREEN

By Michelle Malkin

First, take a look at mob scenes across the Muslim world this weekend, ostensibly--ostensibly--in response to the civilian deaths in Qana, Lebanon (via Yahoo! News). Angry Muslims from Beirut to Gaza to Lahore are setting fire to American and Israeli flags. Burning effigies of Western leaders. Raising their voices in death chants:

(Tigerhawk has more shots.)

It all seems so...so familiar, doesn't it? Didn't we go through this same routine, the same scripted jihad theatrics, barely sixth months ago over the Mohammed cartoons? From February:

The truth about Muslim outrage over Qana is that it's not really about the tragic deaths at Qana--just like the cartoon jihad was not really about the cartoons.

Remember: Muslim outrage over the Danish cartoons was stoked and manufactured amid attempts to bully Denmark over the International Atomic Energy Agency's decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its nuclear research program. Iran blamed Israel for the cartoons:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is at odds with much of the international community about Iran's disputed nuclear program, launched an anti-Israeli campaign last fall when he said the Holocaust was a "myth" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

In a speech marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on Saturday, Ahmadinejad linked his public rage with Israel and the cartoons satirizing Islam's most revered figure.

"Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime," he said. "We ask, 'Why do you insult the prophet?' The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact they (who insult the founder of Islam) are hostages of the Zionists. And the people of the U.S. and Europe should pay a heavy price for becoming hostages to Zionists."

Now, the Qana jihad, gleefully stoked by Iran, is unfolding amid mounting U.N. Security Council pressure on Tehran and a looming resolution calling for the country to suspend its nuclear program.

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, bless him, isn't falling for the ploy:

U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said Hezbollah's actions were the ``fundamental cause'' of the conflict, and accused the group of hiding behind civilians.

``It says something about the morality and respect for human life of Hezbollah that they would use innocent civilians as shields; that's just something that for civilized people is not acceptable,'' Bolton said.

What better way to distract from Hezbollah's atrocities and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's annihilation plans than to start screaming about Israel's "war crimes" and Western crimes against humanity. John Hinderaker at Power Line points to prefab jihadi banners demonizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. EU Referendum looks at morbid photo posing. Bob Owens wonders where all the men were.

But never mind all that, right? The Muslim world is united again. And some short-sighted Westerners are allowing themselves to be duped.

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch has is right:

Western analysts continue to miss the fact that if it weren't Qana, it would be something else, and that Qana is just the latest in a long, long line of similar incidents used by jihadists to stir up a sense of grievance among Muslims and thereby increase support for the jihad du jour.

Exactly.

If it's not Qana, it's Gitmo.
Or cartoons or pop singers. Or filmmakers.
Or books. Or more books.
Or beauty pageants and bikinis.
Or American fast-food joints.
Or Valentine's Day.
Or playing cards.
Or Piglet.
Or soccer.
Or South Park.

There's always something burning with the jihadi members of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. It's time to see through the smokescreen.

***

Now, go read Allah Pundit, who has a video double for you, plus a riddle:

"[W]hy is it that “fury erupt[s] around the world” when a building in the Middle East goes down, but when one goes down in lower Manhattan we get nothing but candlelight vigils and morons beating peace bongos in Union Square?"

A TREMENDOUS DAY FOR THE ISLAMIC JIHAD

There is just no other way to describe it. Yesterday an Israeli air strike killed a number of civilians in the Southern Lebanon town of Qana.

What didn't really make the news yesterday? How about the fact that while the world's media was busy telling and re-telling the story of the tragedy in Qana, Hezbollah was firing about 150 missiles into civilian areas of Iraq. This is business as usual for Hezbollah. They fire these missiles -- well over 1300 so far -- every day, and they fire them intending for them to kill civilians.

What tactics do Hezbollah use while firing these rockets at Israeli civilians? They fire them from densely populated civilian areas. We've seen video from Israeli drones that show Hezbollah mobile rocket launchers firing rockets from civilian areas ... then the trucks drive into a densely populated area to hide. The purpose is clear. When the Israelis come to destroy the rocket launcher civilians may die, and Hezbollah and it's Muslim apologists will rush to the media with pictures of dead Lebanese women and children.

Make no mistake. Hezbollah is glad this happened yesterday. Not just glad .. elated. This is part of their strategy .. a designed disaster. These Islamic terrorists hide behind their civilians while trying to kill innocent Israelis. There are reports that Hezbollah takes steps to prevent civilians from leaving the area.

The world's reaction was typical. Typical and totally expected. Kofi the Korrupt, the leader of the hideous anti-American United Nations talked yesterday of how outraged he was at the Israeli action. Does anyone remember Kofi condemning Hezbollah for their rocket attacks on Israel? Does anyone remember Kofi condemning Hamas for lobbing over 1000 rockets on Israeli settlements after Israel withdrew from Gaza?

Muslims, of course, were reacting in an entirely predictable way. They rioted and protested. The stormed the United Nations headquarters and destroyed some property. They marched in the streets. They burned flags. They shook fists. They threatened carnage. They acted as Muslims act when Muslims are killed. They acted as Muslims seem to never act when Muslims kill innocent civilians.

Muslims killing innocent civilians apparently isn't all that much of a problem for Muslims -- or for Kofi Annan.

Why no protests against Hezbollah? Muslims don't protest when Muslims kill innocent non-believers. That's apparently not a problem for them.

Why did Israel attack this particular building? Was Hezbollah launching rockets from the vicinity of this building? Did Hezbollah then hide their rocket launchers near the building .. hoping to draw an Israeli attack?

What's next? Well the pressure is on for a cease fire. Israel has stopped its air campaign for a 48 hour period to give relief personnel a chance to do their work in Qana.

If a cease fire occurs without Hezbollah being disarmed this whole episode can be considered to be no less than a magnificent victory for Hezbollah and radical Islam. Hezbollah attacks Israel. Hezbollah tries to kill Israeli civilians with rockets loaded down with metal balls ... a design for carnage. Hezbollah does all of this while hiding behind civilians in Lebanon. Israel responds and civilians in Lebanon die. The world condemns Israel and forces a cease fire. Hezbollah gets away with their aggression, Israel is demonized in the world's media, and Hezbollah is left alone to regroup, rearm and prepare for the next offensive.

About the 50 civilians who died. This is exactly what Hezbollah wanted to happen! This is their design! There was celebration within the leadership ranks of Hezbollah when those civilians, including children, died. Hezbollah brings death to Lebanese civilians, and the Lebanese honor and adore Hezbollah.

Kofi Annan says that there cannot be any military solution to this crisis. It will have to be a political agreement. Kofi is wrong. The only solution to this war with radical Islam is a military one. Muslim radicals only negotiate under two conditions; when they're in danger of being totally destroyed and need time to regroup; and when they can use the negotiations to the disadvantage of their adversaries.

This is a war. Israel realizes it. We don't.

Sure, it's tragic when innocent people die, that has occurred in every war since the beginning of time. For instance, you may not know that the Allies firebombed German cities in World War II...killing thousands of civilians. It was seen as a way to demoralize the Germans and bring about a surrender. The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed thousands of innocent people. But they saved thousands of American lives in that it brought Japan to its knees and forced the surrender.

Israel is in a fight for its very existence. They are fighting an enemy, Islamic Hezbollah, that is being harbored by a democratically elected government in Lebanon. It is a given that when they attack an Islamic terrorist enemy that hides among civilians, there is going to be some collateral damage. That's what happens during a war.

But sadly, that's not how the rest of the world, including the Bush Administration, sees it. Despite what they say, it appears that severe limits are about to be placed on just how Israel is allowed to defend itself. If we hold Israel back now, how many lives will be lost when we finally have to act against a strengthened Hezbollah down the road?

COMING CLEAN

It’s time that John Murtha came clean and showed us who he represents. In the past, people refered to Murtha as a “Democratic hawk”, something that I didn’t totally buy into. I certainly don’t buy into it anymore.

