kenderstest

These three Americans have been to hell. But we can help them back. It's time to turn the heat up under the comfy chairs of the armchair quarterbacks who got them into this mess.

Jack Idema, Brent Bennett and Eddie Caraballo were declared innocent of the trumped up charges against them in court in Afghanistan in March of 2005. They should be released. The American government is now standing in the way of their freedom, and this is a travesty of justice.

All three Americans are now languishing at the infamous Pulacharke prison. But they are still alive, no thanks to the American government or the FBI.

Peter Bergen, the author of Holy War, Inc. and "Shadow Warrior" at Rolling Stone Magazine said in his interview at NPR:

Pulacharke prison where he and his two colleagues are, Brent Bennett and Ed Caraballo, is–you wouldn't wish this on your worst enemy. I spent 5 days there, that was plenty. It's the equivalent of the Leavenworth of Afghanistan, it's–a lot of Taliban, members of Al Qaeda are in there. In fact, there was a prison riot in December where 4 of the Al Qaeda-linked prisoners tried to kill the American prisoners and ended up killing 4 prison guards. So it's a dangerous place, it's an unpleasant place, they are serving some pretty hard time there.

Hard time is right...this is why we need to get them the hell OUT OF THERE. Below is a portion of a statement from the SuperPatriots at the website, but I want you to bear in mind that there is no excuse for leaving these guys there even though they're trying to maintain a "stiff upper lip". These men were declared innocent of the charges by the Afghan Supreme Court in a second closed-door session between January and March of 2005, they should be released.

We are living pretty well now, all things considered. It is one of the most infamous prisons in the world, where more than 20,000 people were executed by the Russians, and God knows how many by the Taliban. But the fact is, that our friends here, the officers that know what really went down in our case, treat us pretty darn good. Sure, there are lots of things we don't have, and lots of things we wish we had, but all in all, we turned the tables on our enemies, and did it with no small help from our Northern Alliance friends, the men who were loyal to America against al-Qaida and the Taliban, and remain loyal to America and us.

Back at the FBI-NDS Saderat facility that is used to "legally" torture anyone and everyone they choose to, we were not allowed any contact with each other, family, friends, or the outside world. We were tortured, beaten unmercifully, chained, burned, some of us electrocuted for days, and starved with just two cups of rice and a piece of bread each day. Now, at Pulacharke Prison, they place few restrictions on us and help us as best they can.

It is surrounded by mountains and deserts and multiple walls. In the past 100,000 prisoners were housed here. It is not a place you want to be. But for us, we have little to complain about; the officers here treat us well. Pulacharke is called impenetrable, but as they teach you in Special Forces SERE School, nothing really is.

Sorry for the ranting and raving, but you know how things get when you're in the world's most infamous prison surrounded by 500 al-Qaida terrorists trying to kill you 24 hours a day. Actually, you probably don't. Well, try to imagine.

Courage Forward,
TASK FORCE SABER/7

Here are the facts. Al-Qaeda tried to kill Jack and the others on December 17, 2004 in what some (like Peter Bergen) are categorizing as a "prison riot". In the process, two Iraqis, one Arab, and one Pakistani terrorist were killed. Another Arab terrorist, who was critically wounded, survived. Four Afghan military officers were killed defending the SuperPatriots. Two of them were very close friends of Jack and his men, including Colonel Sherzaman, who ran into the middle of the terrorists with just one magazine of bullets. The Colonel killed two and wounded one. The remaining terrorists critically wounded the Colonel, and then executed him twenty yards from the SuperPatriots. Northern Alliance Generals quickly came to Jack's aid and rescued the unarmed Americans as they held off 300 terrorists with barricades.

This "prison riot" was orchestrated by members of Al Qaeda to kill the Americans at Pulacharke prison.

This is the beginning of the Free Jack campaign.

To join the campaign, email Cao from Cao's Blog and tell her you want to join the Free Jack Idema blogburst.

