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

SENATE JUST DOESN'T GET IT

Just when you thought that the Senate had ‘gotten religion’ and was serious about tightening border security, you read an article like this and you realize that they aren’t serious.

Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday 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.”

It’s getting to the point where you simply don’t have faith in these clowns doing the right thing in terms of securing the border. Sen. Sessions is one of the serious people in the Senate that actually wants to get things done right.

Virtually all Democrats were joined by the chamber’s lone independent and 28 Republicans in opposing Mr. Session’s amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Only two Democrats, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, supported funding the fence. All told, 34 senators, including most of the Republican leadership, voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it.

Only two Democrats voted to fund the border fencing. Anyone who thinks that staying home this November will send people a message is kidding themselves. You think we’d get serious border enforcement with Democrats running the Senate? Get serious. Do you think they wouldn’t pass a toothless, no prevention bill sometime in the next two years? If you think they wouldn’t get something wimpy passed, then you’re delusional.

By the way, it’s time to start thinking of primary challenger so we can get rid of idiots like Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter and George Voinovich. It’s time they got ‘retired’. Additionally, find GOP candidates capable of defeating Jay Rockefeller and some of these ultralibs in 2008.

It’s time we ‘hired’ a new batch of senators that aren’t a bunch of wimps. It’s time we found a new batch of Tom Coburns.