The 64-year-old star was "in good spirits and the operation went very well", said his agent Jodi Shields.

He last week joined former Monty Python colleagues Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin for the London opening of Idle's Python musical Spamalot.

Jones directed the three Python films as well as movies including The Wind in the Willows, and has had success as a TV presenter, author and historian.

The BBC

On this day in 1983, 241 American servicemen were murdered in their barracks at the Beirut International Airport, by a suicide truck bomber sent by Iran, Hizballah, and the PLO: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.

The failure of the United States to strike back for this terrorist attack—and for a long line of previous and subsequent attacks—undoubtedly emboldened our enemies:

President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations.

 

Via:  LGF 

Beirut Veterans 

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

October 23, 2006, 11:25 AM

New York Times ombudsman Barney Calame, often referred to as “The Empty Suit,” finally gets around to admitting that the Times was wrong to reveal the SWIFT program that monitored terrorist banking.

He also admits that no person’s private data was misused, and that the program was not illegal.

He does not deal with the bigger issue—that revealing secret government programs that protect us from terrorists just might negatively affect the security of America.

UPDATE at 10/22/06 6:48:59 pm:

Here’s the column at the NYT: Can ‘Magazines’ of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?

Notice how Calame buries the critical admissions way down deep in an otherwise unrelated piece.

Via:  LGF 

Let me get this straight…You can spread feces on a crucifix.  You can burn the American Flag and drown a Crucified Jesus in a jar of urine, but the wrath of hell and threats of Jail come down when you put a Koran in the toilet?  Kiss my fat, hairy ass!!!  I’m freaking pissed off now!

In the space of a month there have been two separate incidents where a Koran, the Muslim holy book, was found in a Pace University toilet. The most recent was found just last Friday.

“This is no different from placing a burning cross in front of a house or painting a swastika on a locker,” said Aliya Latif of the Muslim-American Lawyers Association.

Representatives of New York Muslim organizations came together Thursday to make sure the incidents aren’t forgotten, even as they praised the way authorities are handling them.

“We spoke to [the] NYPD yesterday and they said they are doing everything they could to make sure there will be an arrest. They will work really hard on this,” said Omar T Mohammedi of the American-Islamic Relations Council. [This is almost certainly the Council on American Islamic Relations, and shows you how much care was taken researching the article. —ed.]

The Pace Muslim Students Association, which criticized the University for not being aggressive enough in its handling of the first incident where a library copy of the Koran was found in the library toilet, praised the administration’s actions this time.

“I would say that the university has kind of done a 180 and is definitely working with us in terms of labeling it as a hate crime and then, the sensitivity forums that I spoke about earlier, they’re actually helping us facilitate those,” said Faiza Ali of the Muslim Students Association.

The Arab Muslim/Islamic Terrorist/Scumbags are daily issueing FATWA’s against Christians, Jews, Americans, and anything that moves that isn’t a Muslim advocating our death/murder,  but we are not allowed to say anything negative against Muslims, Islam or their Cartoon like Prophet Muhammad? 

Our own government is allowing these douchebags to dictate what is and what is not “Freedom of Speech” while they are free to make threats against America, Europe and Israel. 

Next on the agenda will probably be any public display of any faith OTHER THEN(sic) Islam. 

I’m not afraid to tell you, that I am really sick and tired of Muslims and their Cartoon Image Prophet Muhammad right about now.  Sensitivity is not one of my stronger suits. 

I am not offended when someone wishes me a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter.  I’m not going to cut someones head off over a Santa Clause(sic) or an Easter Bunny.  But I am offended that Muslims and Islamic Terrorists are telling me what I can and cannot say or do.  SCREW THEM!  When the Head Choppers start denouncing their own people for cutting off the heads of young Christain School Girls and Orthodox Christian Priests then MAYBE I will tone down my distaste for Islam, and I stress maybe.

Liberals were all a shudder and declared it art when Christains found the Cross in a Jar of Urine and a image of Mary in Feces, but they want to prosecute people who put a Koran in a toilet.  Let’s not forget the Liberal Democrats defense of Tookie Williams, the mass murdering POS that was executed in California. 

Am I a sensitive person in touch with my inner fuzzy self?  F#*K No.  If I was you wouldn’t come back every day to read the rantings and ravings of the madman known as The Rogue Jew!

So, how do you REALLY feel, TRJ?

Men's News Daily 

While the Washington Post sanctions the propaganda of radical Islamists, our friends the Saudis are continuing their infiltration of American society, openly telling anyone who cares to listen that their goal is domination of the US, via the Islamic television channel Bridges TV: An Islamic TV Channel Expands Its US Audience.

Bridges TV, an American-Islamic TV channel “seeking to improve the image of Muslims in the United States” and to “offer a unique perspective on the Middle East and the war on terrorism,” has extended its availability into six states, creating a potential audience of nearly 2 million.

What is the “unique perspective” that Bridges TV hopes will “improve the image of Muslims in the US?”