We will be blogging on this every Wednesday until he and his team are released, and when they are, we'll be blogging about a congressional hearing.

I will maintain an email list, and will email you the post of the week along with a picture (if there is one for that week) to host at your blog.

Join the fight. No American should ever have to worry about ending up in this predicament ever again. But first, we must make sure they get home safely and in one piece.

For a list of participating blogs Go See Cao's.

I realize this song may not be as well known as some others I have used in the past, but trust me, if you know this tune, it is a funny song. I thought about dedicating another song to the frogs, in light of the recent riots and their utter failure to stop them in a timely manner, again showing the world the uselessness of a frencman in a fight, but I wouldn't have had to change one word of it, so where is the fun in that, huh? That song is also by REM, and is a very well known song called "It's The End Of The World As We Know It", and is pretty fitting for them right now.

Anyway.

I call this one simply "France"

To the tune of Stand by REM

(CHORUS:)
France is the place where you live, now give up
Think about surrender, well you know you’ve done it before
Now France is the place that you work, high taxes
Think about your hiding place, and burning cars and jihad too


If you are confused, call for curfew
We know the thugs really respect you
Your feet are going to run from the crowd
The kids are there to burn your things down so

(CHORUS)


Your feet are going to run from the crowd
The kids are there to burn your things down
If Frenchmen had balls the balls would be small
Disaffected youths have frogs on the wall

(CHORUS)

If Frenchmen had balls the balls would be small
Disaffected youths have frogs on the wall
Your feet are going to run from the crowd
The kids are there to burn your things down so

(As Chorus)
France, france, now give up
To a bunch of kids with Molotov cocktails
Now France, france, just give in
Think about the place you live, wow it is such a hole

(CHORUS)

France is the place where you are, just give up
France is the place where you are, just give in
France is the place where you are, invaded
Your feet are going to run from the crowd
France is the place where you are, give up
The kids are there to burn your shit down, so
Oh France

Comments from my original post now titled “2018 A.D.”, but titled then as “The Year is 2018”. These comments have been set aside as they were in blogger, and I now use haloscan, but luckily, gmail lets you keep everything. I picked up a troll on that one….I may go back and visit him and ask him what he thinks now of my prognostication.

A hat tip for this idea goes to Redneck Guru

These comments are from Leonard, who is an aspiring film critic.
Enjoy the inanity of Leonard.

Muslim invaders? Please, the year is not 1095. Anyway, to suggest that in 13 years Muslims will have taken complete control of France is a rather insulting prediction, not to mention one that has about a 10^-32 percent chance of coming true.

Do some research? What for? It's not like you or KKKender has done any research. I am contributing to the coversation (coherently too, or else you would not be able to understand what I am saying) by pointing out how monotonous and racist KKKender is.

And I would appreciate it if your lame insults ("wanna be film critic", "dunce's cap"--ooo, I'm so insulted!) and profanity ("ass"--how eloquent!) were left out of the conversation.

And this one;

What invitation? And to what invaders? You would think that if some Muslims wanted to invade France, and France was just inviting them in, it would be mentioned at Drudge or CNN. But apparently not. Looks like KKKender, with his wild "predictions" is more reliable than any news source I can think of.

Also, just because you have been carrying on a racist tradition for 600 years does not mean you should continue. Please, no appeals to tradition. It gets ever so tiresome

And here is one of my favorites, which gets SHREDDED in the next comment. I love it when libidiots toss out the latin phrases they learn in philosophy class. Shows them for the wrong thinking asses they are:

"leo, simply because you lack the thought processes to understand the current situation in france, and indeed, the rest of europe to a lesser extent, does not mean that I am wrong.

There are far more people that see the truth of what I am saying than possess the lack of foresight you seem so gifted with....or rather, there are fewer people that lack foresight to your extent trolling my blog."

So, I'm supposed to convince myself you're right? Oh, and you just used something called argumentum ad numerum, which is a logical fallacy.