Still, it’s worth noting that Murtha got a -2 rating from Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel for 2003-2004. A -2 rating is roughly a D- or an F. Here’s how VoteSmart worded it:

2003-2004 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel’s position, Representative Murtha received a rating of -2.

The ‘parent’ organization for Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel is United for Peace & Justice, which advocates, among other things, getting us out of Iraq. Immediately. Here’s their official position on Iraq:

1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.

2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.

3. The Iraqi people, not foreigners, should make the decisions about the future of their country, including security. Iraqis should decide the structure of their economy and control Iraq’s reconstruction. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed. Labor and human rights should also be guaranteed.

4. The United States should pay for the reconstruction of and reparations to Iraq, in accordance with international law.

5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But once the U.S. ends its occupation, if representative sectors of Iraqi society invite it, the UN, backed by other international bodies such as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should help the Iraqis establish mechanisms through which to choose their own leaders and reclaim sovereign control of their own country.

Let’s fast forward to November 17, 2005. Let’s remember John Murtha’s press release from that day:

Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.
The public is way ahead of Congress and is thirsting for a new direction. Over 70% of the responses I have received are in favor of my re-deployment plan. The public knows this war cannot be won with words. Most agree the insurgency cannot be won militarily. The Iraqis themselves must be the driving force. Yet we have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. America wants and DESERVES real answers: What is the clear definition of success? Is there a plan? How much longer and how many more lives? In short, what is the end game?
Aside from the fact that the original plan to win the peace was flawed, two and a half years later, the indices that would determine the ultimate success of a stable Iraq have not improved. Electricity and oil production are below pre-war levels, unemployment remains at 60% and insurgent incidents have increased from 150 to over 700 per week. Average monthly death rates of U.S. service members have grown since the Abu Ghraib prison incidents from 1 per day to almost 4. Despite the addition of MORE troops, MORE equipment and MORE money, Iraq and the region have become LESS stable over time. Global terrorism has risen. What is MORE of the same going to do for Iraq or the region?
Some claim the answer is to put even more troops on the ground, but many of our troops are already on their third deployment, our Army cannot recruit to its current target, even as they lower recruiting standards. We cannot do this without a draft.
My plan calls for a more rapid turnover of Iraq to the Iraqi people. General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” We have become a catalyst for violence. A recent poll showed that 80% of the Iraqi public are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops and 45% believe attacks against Americans are justified.
The Iraqis are a smart and proud people. They must take control of their country. My plan motivates the Iraqis to take control, sooner rather than later.

Notice the breathtaking similarities between UFPJ’s official position and Murtha’s ‘immediate redeployment’ proposal.

UFPJ: 1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.
Murtha: I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

UFPJ: 2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.
Murtha: We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.

UFPJ: 3. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed.
From Murtha’s Press Conference:

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from a United States occupation.

UFPJ:5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Murtha: I said two year ago, “The key to progress in Iraq is Iraqitize, internationalize and energize.”

This isn’t to say that Murtha’s done anything illegal. He’s entitled to his opinions. My point is that Murtha went from disagreeing with an anti-war organization all the time to agreeing with that anti-war group’s parent organization like they were writing his press releases. This raises troubling questions like: Why would Murtha accept as fact that the US is an occupier? Why would he think that “the international community” would help the Iraqi people when they haven’t helped in the rebuilding thus far? Why does Murtha think that immediately pulling our troops from Iraq would make Iraq safer? Does he think that Saddam’s thugs will stop their attempted ‘hostile takeover’ if we leave?

This information raises the question what other policy ramifications this might have if Murtha becomes the House Majority Leader. UFPJ’s position on Iran is troubling at best:

United for Peace and Justice opposes any military action against Iran, as well as covert action and sanctions. We reject the doctrine of “preventive war.” All diplomatic solutions must be pursued.

Does Murtha support their position on Iran? God help us if he does. Based on how totally he’s accepted their position on Iraq, I can’t rule it out that he’d oppose any action on Iran except endless ‘negotiations’ with Iran until they develop a nuclear weapon capability.

Here’s UFPJ’s view of the Israeli-Hezbollah war:

We condemn Hezbollah’s attacks on Israeli civilians, and we condemn the Israeli assault in Gaza and Lebanon. We also see the vast differences in the scope and scale of these actions. As the French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, described it, Hezbollah’s seizure of the soldiers and firing rockets into northern Israel were “irresponsible acts”; Israel’s bombing of the Beirut international airport was “a disproportionate act of war.”

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy is wrong: “Hezbollah’s seizure of the soldiers and firing rockets into northern Israel” weren’t “irresponsible acts”. They were acts of war. Does Murtha agree with UFPJ on that, too?

George Bush is giving a green light to Israel’s use of force, which is being conducted in part with U.S.-supplied weapons. The Bush administration’s trampling of international law and national sovereignty in its war on Iraq has also emboldened Israel to disregard international condemnation of its behavior.

Based on this quote from UFPJ’s website, it’s obvious that they think that George Bush is a war criminal and that Israel’s ignoring of the international community’s condemnation for its behavior is unacceptable. Israel has every right to ignore the international community’s condemnation, especially if they abandon Israel when Israel is attacked by international terrorists.

DEMOCRATS LAUNCH SIX POINT PLAN

The Democratic Party has decided to lift a page from the Newt Gingrich playbook and come up with their own 'Contract With America,' which was the plan the House Republicans ran on in 1994. For the first time in 40 years, the Democrats' were blown out of the House and the rest is history.

So what are the Dems calling their plan?

"Six for '06." How nice. Just six? What are they? Well, here they are: national security, jobs and wages, energy independence, affordable health care, retirement security and college access for all. Now, since these points were written by Democrats, they will need a bit of translation, so here goes.

National security? The correct word, when talking about Democrats would be appeasement. That is their doctrine. Nobody could possibly believe that the Democrats are serious about fighting the Islamic radicals. Hell, they won't even call them what they are!

Energy independence? That's a code phrase for government-mandated small cars no one wants, gas lines and higher gas taxes. It also means tens of millions of taxpayer dollars sent to colleges and universities to study alternate fuels, and quite possibly a nice little windfall tax on energy companies to top things off!

Affordable health care? Your answer there is socialized medicine. Simple as that. Remember HillaryCare? Well, wait until you see the second coming!

Retirement security? What they really mean is huge increases in Social Security taxes in order to fund a bankrupt program with a poor return on your money. They surely don't mean letting you plan and control your own retirement savings.

College access for all? That's even more of a joke. Everybody already has access to college, but what the Democrats want is 100% taxpayer-funded government schools.

So really, their 6 points really come down to 3 points. Appease the Islamic terrorists, raise taxes and grow government. Since it's all more of the same, this is unlikely to energize the voters. Besides, they forget their 7th most important point: we hate George Bush.

AL-QAIDA CALLS FOR HOLY WAR AGAINST ISRAEL- AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, TOO...

AP reports: “Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from “Spain to Iraq.”

In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.”

The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with “cease-fires or agreements.”

Do you hear that, liberal protesters?

“It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails … from Spain to Iraq,” al-Zawahri said. “We will attack everywhere.”

Well, there you have it. That’s the plan.

Diplomacy? Anyone?

He said Arab regimes were accomplices to Israel. “My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit … and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies … make yourselves martyrs.”

Appeasement and negotiation are not options.

He also called for the “downtrodden” throughout the world, not just Muslims, to join the battle against “tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America.”

Sounds like Cesar Chavez and his pal, Cindy Sheehan. Is he also blogging on the DailyLostKos?

“Stand with Muslims in confronting this unprecedented oppression and tyranny. Stand with us as we stand with you against this injustice that was forbidden by God in his book (the Quran),” al-Zawahri said.

Y’know, maybe we should rethink our strategy and forget about military might. Instead, simply send armed liberals and the ACLU to the Middle East. Just like the successful battle they’ve been waging in U.S., in no time they would have all references to religion driven from politics and the public square.