One religious figure who appeared October 3 said Muslims have a duty to change America and to increase their numbers to 50% of the population from 2%. He recommended that Shariah, or Islamic law, be implemented in American courts.

During a roundtable discussion on the Arab-Israeli conflict on October 5, one participant offered a solution: “For the Jews to leave and return to Europe.”

Bridges TV aired a speech by the influential Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi on October 4. Mr. Badawi, who teaches Islam throughout North America, gave an interview to the Saudi Gazette on June 24, 2005, in which he raised questions about who was behind the September 11 attacks and suggested that Americans could be behind the car bombings of Iraqi markets.

Every night, Bridges TV shows a news program, “Talking Points.” Its guest on October 4 was Imam Mohammad Alo Elahi, whom it described as a leading “interfaith figure.” According to his Web site, Imam Elahi was a spiritual leader in Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian navy and also is the leader of “one of the largest mosques in the U.S.,” in Dearborn, Mich.

The Web site describes his meetings with world leaders and shows photographs of him with the spiritual adviser of Hezbollah, Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah; Ayatollah Khomeini; Presidents Khatemi and Rafsanjani of Iran; Secretary-General Annan of the United Nations; and Minister Louis Farrakhan.

Throughout the day, Bridges TV airs segments of Koranic verses, quite a few of which denounce “unbelievers.” One notable verse that aired October 9 praised martyrdom.

Since the Islamic holy month of Ramadan began, the channel has been showing official, Saudi government-controlled Wahhabi sermons from Mecca’s holiest mosque, Al-Haram. The sermons stream live via Saudi TV Channel one every day at 4 p.m., and Bridges TV adds its own English subtitles.

An anti-Jewish, anti-Christian sermon from October 5 included the call, “May God destroy them!”

UPDATE at 10/22/06 10:14:54 am:

And note: this anti-Jewish, anti-American Islamic supremacist propaganda channel enthusiastically endorses the Democratic Party.

One of the stars of Bridges TV is a cofounder and vice chairman of the international health care company CBay Inc., Donald “Skip” Conover, who hosts and produces a show called “Words Matter.” He was the subject of a gushing article in the Saudi daily Arab News on September 27. In the article, Mr. Conover expressed “his disgust” at what he called inflammatory statements about Arabs and Muslims in the press.

He also discussed the power of the “Jewish lobby” and called on all Muslims to vote for the Democratic Party. “Every American politician is in lockstep with Israel. ... If they vote against, then the Jewish lobby will put a lot of money behind the candidate against them in their districts in the future. I have news for the Muslim community. All American politicians are in the pocket of the Jewish lobby today because they control a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money in politics.”

“If the Muslims of America believe that they don’t want Bush to have a free hand for the next two years, then the Muslims of America need to get organized and make sure they get out to vote for Democrats for both the House and the Senate,” Mr. Conover added. “Every Muslim in the Middle East who has a relative in the U.S. should get the message across to their relatives. They need to make sure that all their friends vote against Bush.”

Via:  LGF

By Charles Bremner A year after the Paris riots violence and despair continue to grip the immigrant suburbs

NI_MPU('middle'); FLAMES lick around a burning car on a tiny telephone screen. Omar, 17, a veteran of France’s suburban riots, replayed the sequence with pride. “It was great. We did lots of them and then we went out and torched more the next day.” Omar, whose parents immigrated from Mali, was savouring memories of the revolt that erupted 12 months ago from his home, the Chêne Pointu estate in Clichy-sous-Bois, in the eastern outskirts of Paris. “We’re ready for it again. In fact it hasn’t stopped,” he added. Before next week’s anniversary of the Clichy riots, the violence and despair on the estates are again to the fore. Despite a promised renaissance, little has changed, and the lid could blow at any moment. The figures are stark. An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France so far this year and there have been 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services. Nearly 3,000 police officers have been injured in clashes this year. Officers have been badly injured in four ambushes in the Paris outskirts since September. Some police talk of open war with youths who are bent on more than vandalism. “The thing that has changed over the past month is that they now want to kill us,” said Bruno Beschizza, the leader of Synergie, a union to which 40 per cent of officers belong. Action Police, a hardline union, said: “We are in a civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists.” Car-burning has become so routine on the estates that it has been eclipsed in news coverage by the violence against police. Sebastian Roche, a sociologist who has published a book on the riots, said that torching a vehicle had become a standard amusement. “There is an apprenticeship of destruction. Kids learn where the petrol tank is, how to make a petrol bomb,” he told The Times.

 Times Online

NEW YORK -- The temptation was there: an envelope stuffed with $12,450 in cash, stashed under a hospital patient's pillow. But the housekeeper at St. Luke's Hospital in Manhattan didn't hesitate before doing the right thing. For Marie Toussaint, it was a no-brainer.

"The money didn't belong to me, and I wasn't supposed to take it," the 50-year-old native of Haiti told The Associated Press. "That's the normal thing to do." Toussaint found the envelope, filled with $100 bills and "a few fifties," after the patient checked out on Oct. 4.