And as I said, that last comment was shredded in this next one made by my friend Jeremy, the American Warmonger;

Dear Leonard 5,

You really seem to have a talent for talking and saying close to nothing.

Let me explain.

You're entire logical fallacy argument is nullified by your usage of them in the very text you use to accuse. I'm sure it's pretty fun for someone to try and pull logical fallacies out of thin air. Unfortunately, you missed a couple.

1. argumentum ad numerum - WRONG!
You used it to counter a statement about 20% of France's population being Muslim. It should be used in the event there is a group of people saying something. This is the "four out of five dentists agree" argument.

2. Racists. Isn't it funny that you're running around calling everybody a racist when you, yourself are guilty of the exact thing you are accusing Kender of? You DO subscribe to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thing, right? Wouldn't that make you anti-Semitic, aka racist?

3. If you are tired of the same old "bash France" meme you know where the door is. Don't let it hit you where the good lord split you.

4. There are several countries in Europe that have enacted new legislation due to the growing population of Muslims in their own counties. Turkey is probably the best example of religious terrorism. Their entire government is structured so that the military can replace government if the church and state ever get too close. The most recent example was in 2003, when the U.S. wanted to use Turkey to access Iraq and they were denied. The military did a little house-cleaning project and the entire leading Islamic party were summarily fired.

Kender's concept is much more of a full on European fear in several countries, including England and especially France. Remember the secular fight they had in France over the head garb in class of a Muslim child, or is your memory selective?

Now that I've explained pretty much your entire argument do you see why I feel you are saying much adieu about nothing?

[Since it seems like everyone is doing it (ad numerum) it's my turn to hurl an ad hominem]

You self-subservient, sub-educated, sophomoric miscreant with an orally phallic fallacy problem.

[Does that work as ad hominem?]

For those of you interested Leonard once blogged about bad films, or rather, blogged about films badly, over at overratedfilms but it should have been called “Overrated blogger” for all of the great work he did over there. He hasn’t posted anything in ages, so maybe he got offline, or walked out in front of a bus in a drool induced fit of clumsiness.

Either way these are the choicest and most savory bits from that not-so-long ago exchange, (early July of 05), and I decided to post them mostly because my friend Redneck Guru mentioned them. I am going to email old Leonard and ask him what he thinks of the current situation in Francistan, and if he gets back to me I will let you know what he said. In the meantime I will leave you with the last message I got from Leo as he bid us a fond farewell and rode off into that bee-you-tee-full sunset:

You know what? Screw this. It's obvious that the car of this argument in which we are all passengers has crossed the border between Reasonland and Bickeringstan. And it was not headed into Reasonland.

Basically, you're never going to convince me of anything, and I'm never going to be able to convince you of anything. No one here could possibly gain anything by continuing to post. I have better things to do (like watch movies!) than posting here, and I'm sure you...uh...well, I'm sure the rest of you will find something productive to do with the time.

In departure, I would like to leave you with a quote that sums up the situation perfectly. Unfortunately, I couldn't find one, so here's something a golf commentator said once:

"One of the reasons Arnold Palmer is playing so well is that, before each tee shot, his wife takes out his balls and kisses them.... Oh my God, what have I just said?"

The ongoing and apparently uncontrollable riots in France, which have claimed one life as of this writing, would appear to be hordes of disaffected youths unhappy with their lot in life in the "French Model" of civilization, and that would be partially correct.

For more in depth analysis one would have to understand the "French Model", socialism, True Freedom, racism, arrogance and "French Pride".

At one time, the French had a sparkling country, full of possibility and True Freedom. That time was directly after the French Revolution, an historic event that showed the raw power of the people unleashed, when hordes of French Citizens took back the country from an elitist government that kept them poor and subservient. (Much as the French government is doing to the immigrants living in the slums now) I am proud to say that the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, when the Patriots who founded the United States of America tossed off the yoke of oppression imposed by the British Crown and undertook the grandest experiment in the history of the world by creating a government BY the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE, and OF the PEOPLE.