Only problem is, unlike Christians today, who allow themselves to be mocked and persecuted by remaining nonviolent, the Islamists would respond to the ACLU much differently.

Terrorism is a plague upon the earth. And that’s no joke.

UPDATE:
Austin Bay: “What About The Next Hezbollah?”
Michelle Malkin: “Israeli Soldier Release?”
CounterTerrorism Blog has more.

SURPRISED? MAYBE WE HAD BETTER WAKE UP HERE

I don't know if you've noticed, but the Israeli army is having a rather tough time with Hezbollah. In story after story you read that the Israeli army doesn't seem to be the awesome, feared fighting machine it once was, and that Hezbollah is showing no fear of the Israelis and putting up a stalwart fight. Some reports I've read even say that Hezbollah is winning this confrontation - this war - and that it will soon be the Israelis who are looking for a cease fire; a cease fire they can use to regroup and consider their options.

Israel, at the urging of the world community, sowed the seeds for this current situation when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon years ago. The Israelis responded to world opinion (usually a mistake) by pulling back without any agreement from either the terrorists in Hezbollah or in Lebanon. The idea behind the pullback was that maybe, just maybe, Hezbollah and Lebanon would be content to honor the international border between the two countries and leave Israel in peace.

Fat chance.

Instead, Hezbollah remained loyal to the Islamic dream of a Middle East with no Israel. They used the time to build its fortifications in Southern Lebanon, moving the bulk of them underground. They used this time to build their military capability and to stash rockets and arms -- most of which were supplied by Iran with no small amount of help from Syria.

When Iran and Hezbollah felt that the military buildup and the entrenchment was sufficient, they launched their provocations against Israel, knowing that Israel would respond.

Muslims around the world are cheering Hezbollah on. Not only Muslims, but a goodly number of anti-Semitics in this country who suffer from that strange form of dementia that causes one to blame every evil in their personal life and in the world on "those Jews."

I hope the rest of us are paying attention here, and I fear we are not. This is much more than a battle between Israel and Hezbollah. This is one front, one battle in World War III, the war between the West and radical Islam.

Israel tried to do the right thing. They withdrew. They sought peace. They asked nothing more to be left alone. The Islamists in Hezbollah and their supporters and enablers in Lebanon, Syria and Iran saw this as a sign of weakness. Israel is tired. Israel doesn't want to fight any more. Israel is weak. Israel can be defeated.

These Islamic murderers see the same weakness in the United States. Oh, to be sure, for a while they feared George Bush. In George Bush they saw an American leader who understood their intentions and who was bent on their destruction. Soon after Bush showed his resolve by invading Afghanistan you saw Muslim leaders starting to backtrack. They were starting to retreat back into their holes ... until, that is, the American left stepped forward.

For American liberals, for the Nancy Pelosis, Ted Kennedys and Howard Deans of this world, the hatred of George Bush and the bitterness of the 2000 election just couldn't be overcome. It mattered not that the president understood the danger presented by Islam, and was prepared to fight. It only mattered that George Bush defeated their Damien, their precious Al Gore, and that Democratic honor had to be assuaged. Bush had to be demonized.

As the Democrats intensified their attacks on George Bush over the war in Iraq, the Muslims started to see the weakness they were looking for. Another Western weakness ripe for exploitation.

Right now Israel is paying the price for appeasement. Some in Israel thought that there might be a better way .. .a way to live in peace with radical Islam. They now know better.

Do we?

Now ... before you move on, read this Ann Coulter column. Once you have you'll realize that we are, indeed, in a world war against radical Islam. It's time for some folks to decide which side they want to support.

LIBERALISM AND NATIONAL SECURITY- THE ULTIMATE DICHOTOMY

The evidence is continuing to mount but it seems clear that modern liberalism is at odds with national security. Whether they sit on the Supreme Court, occupy a seat in Congress, or publish some of our nation’s largest newspapers, several high profile liberals have significantly impeded our ability to wage the War on Terror, and we may be less safe as a result.

In a breathtaking decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a liberal majority on the Supreme Court held that the president does not have authority to order that terrorists be tried before military commissions. In a case where the court should not have had jurisdiction if the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 were to be taken seriously, liberal judicial activism has once again reared its ugly head. Justice Clarence Thomas offered a stinging dissent regarding the court’s willingness “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.” Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor, anticipated such a ruling offering this prescient thought: “Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda—which no president, no senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance.”

Applying the Geneva Conventions to barbarians who recognize no international laws of war would be laughable if it wasn’t so reckless. Perhaps Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the majority, would allow the Pentagon to take his home via eminent domain (see: disastrous Kelo decision) in order to house Guantanamo guests if the prison were to close. After all, shutting down Gitmo is a high priority in the left’s War on Terror strategy. And if Stevens is looking for a driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan can list Osama bin Laden as a reference.

Cheers undoubtedly rang out at the New York Times when the Hamdan case was adjudicated. After all, any effort to rebuff or expose the efforts of the Bush administration in the War on Terror will be encouraged by the old gray lady. The top of the fold Times story (“Bank Data is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror,” 6/23/06) revealing the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was the latest in a series of damaging exposes dealing a hard blow to our clandestine capabilities. Coupled with the leak involving the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Times has made it abundantly clear that American national security will take a back seat to Pulitzer Prize nominations. It’s unclear, however, if those awards can withstand a dirty bomb attack. It might be best to keep them locked in an underground vault.

The New York Times has no left-wing agenda and is only interested in exposing matters of “public interest” its editors and defenders assert. But a closer look can be quite revealing. Take, for instance, Pinch Sulzberger’s recent commencement address at a New York State University: “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land,” bemoans Sulzberger. He continues, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren’t. But you are. And for that I’m sorry.” Sulzberger doesn’t write for the Times—he publishes it.

While criticizing the efforts of the Bush Administration and at the same time besmirching our military service people is nothing new to those occupying power on the left. Although he later attempted to “clarify” his statement, the damage was already done when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke about his interpretation of U.S. policy regarding treatment of prisoners. Referring to a report describing prisoners being subjected to rap music and isolation, Durbin said, “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.” Our kidnapped soldiers are brutalized and beheaded while Gitmo terrorists are subjected to lyrics from the likes of Snoop Dogg. Something tells me that Snoop and his cohorts may be getting a bad rap.

When Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) told a civic group that our Army was “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth,” did he not consider that his statement would be read by our enemies? Even if he was right—which he isn’t—it is, at best, an irresponsible comment.

Here’s an inconvenient truth that many liberals fail to grasp: the biggest threat facing civilization isn’t carbon dioxide emissions; it’s climate warming via a nuclear detonation. And our enemies will stop at nothing to achieve this objective on American soil.

—

Michael Nevin, Jr. is a contributor to several Internet websites and a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net.

STOP THE PEACE EFFORTS

Do I like the idea of peace? Absolutely! But I like the idea of freedom and economic liberty more. Many of the so-called "peace activists" you hear from today will accept any existence, as long as it is an existence without fighting. Living under a despot with no freedom of thought, speech or worship, and certainly no economic liberty, is preferable to some of these people than fighting -- and dying -- to be free.

The Communists had a rather interesting definition of peace back when the Soviet Union was in full bloom. They said that peace would exist when there was an absence of opposition to communism. Nice twist.

You want peace? Let me tell you of one of the most peaceful places in the world. A solitary confinement cell in a prison. There you will find no conflict. You can sleep at night without any fear of someone coming in through the window to harm you or steal your stuff. You can spend every day secure in the knowledge that there will be no rockets raining down on you, no fights, no threats, no violence. Oh .. .there's no freedom, to be sure. But these peace "activists" don't seem to be concerned about freedom. It's just peace -- an end to the violence -- that drives them. The want to make sure that women and children don't die. Fine! Rob them of all freedom, of all human dignity, of all liberty -- and move them into concentration camps where they're guarded day and night by armed soldiers ready to turn away any threat. Peace will reign! Women and children won't die! Freedom will.