She handed it over to the nurse in charge. A relative of the unidentified patient, an elderly woman, later collected the money. Toussaint is to be honored for her honesty next month at a hospital Thanksgiving party.

"Some people are crazy about money," she said in a telephone interview. "But my conscience would kill me if I took it, because I believe in God."

Almost restores my faith in humanity.

WNBC 

Season Shot is made of tightly packed seasoning bound by a fully biodegradable food product. The seasoning is actually injected into the bird on impact seasoning the meat from the inside out. When the bird is cooked the seasoning pellets melt into the meat spreading the flavor to the entire bird. Forget worrying about shot breaking your teeth and start wondering about which flavor shot to use!

1.  Load your gun with Season Shot and let the hunt begin. Watch as your bird is seasoned on impact leaving no harmful waste behind in the environment.

2.  Forget about removing shot, prepare the whole bird for dinner! The Season Shot pellets will melt in the oven seasoning the entire bird.

3. Enjoy! No wasted time, no wasted meat, no waste left behind. Finally there's a better way!

I LOVE the free market!

Season Shot 

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

October 20, 2006, 12:32 PM

(10/15/2006)

Thirty five years ago John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam branding them as a "war criminals." Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry’s anti-war persona for the first time. It isn’t dubious medals or Kerry’s disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then-Lt. (j.g.) Kerry’s acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry’s public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Kerry said then his accusations were based on the so-called "testimony" of "150 honorably discharged" Vietnam veterans who, like himself, claimed to have committed or witnessed "war crimes, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Many if not all were members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization led by Kerry and financed by Jane Fonda during the early 1970s. Now, a number of those "witnesses" will be required to testify, under oath for the first time ever, about what they really did and saw in Vietnam.

What these VVAW witnesses say could have implications reaching beyond Kerry’s veracity and reputation. Their lasting portrait of the American soldier as a blood-thirsty butcher, a baby killer, is also at stake. And that picture remains entrenched among their kind, "proof" that those serving in the U.S. military, even today, truly are a "horde of barbarians" capable of unspeakable brutalities. That is the underlying theme, the constant drumbeat from the mainstream media and others as they try to undermine the American military today.

For the anti-war, anti-American protesters, the American soldiers are the "terrorists," and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry’s true "Band of Brothers" are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.

VVLF 

Hmmm...  I suspect the Defeatocrats will do everything they can to shut this down, but it could get interesting.  Of course, "Under Oath" means nothing to these people.

by Jason D. Fodeman
Posted Oct 20, 2006

Do not be sidetracked by the latest “October surprise.” The bottom line on the 2006 election is whether the American people will vote to support the aggressive pursuit of terrorists across the world or succumb to the demagogues who want to direct energy, resources and security to their ultimate goal of impeaching President Bush. To put control of Congress in the hands of the “terrorism be damned, it’s time to get even” crowd could result in a catastrophe for this nation. Despite years of conflict in which survival of the civilized world is the prize, thanks to liberals and their media enablers many in the public think this war is optional.

While America addresses what undoubtedly is the ultimate challenge of the 21st century, Democrats contemplate control of Congress as the springboard for their No. 1 priority: commencement of investigations and impeachment hearings. With no positive agenda to confront Islamic fascism—yes, I dare call it what it is—they are prepared to go after the perceived No. 1 bad guy: George W. Bush, a wartime President in the middle of an unprecedented battle against an unconventional enemy.

Democrats temporarily dampened their rhetoric during the campaign, sensing the public would be appalled to learn this is the sum total of their agenda in these difficult times. But they are on record, content for now to let the issue lie quiescent, simmering on the back burner until after the election. They hope to slide into power on the discontent surrounding a long difficult involvement. A war they viscerally oppose, do not understand, but have identified the President as the enemy.

After more than a quarter-century of a stealth war against Western interests, this President got the message loud and clear on 9/11: Go on offense, so we do not have to fight on U.S. soil. Which Democrat could be trusted to address the nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran? Certainly not those who sold them nuclear technology in 1990s. Does anyone really believe Democratic assertions that they support the war on terrorism but believe it should be fought elsewhere?  

Democrats claim they will fight a smarter war, no specifics of course. Perhaps like Bill Clinton did, particularly on the public—relations front: ignore it, hope it goes away, pass it off on a subsequent administration and have a good time. Democrats do not like it when their circumlocution is called “cut and run.” Maybe “cut and run lite” is more descriptive: Withdraw to Okinawa and wait for a signal to return. Why not South Beach? It makes as much sense.

The same people who claim Bush did not do enough in his first seven months in office are the ones who held up key national security appointments in those early days—confirming the FBI director only days before 9/11—and who continued to do so to this day for similar petty political reasons. Meanwhile, our security hangs in the balance.

Democrats rejoiced thinking they killed renewal of the Patriot Act, they opposed the NSA terrorist surveillance program and applauded illegally leaked information, even though the intercepts foiled attacks on our nation and saved American lives. The same applied when secret CIA prisons were exposed or the SWIFT bank money transfer operations were outed. They blew the Abu Ghraib scandal out of all proportion and object to the treatment of the most heinous terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. They insist on only the most genteel interrogation tactics and constitutional protections beyond those afforded a common criminal suspect in U.S. custody or a member of our armed services in military courts. They oppose mining of phone records, an anti-missile defense system, ditto drilling for oil in ANWR.

They salute the New York Times for its selective leaks of National Intelligence Estimate information, which suggests terrorism has gotten worse since the preemptive war in Iraq. When a comprehensive multi- page summary tends to vitiate that conclusion, they demand the entire report be made public, even if it compromises sources and methods. The end justifies the means. All the while knowing each and every breach of security makes it more difficult to fight and defend against this amorphous enemy that transcends traditional country boundaries and fights with no identifiable uniform.  

The familiar indignation will be heard: Question Bush policies and you are labeled non-patriotic. It will not work. Too much is at stake to be put on the defensive. Those are the facts. Ignore them at this country’s peril. There is not a single overt or formerly covert operation that liberals have unqualifiedly supported. Not one! Yes, those are the facts, draw your own conclusions.

Liberals are not the only ones opposed to torture and in favor of humane treatment of captured terrorists. However, the people who orchestrated attacks on civilians in the United States and televised beheadings are not entitled to a day at the beach. One should not be surprised. Progressives have always shown more concern for criminal rights than victims’ rights. There is nothing new here. They saw the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the Cole, etc., as just another criminal event. Why these people are called “progressives&rdquo ; is itself a mystery. They have not had a useful idea in decades. “Regressives” seems more appropriate.

Terrorism is the premier issue of our times and President Bush—inarticulate as he may be—sees it exactly for what it is. There were congressional scandals but rotten eggs were jettisoned, not allowed to tough it out. Disgruntled conservatives upset with spending, border security, illegal immigration and the rest, will rue the day, if they do not support those candidates who understand it is better to have terrorists coalesce and die in Iraq than to provide them leisure time to plan the next attack on an American city, while Democrats subpoena witnesses for impeachment proceedings and discuss strategy with an impotent UN secretariat.

Were mistakes made in Iraq and elsewhere? Of course! That is why it is called “war,” not a board game, not a Playstation cartridge and not a movie. It is a war! And God help America to prevail. Yes, I dare to say that too.

Human Events Online 

by the Mathematics Department

Frisbie Middle School

Suzanne Alejandre

Activities in English and Spanish

*Note: Asterisks indicate activities that require extra software

 WTF????

Math Forum:  Frisbie's Multicultural Math Fair 

by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Posted Oct 20, 2006

It appears that political correctness has infected many of our military brass, indeed even instructors in our military academies. It is one thing when politicians and cultural elites force it into our lives; it's quite dangerous, however, when those selected to protect us elevate political correctness over the necessity of vanquishing enemies intent on destroying us.

Many of us now believe that a much ballyhooed "higher morality" in the conduct of war is a major cause for America and the West not achieving its goal of destroying jihadist terrorisim. A new "counter-insurgency manual" provides evidence of a military guided not by the age-old assumption of an army's purpose being military victory over its enemy but, instead, attempts at sociology and "understanding" the enemy's culture, and the need to persuade the enemy of our goodness and noble intentions.

In the name of "compassion," our soldiers are at times asked to risk their lives, placing themselves in lethal fighting conditions, so as to spare the "innocents" among the enemy. Where bombing from above could easily destroy a terrorist hideout, young Americans are forced to fight treacherous hand-to-hand combat so that "innocents" mingled among the jihadists will not be harmed.

Because of this rule, more soldiers die than need be, creating, also, demoralization and hesitancy. Some, out of fear of later military reprimand, are reluctant to shoot at terrorist targets where civilians may also be. This, too, renders our war less effective than it could be. Beyond question, this new ethos stands in the way of victory. The Iraq war should have been won long ago. If soft political correctness remains a guiding military motif, the most powerful nation in the world will have defeated itself, given victory to a rag-tag al Qaeda band unworthy of being called fighting men.

Even assuming that the enemy's non-combatant members are innocent, morality dictates only that a soldier not engage in cruelty, as opposed to this form of "compassion" that chooses the enemy's life over one's own. "Is," as the Jewish Talmud asks, "his blood sweeter than mine?" Why should one posit that, in relation to the "innocent" enemy, our own soldiers are somehow guilty, expendable? After all, our soldiers embark on these missions not for greed and lust but in self-defense, national self-defense.

A war for survival is clearly an imperative war. As such, a soldier is given license to do whatever combat demands to rout the enemy so long as his approach does not contravene the intent of such a battle for survival. Thus, raping the opponent's women or plundering his treasure would be prohibited since these are activities of lust and greed for which one does not go to war. They nullify the war's purpose. Fighting to the fullest and in the most effective way, however, conforms to the ethical imperative of victory, a lasting and resounding victory.