I'm also sick to death of the attempts by the peace-at-any-price crowd to draw a moral equivalence between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel.

Hezbollah and Hamas Islamic murderers hide among their own civilian civilizations and lob rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal? To kill civilians and spread terror. The Israelis fire back to kill those who are attacking them. Civilians die. Why? Because the Islamic cowards are hiding behind their women and children. Yeah ... tell me about your moral equivalence.

Hezbollah has fired more than 2000 rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal is not to kill Israeli soldiers. The goal is to kill women and children --- innocent civilians. This is the nature of radical Islam. How could you expect anything else from the Islamic monsters who shot school children in the back in Beslan?

You know, of course, that Hezbollah wants Israel to release some Islamic prisoners. But did you know that one of the prisoners Hezbollah wants released killed a four-year-old girl by slamming a rifle butt into her skull? This Islamic goon crushed the skull of a small Israeli girl with a rifle butt, and the radical Muslims want him released. I suppose there is a grand celebration awaiting him in his hometown if, and when he returns.

Radical Islamists have watched the left in America and in Europe condemn the removal of Saddam Hussein. They have reveled in the criticism leveled against Bush for his efforts to bring a democratically elected government to Iraq. The vilification of Bush has encouraged the Islamic radicals and made them stronger. They now feel that their jihadist goal of bringing the entire world under Islamic rule can be realized. If those who fight them are condemned, and those who appease them are praised, how can you blame them for feeling emboldened?

Israel understands what so many Americans do not. There is a war going on. Islamic terrorists and militants are feeding on the weakness of the West. They're feeding on the weakness shown by the American left that has condemned our president for daring to strike back at Islamofascism.

We gain nothing by asking Israel to hold back.

IDF: HEZBOLLAH RUNNING OUT OF MISSLES

Hezbollah has started to run low on munitions and morale, according to the IDF. Without secure lines of communication to Syria, the terrorists have been unable to resupply, and this has led jihadis in northern Lebanon to avoid joining the fight against Israel:

IDF Military Intelligence (MI) believes the army has 10 days left before diplomatic pressure puts an end to Operation Change of Direction against Hizbullah, The Jerusalem Post learned on Sunday.

In addition, MI - reflecting its latest strategic assessment - believes that the Islamist group has already been dealt a severe blow by the IDF operation launched 12 days ago, and that within a month it will run out of Katyusha rockets to fire at Israel. ...

The unit has been able to recruit reserves, but MI has noticed that it has run into difficulty convincing members of the terror group who reside in northern Lebanon to travel south to participate in the fighting.

Once the unit exhausts the missiles currently in its possession, it will, MI believes, have difficulty acquiring more, since most of the roads and supply routes have been destroyed by the IDF. Several Syrian and Iranian attempts to send supplies to Hizbullah have been thwarted by the IDF.

This shows why asymmetrical warfare cannot beat a true military response. Terrorists thrive on the reluctance of Western nations to actually respond militarily to their attacks. Tactics and strategy that force responses in civilian areas usually lead to law-enforcement tactics in order for nations to avoid the kind of televised images we have seen from Lebanon. In that kind of low-level approach, however, the terrorists can resupply at will and continue with intermittent attacks -- and know that they will get away with them.

Hezbollah got surprised by Israel's military response and by the lack of support they received in the Arab world as a result. IDF operations have forced Hezbollah to fire many more rockets into Israel, trying desperately to hold Israeli cities hostage in order to put an end to the IDF invasion of southern Lebanon and the bombing of the infrastructure. They have fired thousands of missiles and rockets into Israel in less than two weeks, a number that might have taken them five years to reach in the normal asymmetrical mode.

And this shows why Israel has reacted with overwhelming force, and why cries about Lebanon's infrastructure make no sense. Critics have excoriated Israel for setting Lebanon back twenty years by bombings roads, bridges, and communications assets. Some have called it "collective punishment", an odd term to use for the response when at least a portion of a government commits an act of war against its neighbor. It has been clear from the start of the IDF operation that Israel targeted these assets because they consider themselves at war, not as some police force on steroids, and that the first assets one attacks in war are command, control, and communications of the enemy.

The roads and bridges, as well as the airports, would have allowed Syria to resupply Hezbollah.

Now, it appears that Syria cannot effectively rearm their proxy in southern Lebanon. Israel has even attacked convoys coming out of Syria attempting to do just that, destroying the munitions and sending a message to Syria of air supremacy, a lesson Syria has learned over and over again against the Israelis. Starved of missiles and rockets, the Hezbollah terrorists will lose their one weapon of deterrence against Israel and start to collapse.

According to the IDF, that process has already begun. Jihadis in the north have not come to the aid of their brethren, and Sheikh Nasrallah will run out of bodies to throw at Israeli tanks very quickly. Israel may only need a couple more weeks before crippling Hezbollah not only as a military threat but also as a political movement in Lebanon. Nasrallah needs a rescue, but no one will send their cavalry over the hills to effect one -- not even their brothers in terrorism.

KERRY 'BLASTS' RUSH ON ISRAEL

Jean Francois Kerry got out his pack of spitballs and attacked Rush Limbaugh for Rush’s statement that President Bush is the best friend that the Israelis have ever had. Here’s Kerry’s official statement from his website:

“Rush Limbaugh’s ignorance and willingness to divide Americans knows no bounds. His latest statement about Israel is beyond offensive to all of us who have fought to protect Israel in the face of enemies committed to its destruction.”

Kerry’s got a French definition of fighting for Israel. Here’s Kerry’s statement to the Arab American Institute in Michigan:

“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build the barrier off of the Green Line, cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don’t need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis’ security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.”

That doesn’t sound like he’s being supportive of Israel. I’d doubt that Israel is looking for that type of ’support’. Here’s what Kerry told a Jewish group right before the NY primary:

“Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self defense. No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.”

I think we could call that Kerry’s ‘I supported Israel after I supported the Palestinians’ moment.

“Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a donut.”

Another shining example of Democratic graciousness in the face of GOP meanspiritedness? Thankfully, most Democrats aren’t into personal attacks. Oh wait….

“It was a Democratic president who first recognized the State of Israel. It was a Democratic President who first sold Israel defensive weapons. And it was a Democratic President who first sold Israel offensive weapons.”

True enough, Mr. Kerry. I wonder if he’d recognize today’s version of his party? I’d doubt it.

“The people of Israel and the Jewish community don’t need Rush Limbaugh to tell them who stands with them, and no one has time for right wing trying to score cheap political points while Israel fights to defend its very existence.”

Wasn’t Mr. Kerry happy with the notion of badgering Ehud Barak into surrendering large chunks of land to Yassir Arafat in the 90’s? Israel doesn’t need that type of support. They need a president that won’t cave to the ‘international community’ just to keep his popularity ratings up.

That’s why President Bush is seen by Israel as the best friend Israel’s ever had in the White House. That isn’t just Rush’s opinion. It’s part of the official record since at least 2002:

Who says that there are no more miracles today? US President George W. Bush’s long-awaited speech on the Middle East, in which he upset the entire applecart of cherished assumptions upon which Middle East diplomacy has been based for more than a decade, certainly qualifies. At least if you believe the pundits, not one of whom came close to predicting what the president would say.

If a speech can be judged by those it ticks off, then Bush’s was a smasheroo. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was reportedly so revolted that he could not bear to listen to the end. No doubt he was indignant at the snub the president administered to his erstwhile “peace partner” and co-Nobel Laureate. In calling for a new Palestinian leadership, Bush did not even deign to mention Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat by name.

That was written by Jerusalem Post columnist Jonathan Rosenblum in July, 2002. That isn’t the only person saying it. Many is the time that Ed Koch has said that President Bush has been Israel’s best friend.

Instead of Kerry telling Rush to pick up a history book, I’d suggest that he pick up a newspaper. Better yet, he should start reading the Right Blogosphere so he finally gets a clue.

HEZBOLLAH'S FAVORITE NEWSPAPER

By Michelle Malkin

Anonymous blabbers and their stenographers at the NYTimes are at it again:

The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

Reader Thomas W. writes: "Michelle, the NYT is doing it again. Throwing one of our best allies under the bus, and openly disclosing future military war plans against our enemies." He sends a screen cap of the story:

And adds: "What’s the difference between that and this?"

"All in the Public Interest, right?"

More info on the leakers:

The new American arms shipment to Israel has not been announced publicly, and the officials who described the administration’s decision to rush the munitions to Israel would discuss it only after being promised anonymity. The officials included employees of two government agencies, and one described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel.

Who are the blabbermouths? Howell Raines gave a clue at an Aspen Institute talk yesterday:

One audience member asked about the role of media leaks. Raines opted not to go in-depth since he no longer is a working journalist, but offered a bit of a leak of his own:

"Almost all leakers are lawyers. That's the bottom line."

THROUGH SOCIAL SECURITY THE FEDS KNOW WHO HIRES ILLEGAL ALIENS

“There are two dirty little secrets behind the debate over the illegal alien issue that even the advocates of securing the borders first have failed to discuss. The first secret is that the estimated twelve to twenty million aliens living and working illegally in the United States have to commit identity theft to secure employment. The second secret is that without illegals’ payroll tax contributions, filed under stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers, the Social Security system would collapse years earlier than estimated.

Hard to believe, here are the facts.”

– Townhall.com, July 19, 2006

Why does the government, Social Security, protect illegal aliens using fraudulent social security cards? Since 2% of the employers hire 30% of the illegal aliens, why doesn’t government investigators close those businesses?

These are questions being raised by Herman Cain, a business leader from Georgia and the chairman of Godfathers Pizza.. Worse, the Feds have information, exact information on the name of the every employer that hires illegal aliens (and still pays into Social Security). Is it possible that almost overnight we could end the onslaught of illegal aliens just by enforcing the laws? Imagine if each company that hired illegal aliens were sent a notice that they ha, and the current law allows it, to pay a $10,000 fine per illegal aline that they hired? Just a letter. Then, the Feds could use private collection agencies to collect the money..so no government resources would be needed. This would cause a new industry to be developed, attorneys and collection agencies would get a percentage of the collections, and if the business did not pay, action could be taken to close the business.

Either we get serious about enforcing the laws, or we decide to open our borders and have no laws governing businesses. If we can’t stop people, we know, are using phony ID’s, then how can we do anything else?

What do you think? Is it possible to enforce just this one law, and stop businesses from hiring illegal aliens? What do you think the response from business will be?

—

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building.

Read more of his work here or at his blog.

SO WHO IS THIS HEZBOLLAH?

If you've been a casual viewer and reader of the mainstream media, you probably know that the conflict currently going on in Lebanon is between Israel and a group called Hezbollah. Do you know Hezbollah? Here's what some Americans may think -- an opinion that could well be garnered from media coverage:

1. Israel is killing innocent people at random, blowing up civilian targets and murdering peace-loving Muslims by the thousands.



2. Hezbollah is the name of peaceful political group.

But what you may not know is that this group Hezbollah...which started the current conflict, by the way, is a terrorist organization. We'll start our brief history back in 1983. President Reagan sent 241 Marines and other military personnel to Beirut as part of a peacekeeping force. All were killed when a Hezbollah suicide bomber drove his truck into the barracks on October 23, 1983. Other terrorist incidents Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for include:

• The kidnapping, torturing and killing of Colonel William Higgins and Beirut CIA Station Chief William Buckley.



• The taking of numerous hostages, including American Terry Anderson.



• The 1983 Beirut U.S. Embassy bombing that killed 63 people.

And on and on. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization through and through. They are now supported militarily by Iran. They started the current conflict by kidnapping Israeli soldiers. By not appeasing Islamic terrorism and taking them on squarely, Israel is doing the world a favor. Which would explain why the International media, the United Nations and various European countries are trying to stop them.

Hezbollah's flag. Nice, eh?

BILL CLINTON SLAMS ISRAEL AS OVERREACTING; BUT HE ALLEGEDLY TRAINED PALESTINIANS

Former President Bill Clinton has joined the critics of Israel by saying Israel has overreacted to the abductions of soldiers and terrorist attacks by mounting a “disproportionate” military operation against Hezbollah and Hamas.

Clinton, who attempted to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians but failed, called for the world community to pressure the Lebanese, Syrians and Israel to cease fire and allow intermediaries from the United Nations to discuss these nations’ differences.

During the time he was working to broker a peace deal, in 1996 President Clinton assigned the Central Intelligence Agency to train Palestinian security forces, but many graduates used their newfound skills to attack Israel, according to Mike Rubin of the Heritage Institute.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for an end to the violence in the middle, but saved his sharpest criticism for the Israelis.

Joining leaders from France, Greece, China and other nations, Putin accused the Israeli government of failing to use “proportionate” military force against Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and Lebanon, a nation that harbors Hezbollah.

Putin said through an interpreter, “Israel’s use of force is disproportionate and should be balanced.”

However, President Bush who’s attending the G8 summit defended Israel saying there is no one on whom to place blame except Hezbollah. Bush also accused the Syrian and Iranian governments of supporting the terrorists, who are using Iranian built rockets in their attacks against Israeli cities and towns.

Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer, former Reagan Justice Department official, and talk show host said in reply to the Israeli critics, “What are the Israelis supposed to do? Wait for a repeat of Hitler’s death camps. Never again! Never again!”

Levin pointed out that the United Nations Security Council has been talking about Iran and North Korea for months without producing one resolution to condemn these renegade countries, yet within a few hours they wrote a UN resolution condemning Israel for its actions against terrorists. “I’ll say it again — NEVER AGAIN!” he yelled during his evening talk show.

The UN resolution of condemnation of the Jewish State was blocked by US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who also placed the blame on terror organizations.

Bolton was being blocked last year by a Democrat led filibuster during his Senate confirmation process. Even Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio cried on the floor of the senate at the thought of having Bolton represent the US at the UN. Voinovich, however, had no comment when reporters asked about the alleged corruption at the international body.

Besides Putin, the French government also had stinging criticism of Israel’s military action against the Palestinian Hamas and the Lebanese-based Hezbollah, saying in a statement that Israel has gone “too far.”

But political analyst Mike Baker, himself Jewish, sneared, “That’s why France is such a successful “war machine;” when protecting yourself, you go too far if you kill the enemy. Now you know why France is such a military success.”

In the midst of this violence, throughout the day on cable news channels, one appeaser after another goes before the television cameras and pontificates about the need to talk.

“We must sit down and talk.” “Our leaders must have the combatants talk.” “We must send a UN mission to the region to talk.”

What if someone were killing members of your family: sons, daughters, cousins, nieces, uncles, aunts are all being killed or threatened by a maniac. Would you sit and talk to the maniacal murderer? I hope not. Only a coward would do such a thing and consider himself or herself a reasonable person.

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

HEZBOLLAH IS HERE

HEZBOLLAH IS HERE

By Michelle Malkin

***scroll for updates...1pm added links/photos of pro-Hez, pro-jihad rally in NYC...***

My syndicated column today begins:

Sheeple thought of the day: "Hezbollah is not my problem."

You think Hezbollah is only Israel's headache? Wake up. Iranian Hezbollah's spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli's threat on Tuesday to dispatch 2,000 operatives "to every corner of the world to jeopardize Israel and America's interests" is more than just idle Islamic heavy-breathing.

The Jew-hating terrorists of Hezbollah who call themselves the "party of God" are already here. In America. Plotting attacks. Raising money. Slipping through the cracks.

Read the rest at JWR for the details.