Deliberately murdering civilians as a "tactic" to frighten the enemy into submission is not moral. But targeting outposts harboring terrorists planning or engaged in killing you is what war is all about, irrespective of whether or not collateral damage occurs. This is especially necessary given the diabolic circumstance wherein Islamic terrorists purposely place themselves among members of their clan.

If America, Israel and the West refuse to wage full overpowering war in these neighborhoods, we might as well give the keys to the global kingdom to the jihadists who are exploiting these shielding methods as a means to innoculate themselves from attack within the very positions from whence they are attacking.

Moral war conduct demands that we not engage in deliberate cruelty, lust and greed. It is not, however, moral to construct a code which chooses the enemy's life over one's very own. It is immoral for a society to be concerned more about the enemy's "innocents" than the heartbreak and devastation of kindred parents now without child. Parents can be filled with pride knowing their child has died saving a fellow countrymen. Having died to save an "innocent" enemy, many of whom, if given the chance, would slit the throat of our boys in a heartbeat, leaves parents empty.

It is fashionable among the egalitarian left in the West to not elevate any life over the other. Some even go out of their way to show more concern for others than their own as a way of proving their universality over tribalism. But choosing your own first is not only natural but constitutes true legitimacy. Before we take care of others, we must first take care of our family; similarly, the poor of your city come first. It is the moral duty of a nation, its armed forces, and those officials elected and empowered to send native sons to war to place an absolute primacy for their soldiers' welfare over other considerations.

What constitutes a moral war was fixed long ago. Upside-down "compassion" for the enemy is not part of it. This zeal to keep raising the bar as to what constitutes "moral" conduct in war smacks of a desire to be "more-holy-than-thou ," a form of egalitarian one-upsmanship. One would hope that the lives we daily live are sufficiently filled with moral majesty and nobility freeing us of finding new ways to verify our morality. Are we so insecure in our goodness that we have a constant need to show, ad absurdum, how moral we are?

Perhaps it is an overcompensation needed by those not fully convinced of the righteouness of our own national cause. For others, it is a way to retain the appearance of not being too "powerful." However, this is antithetical to the needs of a sovereign nation. For, in wars of survival, a nation must feel that its survival is more important than the enemy's survival, and that concern for innocent citizens must first include its own citizen soldiers.

This "higher morality" is not biblical but, frankly, a peculiar form of self-worship, granting to its proponents and followers a sense of "being better." It is hubris. Its victims are our own soldier-children.

Listening to this constant "moral" boasting, one begins to think that wars are fought by America, Israel and the West not so much to be won but to show how moral we are.

Now that America and Israel are, apparently, no longer invincibile and assured of victory, it is time for military policy makers to drop this "higher morality" rule, given that far more, frighteningly more, U.S. servicemen's lives have been snuffed out because of it. It is a form of self-indulgence we can no longer abide.

Being a "Light Unto the Nations" does not mean pacifism, nor does it mean recoiling from the notion of military "victory" and constantly insisting on 1960s-ish "peace and love." It means providing clarity, a clear-headedness rooted in reality. Choosing the course that is needed for the specific circumstance.

In Jihadist times, such as this, it means having the courage to identify evil and "eradicate the evil in your midst."

Proponents of the "higher morality" could do the world, the West, a service if they repudiated this dangerous and ludicrous notion that "our young soldiers must forfeit their lives so as to spare the lives of members of the enemy's community." It has become one of the major impediments to our victory against Islamofascism. In fact, word has it that during the Clinton Administration, bin Laden was in the crosshairs of a bomb, but was left alone after a children's swing set was found nearby. Our concern over collateral damage to the enemy resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 of our citizens two years later.  [You were making sense up to this point, why the cheap shot at Clinton?  -ed.]

Nothing is more sociologically silly and devoid of deep thinking than the equation claiming that unless we risk our own for the sake of the enemy "we are no better than them," somehow "racist," or "indifferent to life."

Those military brass who twist our soldiers from being fighting men to social workers should be fired. Those in the military that wish to be philosophers instead of real generals should become professors or clergymen and get out of the military. If they don't have the stomach for real war and the criticism from the left, they should find another vocation. They have become a collateral damage to our security.

Millions of Americans are sickened by the unnecessary loss of young American soldiers trained to fight but sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Those in the military more concerned with how our enemies feel about us -- will they like us -- than protected the American prople absolutely are betraying the American people and are AWOL.

Outstanding.

Human Events Online 

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

October 19, 2006, 2:34 PM

A question that answers itself: Hamas official: Is violence Palestinian ‘disease?’

GAZA (Reuters) - A senior figure in Hamas, the Islamist group that heads the Palestinian government, published an article on Tuesday condemning internal violence and questioning whether it had become a “Palestinian disease.”

Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas who also acts as the spokesman for the Hamas-led government, said he was disturbed by growing factionalism in the Palestinian territories, including recent deadly clashes between rival political movements.