Internet photographer/videographer Zombie drives the point home further with a vivid photo/video exposé of Hezbollah sympathizers in San Francisco on July 13: "The protest was organized by Al-Awda (a group devoted to dismantling Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian state), A.N.S.W.E.R. (a communist group) and a coalition of other Islamic and socialist organizations."

Their chant:

Black, red, brown, white!
We support Hezbollah's fight!
We support Hezbollah's fight!
We support Hezbollah's fight!
We support Hezbollah's fight!
Black, red, green, blue!
Black, red, green, blue!
Black, red, green, blue!
Black, red, green, blue!
We support Hamas too!
We support Hamas too!
We support Hamas too!
We support Hamas too!

***

More on Hezbollah sympathizers in America from Debbie Schlussel and Brigitte Gabriel.

Ynetnews reports that the UN doesn't have enough evidence that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Because, you know, this isn't enough:

Major Hezbollah Acts of Terrorism and Violence

* Bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia killing 19 U.S. servicemen (1996)
* Bombing of Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires killing 96 (1994)
* Bombing of Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires killing 29 (1992)
* Abduction, torture and death of CIA Station Chief in Lebanon (1985)
* Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 killing one U.S. Navy diver (1985)
* Bombing outside U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut killing 24 (1984)
* Car bombing of U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut killing 241 U.S. servicemen (1983)
*Car bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing 63 people, including 17 Americans (1983)
* Car bombing of French military barracks in Beirut killing 58 French paratroopers (1983)

***

Update: Jim Hoft features photos of the jihadi rally in NYC yesterday.

HEZBOLLAH TERRORIST SLEEPER CELL SUSPECTED IN NEW YORK CITY

While many US government officials are deeply concerned over Iran’s nuclear program, according to recent reports, investigations by Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department revealed last May that the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah may be plotting attacks. These attacks may be launched by their sleeper cells in New York and several other US cities.

According to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Jewish organization B’nai B’rith, Hezbollah’s largest headquarters outside of the Middle East is located in Toronto.

In a story on Fox News, law-enforcement and intelligence officials were quoted as saying that though there is no imminent threat of any attacks, security has been stepped up after the reports of a meeting between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and leaders of Hezbollah and other terror groups during his recent visit to Syria.

The Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York City is being kept under surveillance by federal and local intelligence officers, according to Fox. The New York City Police Department possesses one of the largest intelligence divisions in the world.

Hezbollah, or God’s Party, grew out of the Lebanese civil war in the early 1980s and quickly became the region’s leading radical Islamic movement. Their primary goal was to drive Israeli and American troops out of Lebanon.

For many years, Hezbollah was synonymous with terror, suicide bombings and kidnappings. In 1983, militants who went on to join Hezbollah’s ranks carried out a suicide bombing attack that killed 241 US marines in Beirut, which lead to President Ronald Reagan’s withdrawal order for all US military peacekeepers.

In May 2000 — due to the success of the party’s military arm — one of its main aims was achieved. Israel’s military was forced to end almost 20 years of occupation in southern Labanon. Hezbollah now serves as an inspiration to Palestinian factions fighting to liberate more territory. The party has embraced the Palestinian cause and has said publicly that it is ready to open a second front against Israel in support of the intifada.

Hezbollah’s political rhetoric’s central theme is the total annihilation of the state of Israel. Its definition of Israeli occupation has also encompassed the idea that the whole of Palestine is occupied Muslim land and it has argued that Israel has no right to exist. Hezbollah’s spiritual head Sheikh Fadlallah is close to Iranian government and is believed responsible for the vitriolic speeches of the Iranian president.

Hezbollah is funded, armed and trained by the Iranians and given free reign by Syria’s ruling Ba’athist Party. Its international network, according to terrorism analysts, is believed to include at least 15,000 operatives in cells in the US, Canada, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, most of Western Europe, Indonesia, Malaysia, and throughout Africa. Western intelligence sources estimate Hezbollah’s annual budget to be approximately $400 million, including almost $100 million annually from Iran.

Other sources of funding include Syria, charitable organizations, individual donations, legitimate business, and illegitimate businesses such as illegal arms trading, cigarette smuggling, currency counterfeiting, credit card fraud, theft, operating illegal telephone exchanges, and drug trafficking. Recently two men were convicted of running a criminal operation that helped to fund Hezbollah.

Hezbollah’s growing international terrorist activity has raised concerns that the terrorist group may be emerging as a more serious threat than previously considered. Its global terrorist reach has serious policy implications for Democratic countries. However, there are international organizations that continue to insist that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon and that it does not warrant the designation of “terrorist group.”

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

CONGRESS APPROPRIATES ZERO DOLLARS FOR BORDER SECURITY FENCE

When the immigration issue was at the boiling point in the spring, the US Senate voted to erect a mere 370 miles of security fencing along the US-Mexican border. However, yesterday many of the same senators voted against providing funds to build it.

“We do a lot of talking. We do a lot of legislating,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican whose amendment to fund the fence was killed on a 71-29 vote.

“The things we do often sound very good, but we never quite get there,” he told the Washington Times.

Sessions submitted his amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill that would have authorized $1.8 billion to build the security fence as promised by the lawmakers and the Bush Administration. Two months ago members of the Senate voted 83-16 to build the fence along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In the same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border, as well.

But the May vote only authorized the fencing and vehicle barriers, and while the senators are on record as voting for border fencing and barriers, without the appropriations they’ve voted not to build the fence they’ve authorized.

“If we never appropriate the money needed to construct these miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, those miles of fencing and vehicle barriers will never actually be constructed,” Mr. Sessions said on the floor of the Senate just prior to the vote, which was aired on C-Span, but not by any of the broadcast or cable news shows.

Democrats were joined 28 Republicans in opposing the Sessions amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware were the only two Democrats who voted for funding the fence.

The senators — including most of the Republican leadership — voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it.

The appropriations bill, which allocates over $30 billion to the Homeland Security Department — which includes $2.2 billion for border security and control but no fencing –passed on a 100-0 vote last night.

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who in the past has fought to increase border security and enforcement of federal immigration laws, opposed Sen. Session’s amendment.

“We should build these walls; there’s no question about it. But the real issue here is the offset that’s being used, and the offset creates a Hobson’s choice for almost everyone here,” Greg told the Washington Post.

Mr. Session’s amendment would have required across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, Mr. Gregg said, which would mean cutting 750 new border-patrol agents and 1,200 new detention beds for illegal aliens that he included in the bill.

“Once again we see our government officials trying to provide security-on-the-cheap. Americans should be outraged,” said a Border Patrol agent, who wishes to remain anonymous.

“Did anyone really believe these guys [senators] want to secure the border?” he said.

Another Border Patrol agent was less diplomatic: “Our leaders are not serious about border security. A few hundred more agents is a far cry from what they promised. It’s a con-job on the American people.”

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

NOW THE LIBERALS LIKE RONALD REAGAN.....

“Reagan was, I believe, one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, but many of the things that both liberals and conservatives now credit to his presidency simply never were. And there’s a political purpose behind this Reagan revisionism. He is cited mostly to criticize Mr. Bush and congressional Republicans for falling short of some mythical Reagan standard.”

— Fred Barnes, REVISIONIST POLITICS: The Reagan Myth

History, even if you lived through it has some funny turns. Fred Barnes in this piece reminds us, using facts, that the liberals didn’t love Reagan, though today they are claiming Bush is not as good as Reagan.

Read this piece carefully, determine for yourself the facts. The bottom line is that no national Democrats can hold a candle to Ronald Reagan or to George W. Bush. The Michael Moore crowd makes Lord Chamberlain look like an aggressor. They prefer rule by the United Nations than by a Congressman from Illinois or a Senator from Kentucky. They think you can compromise with terrorists. Remember, a couple of years ago they begged the Israelis to give up land in the Gaza for “peace”. Now the Hamas are using that previously Israeli land for rockets and troops. Shame on them for believing that terrorists would go away, if you just give into their demands. The Kennedy’s and the Kerry’s in the 1980’s wanted to compromise with the Soviet Union–only Reagan understand, and we won that battle.

Barnes reminds all of us about the real need for safety and it doesn’t come from a conference table when the terrorists have guns.

What do you think? Should we compromise with Hamas and other terrorist groups? At this point should the U.S. support Syria, Lebanon, the Hamas and friends against Israel?

(Fred Barnes article after the jump)

—
REVISIONIST POLITICS
The Reagan Myth
The Gipper’s record is being distorted to make President Bush look bad.

BY FRED BARNES
Monday, July 17, 2006

I was recently asked about President Bush’s chances of a political resurgence. Might Mr. Bush be able to recover as strongly as President Reagan did from a slump in his second term in the 1980s? My response was, Reagan recovery? What Reagan recovery?

Though he continued his ultimately successful fight to win the Cold War, Reagan achieved nothing new–practically nothing–after the Iran-contra scandal broke in 1986. His presidency was crippled. The Republicans had lost the Senate. His nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 was defeated, partly because of feeble White House support. His veto of a transportation bill was overridden.

The question was innocent enough, but it reflected a broader pattern of misrepresentation of Ronald Reagan’s record in the White House that has become not only widespread but widely accepted. Reagan was, I believe, one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, but many of the things that both liberals and conservatives now credit to his presidency simply never were. And there’s a political purpose behind this Reagan revisionism. He is cited mostly to criticize Mr. Bush and congressional Republicans for falling short of some mythical Reagan standard.

Liberals pretend the Reagan years–in contrast to the Bush years–were a golden idyll of collaboration between congressional Democrats and a not-so-conservative president. When Reagan died in 2004, John Kerry recalled having admired his political skills and liked him personally. “I had quite a few meetings with him,” Mr. Kerry told reporters. “I met with Reagan a lot more than I’ve met with this president.”

Of course, that wasn’t Mr. Kerry’s take on Reagan during his presidency: In 1988, he condemned the “moral darkness of the Reagan-Bush administration.” A chief complaint of liberals and the media in those days was that Mr. Reagan was a “detached” president, not one easily accessible to Democratic members of Congress or anyone outside his inner circle of aides. But Reagan had to talk to Democrats on occasion since they controlled at least half of Congress. Mr. Bush rarely consults them for the simple reason that Republicans run all of Capitol Hill; so he talks frequently with Republican congressional leaders.

Liberals today talk about Reagan as if the hallmark of his administration was a lack of partisanship–again in contrast with Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry noted in 2004 that Mr. Reagan “taught us that there is a big difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship.” Mr. Bush, naturally, is the bitter partisan. Of course that’s what liberals then thought of Reagan–and they were partially right: While never bitter, Reagan was in fact a partisan Republican.

On foreign policy, some liberals peddle the notion that Reagan wasn’t the hardliner he might have seemed. Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, has argued that Reagan, having won the Cold War, was ready to rely on international organizations to police the world. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is impugned as the enemy of the U.N. and multilateralism.

Reagan a moderate in foreign affairs? It strains credulity to imagine the president–who supported wars of national liberation in Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan, who bombed Libya to punish Gadhafi, who defiantly installed Pershing missiles in Europe, who invaded Grenada–as anything but a hardliner. He was a hawk for whom defeating the Soviet Union was the essential priority.

It’s on foreign policy that liberals and conservatives find common cause. Patrick Buchanan, rehearsing the pieties of the political left, argues that Mr. Bush has turned the world against America. The “endless bellicosity” of Mr. Bush and his neoconservative advisers, he recently argued, “has produced nothing but ill will against us. This was surely not the way of the tough but gracious and genial Ronald Reagan.”

Of all people, Mr. Buchanan ought to know better, having served as Reagan’s communications director from 1984 to 1986. Reagan generated massive antiwar and anti-American demonstrations around the world, far larger and more numerous protests than those Mr. Bush has occasioned. He famously denounced the Soviet “evil empire” headed for “the ash-heap of history.” He was treated by the press as a cowboy warmonger, just as Mr. Bush has been. Ill will? Reagan produced plenty–all in a noble cause.

Conservatives attack Mr. Bush most vehemently on excessive government spending, and there they have a point. He could have been more frugal, despite the exigent circumstances, especially in his first term. But it’s also on the spending issue that the Reagan myth–Reagan as the relentless swashbuckler against spending–is most pronounced. He won an estimated $35 billion in spending cuts in 1981, his first year in office. After that, spending soared, so much so that his budget director David Stockman, who found himself on the losing end of spending arguments, wrote a White House memoir with the subtitle, “Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.”

With Reagan in the White House, spending reached 23.5% of GDP in 1984, the peak year of the military buildup. Under Mr. Bush, the top spending year is 2005 at 20.1% of GDP, though it is expected to rise as high as 20.7% this year, driven upward by Iraq and hurricane relief.

Mr. Reagan was a small government conservative, but he found it impossible to govern that way. He made tradeoffs. He gave up the fight to curb domestic spending in exchange for congressional approval of increased defense spending. He cut taxes deeply but signed three smaller tax hikes. Rather than try to reform Social Security, he agreed to increase payroll taxes.

The myth would have it that Reagan was tireless in shrinking the size of government, a weak partisan always ready to deal with Democrats, and not the hardliner we thought he was. The opposite is true. Reagan compromised, as even the most conservative politicians often do, to save his political strength for what mattered most–defeating the Soviet empire and keeping taxes low. Today, the latter still remains imperative, and the former has been superseded by a faceless death cult. We can’t understand George Bush if we distort the real Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and author of “Rebel in Chief” (Crown Forum, 2006).

—

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building.

Read more of his work here or at his blog.

IS THIS GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO FINALLY WAKE US UP?

What you're seeing in the Middle East right now -- the fighting in Lebanon and in Gaza -- are the direct and predictable result of Israel's demonstrations of weakness. You do not show any sign of weakness to Islamic fascists. They will revel in it, and will then attack to press their perceived advantage.

Israel pulls it's citizens and settlements out of Gaza. This Israel does as a show of good faith and an inducement to the so-called "Palestinians" to react with a concession of their own and move toward a lasting negotiated peace. After the Gaza pull out Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert remarked that Israel was "tired" and wanted to work harder for peace. Another sign of Israeli weakness. "We're tired. Please leave us alone."

So ... Islamic terrorists in Gaza build a nice little tunnel and use it to attack Israel. They kidnap an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah Islamic fascists in Lebanon conduct a similar attack from the North. They kill several Israeli soldiers and kidnap two. These were clear-cut acts of war against Israel, and Israel is responding.

Newt Gingrich says that we and the rest of the world have to come to terms that we're in the middle of what he calls World War III. OK, he and I have a bit of a disagreement on that. I believe that the Cold War was World War III, and we won. Small point, so I'll bow to Gingrich on the World War III category.

It's been said that this World War, sometimes called the War On Terror, has an enemy that is difficult to define. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know who the enemy is in this world war: it is the savages who practice radical Islam. We know exactly who they are and we know exactly where to find them: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Let's also be sure to mention the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia and a good number of professors in American colleges and universities. This isn't rocket science...it's never been more clear exactly who the enemy is and where to find them.

So what should we do? It's time for the United States, Israel and whoever else values freedom and our way of life to eliminate radical Islam once and for all. The time to speak of toleration, negotiations and appeasement is past. Israel tried this route, and we clearly see what it bought them. Nothing but misery and death at the hands of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam.

Radical Islam needs to be eliminated from the face of the Earth. This must be done militarily, not through any more failed negotiations. Anything short of total annihilation of Islamic fascism is unacceptable. The radical Islamic government in Iran should be toppled and its leaders exterminated. Same with Syria. Israel should be fully unleashed and supported in an effort to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. It's time for them to breathe their last breath and be rewarded with their 72 virgins -- or 72 white grapes, as the case may be.