“Has violence become a culture implanted in our bodies and our flesh?” he asked in the sharply worded article, published in the widely read Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam.

“We have surrendered to it until it has become the master and is obeyed everywhere — in the house, the neighborhood, the family, the clan, the faction and the university.”

You mean indoctrinating children to crave death and violence, militarizing every aspect of society, watching hate propaganda on television 24/7, and voting for a genocidal terrorist gang ... might have consequences?

What a concept.

Of course, this genius is only concerned about internal Palestinian violence. Killing Jews is perfectly fine, except when it’s not politically expedient.

It was the second time in recent months that Hamad, who is based in Gaza, had written an opinion piece in al-Ayyam critical of Palestinian in-fighting.

In August, he criticized Palestinian militant groups fighting Israel, saying they were not doing the cause of Palestinian independence any good by launching attacks at moments when it appeared progress was being made.

Apparently all this hate and murder is giving Palestinians a bad reputation.

It also meant that television pictures of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict broadcast around the world too often showed armed men and images of violence, casting the Palestinian struggle in a poor light, he suggested.

“(Violence) has taken away the language of brotherhood and replaced it with arms ... It has stolen our unity and divided us into two camps, or three, or ten,” he wrote.

“Shouldn’t we be ashamed of this ugly behavior which scandalizes us before our people and before the world?”

It’s tempting to see this as a tiny baby step toward self-awareness—but the intent of this self-examination is solely to become more efficient and PR-savvy in the ultimate task of wiping out Israel.

Hmmm...  Ya think you have some bad PR?

Little Green Footballs 

In truth, suppression of dissent, mass imprisonment, and murder happen all-too-routinely in despotic regimes such as Iran and North Korea. America's "progressives" minimize the real human suffering and misery occurring as millions of North Koreans starve to death and Iranian women are routinely stoned for adultery.

All the while, "progressives" sip their Starbucks lattes, compare Bush to Hitler, and chuckle over the latest Stephanie Miller diatribes.

These "progressives" have every right to free speech.

But they should know that their misguided vilification of America's government, the greatest force for good that the world has ever seen, consigns them to history's dustbin.

Their free speech stands in stark contrast to countries where true rebels are executed for speaking out. A young Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Iran or Natan Sharansky in North Korea must be utterly disgusted with the egregious rhetoric of the Bush-haters. For they, unlike the "progressives," know the true nature of fascism.

Today's "progressives" are exceedingly poor representatives for liberalism. In days past, liberals believed in free speech. They defended the poor and down-trodden. And, at the end of the day, they stood for America and American values. After all, this was the party of JFK, of Truman, and of FDR.

Today's "progressives" can't really be called Democrats. And they will ultimately lose every meaningful election in which American voters outnumber the "progressives" ' growth voting blocs of convicted felons, illegal voters, and the dead.

Some days I think the only thing keeping the Earth aligned on its axis is the gyroscopic energy of JFK, Harry Truman, and FDR spinning in their graves.

Doug Ross

Commanders of the French contingent of the United Nations force in Lebanon have warned that they might have to open fire if Israel Air Force warplanes continue their overflights in Lebanon, Defense Minister Amir Peretz told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.

Peretz said that nevertheless, Israel would continue to patrol the skies over Lebanon as long as United Nations resolution 1701 remained unfilfilled, adding that such operations were critical for the country’s security, especially as the abducted IDF soldiers remain in Hezbollah custody and the transfer of arms continue.

Over the past few days, Peretz said, Israel had gathered clear evidence that Syria was transfering arms and ammunition to Lebanon, meaning that the embargo imposed by UN Resolution 1701 was not being completely enforced.

More hypocracy from the French and the UN.

After injecting themselves into the Lebanon crisis and making all kinds of promises they didn’t intend to keep, France and the United Nations have made it explicitly clear that they will not use force to disarm Hizballah, or to prevent weapons from being smuggled in from Syria.

Via:  Little Green Footballs 

The team of neuroscientists was able to treat a 38 year-old assault victim who had barely been conscious for a period of six years. Using the treatment, he was gradually able to use his left arm and was able to utter coherent words for the first time since the injury.

Before their efforts, could respond to questions on occasion by moving his thumb or nodding, but was essentially mute and unable to move.

Doctors implanted two wire electrodes deep into the man's brain, according to a New York Times report, in a process that is called deep brain stimulation. It has frequently been used to treat people suffering from Parkinson's disease.

The doctors involved are slated to present the case to the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in Atlanta. They said it may provide hope to patients like this man but the surgery also presents ethical questions about operating on patients who can't give their consent.

Terri Schiavo received the treatment as well but some experts say she received it too soon after her collapse for it to have made much of a difference.

"I think this case suggests that this surgery probably will be one of the choices of treatment we can give to certain patients who have some chance of recovery," Dr. James L. Bernat, a professor of neurology at Dartmouth Medical School, told the Times about the case.

He indicated the treatment would mostly be beneficial for patients who already have some responsiveness.