Unfortunately, that's not what's going to happen. The pro-appeasement forces in the United Nations, Europe and the American Democratic Party will call for a halt in the fight before the enemy has been erased. Once again Israel will have come close to destroying her enemies, only to be sold out by the world community. Too bad.

Inside Israel we have leftists marching and demanding an end to Israel's military moves. The appeasement left is pulling out the same mantras perfected by the left in this country. They're detailing the deaths of women and children, and calling for even more negotiations. Never mind that the negotiating has been going on for more than 50 years. Any rational observer can quickly see that the radical Islamist position on negotiations is that you negotiate to buy time, you kill to take the advantage.

One idiot protestor in Israel told a reporter "I think that Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah and Hamas and release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the hostages. This way this story will come to an end." Yes --- Israel has it's share of leftist idiots too.

This world cannot exist in peace and prosperity as long as we approach radical radical Islam with a politically correct, Mr. Nice Guy hand-off game plan. Israel realizes what's at stake here, Americans need to be reminded.

I STAND WITH ISRAEL

By Michelle Malkin ·

Kate at Small Dead Animals reminds us of Oriana Fallaci's searing essay from December 2002--which deserves to be reprinted far and wide (update: I've added hyperlinks for reference/background).

I find it shameful that in Italy there should be a procession of individuals dressed as suicide bombers who spew vile abuse at Israel, hold up photographs of Israeli leaders on whose foreheads they have drawn the swastika, incite people to hate the Jews. And who, in order to see Jews once again in the extermination camps, in the gas chambers, in the ovens of Dachau and Mauthausen and Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen et cetera, would sell their own mother to a harem.

I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop, one with lodgings in the Vatican no less, a saintly man who was found in Jerusalem with an arsenal of arms and explosives hidden in the secret compartments of his sacred Mercedes, to participate in that procession and plant himself in front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. To call them "martyrs who go to their deaths as to a party."

I find it shameful that in France, the France of Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, they burn synagogues, terrorize Jews, profane their cemeteries. I find it shameful that the youth of Holland and Germany and Denmark flaunt the kaffiah just as Mussolini's avant garde used to flaunt the club and the fascist badge.

I find it shameful that in nearly all the universities of Europe Palestinian students sponsor and nurture anti-Semitism. That in Sweden they asked that the Nobel Peace Prize given to Shimon Peres in 1994 be taken back and conferred on the dove with the olive branch in his mouth, that is on Arafat. I find it shameful that the distinguished members of the Committee, a Committee that (it would appear) rewards political color rather than merit, should take this request into consideration and even respond to it. In hell the Nobel Prize honors he who does not receive it.

I find it shameful (we're back in Italy) that state-run television stations contribute to the resurgent anti-Semitism, crying only over Palestinian deaths while playing down Israeli deaths, glossing over them in unwilling tones. I find it shameful that in their debates they host with much deference the scoundrels with turban or kaffiah who yesterday sang hymns to the slaughter at New York and today sing hymns to the slaughters at Jerusalem, at Haifa, at Netanya, at Tel Aviv.

I find it shameful that the press does the same, that it is indignant because Israeli tanks surround the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, that it is not indignant because inside that same church two hundred Palestinian terrorists well armed with machine guns and munitions and explosives (among them are various leaders of Hamas and Al-Aqsa) are not unwelcome guests of the monks (who then accept bottles of mineral water and jars of honey from the soldiers of those tanks).

I find it shameful that, in giving the number of Israelis killed since the beginning of the Second Intifada (four hundred twelve), a noted daily newspaper found it appropriate to underline in capital letters that more people are killed in their traffic accidents. (Six hundred a year).

I find it shameful that the Roman Observer, the newspaper of the Pope--a Pope who not long ago left in the Wailing Wall a letter of apology for the Jews--accuses of extermination a people who were exterminated in the millions by Christians. By Europeans. I find it shameful that this newspaper denies to the survivors of that people (survivors who still have numbers tattooed on their arms) the right to react, to defend themselves, to not be exterminated again.

I find it shameful that in the name of Jesus Christ (a Jew without whom they would all be unemployed), the priests of our parishes or Social Centers or whatever they are flirt with the assassins of those in Jerusalem who cannot go to eat a pizza or buy some eggs without being blown up.

I find it shameful that they are on the side of the very ones who inaugurated terrorism, killing us on airplanes, in airports, at the Olympics, and who today entertain themselves by killing western journalists. By shooting them, abducting them, cutting their throats, decapitating them. (There's someone in Italy who, since the appearance of Anger and Pride, would like to do the same to me. Citing verses of the Koran he exorts his "brothers" in the mosques and the Islamic Community to chastise me in the name of Allah. To kill me. Or rather to die with me. Since he's someone who speaks English well, I'll respond to him in English: "F*** you.")

I find it shameful that almost all of the left, the left that twenty years ago permitted one of its union processionals to deposit a coffin (as a mafioso warning) in front of the synagogue of Rome, forgets the contribution made by the Jews to the fight against fascism. Made by Carlo and Nello Rossini, for example, by Leone Ginzburg, by Umberto Terracini, by Leo Valiani, by Emilio Sereni, by women like my friend Anna Maria Enriques Agnoletti who was shot at Florence on June 12, 1944, by seventy-five of the three-hundred-thirty-five people killed at the Fosse Ardeatine, by the infinite others killed under torture or in combat or before firing squads. (The companions, the teachers, of my infancy and my youth.)

I find it shameful that in part through the fault of the left--or rather, primarily through the fault of the left (think of the left that inaugurates its congresses applauding the representative of the PLO, leader in Italy of the Palestinians who want the destruction of Israel)--Jews in Italian cities are once again afraid. And in French cities and Dutch cities and Danish cities and German cities, it is the same. I find it shameful that Jews tremble at the passage of the scoundrels dressed like suicide bombers just as they trembled during Krystallnacht, the night in which Hitler gave free rein to the Hunt of the Jews.

I find it shameful that in obedience to the stupid, vile, dishonest, and for them extremely advantageous fashion of Political Correctness the usual opportunists--or better the usual parasites--exploit the word Peace. That in the name of the word Peace, by now more debauched than the words Love and Humanity, they absolve one side alone of its hate and bestiality. That in the name of a pacifism (read conformism) delegated to the singing crickets and buffoons who used to lick Pol Pot's feet they incite people who are confused or ingenuous or intimidated. Trick them, corrupt them, carry them back a half century to the time of the yellow star on the coat. These charlatans who care about the Palestinians as much as I care about the charlatans. That is not at all...

I know Fallaci must be absolutely incensed--as am I--by the Vatican's condemnation of Israel.

Douglas Urbanski, who has inside Vatican contacts, reports that the views expressed by Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who issued the statement while the Pope was on vacation, are renegade views and asks the question that needs to be asked: Does the Pope back Sodano's statement? Urbanski points to this story on the rift between Pope Benedict XVI and Sodano. He'll have more tonight as a guest host on the Rusty Humphries show. Tune in.

Allah has all the latest news developments and a classic Pshop.

***

Reader John M. writes:

Angelo Sodano, the Vatican Secretary of State, is an extreme liberal who has spewing anti-American and anti-Israel statements for years. Catholics like me have been constantly frustrated by him.

Thankfully, he was basically fired on June 22.

Here is a better article than the one you put on the blog. It talks about
Sodano and Pope Benedict's opposition to him.

Also, Cardinal Arinze, the conservative Nigerian cardinal who is very close
to Benedict XVI, will be talking at Christendom College in Front Royal, VA
on July 28. Christendom is an excellent, very orthodox and conservative
Catholic university, with a graduate school in Northern Virginia.

Here is a link.

At his speech, I'm hoping someone will ask him his thoughts on Cardinal
Sodano's statements and whether Pope Benedict condones them. I'm sure the
pope does not.

***
Previous:

Solidarity with Oriana Fallaci
The trial of Oriana Fallaci
Courageous women of the war
La Fallaci Decapitata
Oriana Fallaci on trial
Terrorism on Good Friday