The research team in the case works at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weil l Cornell, the JFK Johnson Rehabilitation Institute in Edison, N.J., and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

I think this is extremely preliminary, but interesting nontheless...

Lifenews.com 

NEW YORK -- Civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart was sentenced this afternoon to 28 months in prison on a terrorism charge for helping an Egyptian sheik communicate with his followers on the outside.

The 67-year-old Stewart, who was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, smiled as the judge announced his decision to send her to prison for less than two-and-a-half years. She had faced up to 30 years in prison.

Stewart's defense lawyer, Elizabeth Fink told the judge just before the sentence was pronounced: "If you send her to prison, she's going to die. It's as simple as that.''

Stewart was convicted in 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She had released a statement by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison after he was convicted in plots to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.

Prosecutors have called the case a major victory in the war on terrorism. They said Stewart and other defendants carried messages between the sheik and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization. Prosecutors say that helped spread Abdel-Rahman's call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

In a letter to the sentencing judge, Stewart proclaimed: "I am not a traitor.''

 I heartily disagree, Ms. Stewart...

WINS Radio 

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

October 12, 2006, 2:12 AM

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing — except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

_The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

_In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

_After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.

They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.

The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land."

Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties — regardless of profit or loss — and to report any ownership stake in companies.

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee." [It certainly does... -ed.]

Other parts of the deal — such as the informal handling of property taxes — raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

Culture of Corruption, Harry? Pffft.

Yahoo!

By MALCOLM RITTER
AP Science Writer

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal.

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study _ that one was released just before the November 2005 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate.

Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports.

A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces.

Junk science once again to the fore.

"How come during the Vietnam War, you leftists ridiculed inflated body counts as being totally unreliable in a wartime situation and a meaningless indicator of progress--and now you're using inflated body counts as justification for your own position? Aren't you doing now exactly what you accused the Pentagon of doing in 1968?"   -Right Side

Breitbart.com 

By Debbie Schlussel

With all the Democrats screaming about Mark Foley, we wonder why there's hardly a peep from Republicans about Dean P. Proffitt.

DebbieSchlussel.com has learned that Proffitt--the indicted chief of a Missouri Trucking School----is THE Democratic candidate for the Missouri House of Representatives from Missouri's 151st District. As we reported in September, Proffitt was indicted because, as superintendent of the South Central Career Center Truck Driver Training School in West Plains, Missouri, his school provided answers for the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Test to Muslim students seeking to fraudulently pass the test and seek CDLs and Hazardous Materials hauling certificates.

A whopping 60% of those taking the CDL test at Proffitt's trucking school were Muslims, who'd traveled from all over the U.S. and the world to take the test specifically at the school. That's because his school enabled Muslims to cheat. Some never even attended classes and can't drive trucks. As we reported yesterday, there has already been one fatality linked to a Muslim driver from the school, the killing of an Oklahoma State Trooper. True to the phonetics of his surname, Dean Proffitt apparently cared more about making a profit than America's security.

From my September post on Proffitt's indictment, resulting from an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation:

The defendants included Ernest A. "Mustafa" White [DS: who converted to Islam in prison], 49, of Kansas City, who owned the Muslim Brothers and Sisters trucking company in Kansas City, Kan. . . .

Also charged were Dean P. Proffitt, 71, superintendent of the South Central Career Center Truck Driver Training School in West Plains, Mo., and Orbin Dale May, 63, a truck driving tester from West Plains. . . .

White then allegedly arranged with Proffitt to have Muslim Brothers and Sisters students take the driving test at the facility in West Plains, South Central Career Center Truck Driver Training School, a division of the West Plains R-7 School District. May was authorized by the state of Missouri to give the test as a "third-party tester," according to the indictment.

Students paid the defendants amounts "far in excess" of the state's licensing fee, and White's students were given abbreviated tests, had someone else take the tests for them or, in some cases, did not even travel to West Plains for the testing, prosecutors alleged.

May then allegedly submitted documents to the Missouri Department of Revenue falsely reporting that the students had successfully passed the test.

"This fraud became quite lucrative for May and White," Schlozman said Thursday.

Proffitt allowed May to conduct testing on weekends - a violation of state law - and also assisted him in testing more than the four students per day allowed by the state, the indictment alleges.

Although the indictment refers to about three dozen test applicants by name, White and May have told investigators that between 200 and 300 students fraudulently got their CDLs through the conspiracy, officials said Thursday.

Of those, 150 to 200 later obtained certification to haul hazardous materials. . . .

The investigation leading up to the indictment began in the fall of 2004 when a confidential informant "reported suspicious activity" at South Central Career Center, Keathley said. Another tip came from the Missouri Department of Revenue, which noted the school's extraordinarily high pass rate of 99 percent, compared with a statewide average of 83 percent. . . .

Information obtained by the Associated Press under Missouri's open records law indicated that more than 300 of about 520 people who did not train at the school but took the test there between May 2004 and December 2005 had names that could be Middle Eastern in origin.

And apparently the Missouri Democrat cares more about Republican gay former Congressman than America's security, since there was nary a wince from the party over Mr. Proffitt's September indictment. We called both the Missouri Democratic Party and Dean Proffitt for comment. But predictably, neither responded. Since he's been indicted in federal court, we doubt Proffitt will be talking to anyone but his attorney for the foreseeable future.

But what we'd like to know is WHY DIDN'T THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CALL FOR HIS RESIGNATION AS THEIR CANDIDATE FOR THE MISSOURI HOUSE? To date, he is still listed on the Missouri Democratic Party's website.

Frankly, you'd think a party that is still up in arms about a former Congressman's instant messages--with no criminal wrongdoing--would be a tad concerned about their own candidates for office. . . especially when one of their candidates apparently sold out his country to Muslims committing fraud.

Their candidate already has blood on his hands--the killing of Oklahoma Trooper William Lloyd "Bill" McClendon. Why isn't that and a federal indictment not enough to get the Dems to dump their legislative candidate, Proffitt?

We hope all of our Missouri readers living in District 151 will vote for Proffitt's opponent, incumbent Republican State Rep. Ward Franz.

Debbie Schlussel dot com 

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

October 9, 2006, 4:44 PM

“I’m ashamed for my country.” – Oliver Stone

Me too Oliver, but for probably much different reasons from you.
 

I’m ashamed that my country has become a Balkanized collection of Hyphenated-Americans demanding special treatment because of their pre hyphened identities.  We’ve become a collection of nations within a nation unable to present a united One-America front to people who wish for our destruction.  People want to re-create here the failed societies they fled.
 

I’m ashamed that the citizenry of the greatest representative republic in the history of the world may be so shallow in thought that an entire election could turn on the sexual perversion of a single member of Congress.  Possibly putting in charge of our country people who resort to such a political tactic because they lack the ideas and intellect required to solve our nation’s problems.
 

I’m ashamed that someone such as you would say that our President has set the country back 10 years, but lack the courage to make a similar comment about the people who wish to turn us and the rest of the world back to the 7^th century.
 

I’m ashamed that one of my country’s major political parties would run a political ad about promises broken to Veterans and be as ignorant of our Military as to use in the ad a picture of a Soldier from another country.  I can’t think of when I’ve been more ashamed of and insulted by a political party.  These people tell us they would do it better, but always fail to tell us what it is.  Maybe they intend to out source our defense since they chose the picture of a Canadian Soldier for their ad.
 

I’m ashamed Oliver when people with the means to help solve problems, such as you, point out all of the world’s tribulations, blame them on others, then insist that someone else solve them.  You make millions of dollars and point your finger at poverty and disease asking why someone else hasn’t fixed that.  I suppose when you point out a problem for us, you’ve fulfilled your societal obligations and can feel good then to return to self-worship.
 

I’m ashamed that people who claim to be patriotic citizens of the United States of America will stand embracing a troll like Hugo Chavez while calling our President a terrorist.
 

I’m ashamed that I must spend hours reading dozens of versions of the same story in order to collect most of the pertinent facts.  All because there are no media sources I can trust to give me the complete picture.  Reading or listening to the news nowadays is like reading a 9^th grade term paper.  The writer or speaker tosses out everything except the one fact that supports his or her position.  I’m ashamed that too many of my fellow citizens accept your words or the words of those who fail to report the whole story to them as the complete truth.
 

I’m ashamed when our system and our people elect a government and then watch helplessly as the minority party spends every waking hour ensuring that the majority party fails while never considering the impact their idiocy has on common every day people.  Neither the political persuasion of the parties, the needs of our country nor the desires of our people determine what they do, only their minority or majority status does.  I expect it’ll take a catastrophic event of proportions most of us can’t comprehend to change that.
 

I’m ashamed that we’ve killed millions of babies in our country and call it freedom of choice.
 

I’m ashamed because we’ve lost common courtesy and respect in our country and we are bringing up an entire generation to act that way.  When is the last time you read a news article referring to the President as something other than a last name, or practically anyone else who has earned a title for that matter?  We wouldn’t call our family doctor by his or her last name, but it’s OK for our President, Congressman, or whomever.  That’s how our children are learning to show courtesy and respect.  When you’re child mentions Jones, you may have to clarify whether it’s the school principal, your elderly neighbor or one of his buddies.
 

I’m ashamed that during a time when people wish our destruction and are actively trying to fulfill their wishes, when dangerous regimes are actively pursuing nuclear weapons, when American Soldiers are fighting and dying, when inept politicians have failed for decades to free us from dependence on foreign energy sources, when pork barrel politics are bankrupting our country, when… that the leading news story on every 24 hour news source is about a homosexual Congressman who may or may not have cyber-diddled a homosexual page and whether or not that episode will decide who gets to lead our country.  Frankly, Oliver, I found more substance in student council elections during my brief one-year tour in a public school.
 

Ashamed Oliver?  Somewhat.

J. D. Pendry's Blog