But then the French cocked it all up. With the grand cry of "liberty, equality, fraternity", the French strove to create a country of true equality, where color didn't matter, and creed was a matter of personal belief, never once understanding that the world doesn't work that way, no matter how badly one wishes for it.

Creating a false level playing field through socialist policies that have taken deeper root after WW2, the French refused to believe that their system wasn't thought out well enough, or that "liberty, equality, fraternity" could not be legislated into life. In practice the French really didn't try too hard, as Chirac has "admitted" that the French Government was to blame for its suburban mayhem because it had relegated its immigrants and their descendants to ghettos....

The funny thing about that last remark is it is the exact premise that Chirac campaigned on in '95;

He promised to remedy "these difficulties that threaten to grow into a fracture that is urban, ethnic and even religious".

One thing is for sure, with Chirac's utter failure to repair the social fabric of a seemingly racist France, and being unable to stop a bunch of kids from burning up thousands of cars and buses, destroy who knows how many buildings, wounds cops and beat a man to death, all in a country that puts forth a face of tolerance and love on the world stage, the French paper Liberation had it correct when it said;

..."Chirac's reign has been a tragic farce."

(funny name for a paper in France eh? "Liberation"? Well, they HAVE had a lot of experience with liberation, so maybe naming a paper Liberation is a good idea. Maybe the U.S. should put out a paper called "Saved Your Ass....TWICE")

You know what's even funnier? The fact that Villipin is blaming EVERYONE IN FRANCE for the "unrest". The Prime Minister:

... lectured citizens on the "republican responsibility" that each bore for the social ills.

By far the most telling item about the riots and the way that France views herself comes from the French Paper France Soir:

"The helplessness of the Government to restore order and to propose a political solution is shaking citizens trust in the republican pattern. Can republican fraternity still win, or is our country turning to social apartheid, which we thought was the privilege of US society?"

"Social Apartheid"? In America immigrants like that truly have the chance to better their lot in life, and wouldn't be shunted to ghetto's dependent on the government for every little thing. That is the major difference between the U.S. and socialist governments. When will the French wake up and realize that SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK?????

Anyway.

What we are seeing with the riots in France are the failures of the French Model. There are some people in France, thankfully, that see this failure and are willing to buck the system of "political correctness" and appeasement to point it out.

One such man is the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who has said;

France's "republican model" falls short and that the U.S. or British "melting pot" approach could help break the cycle of minority exclusion, unemployment and revolt.

He may very well be one of the last honest and intelligent Frenchmen left in that country, although he is not alone. Michel Wieviorka, one of France's leading sociologists, has stated the riots indicated;

"the decline -- perhaps historic -- of the so-called French model of republican integration".

The fact is that the French are racist, but they don't use color as a barometer for their racism, but rather country of origin, economic status and even skill sets. Take for example this article, which states:

Such factors include attempts by France to protect its own particular brand of welfare state at the expense of new entrants to the job market, particularly those belonging to ethnic minority groups, who tend to be poorly educated and low-skilled and therefore less employable. Relegating poor minorities to the outer suburbs hardly make fermenting problems go away, as the current violence has shown.

By the above one can see that the French Model, and it's resultant socialism, simply is NOT working. Add in the factor of inherent racism on the part of the French, especially White French citizens, and a dangerous situation has been created over decades that is not going to go away when the riots end. These issues are going to need to be addressed once the city streets are quiet again, and it is going to be a painful process.

About now you may be asking what does "arrogance" and True Freedom have to do with this, Kender? And what about that "French Pride" you spoke of earlier? To that we need to understand first what True Freedom is, why the French don't possess it, and how their pride is going to keep them from rising to anything but a shadow of the greatness they once knew.

It is no secret that the French are arrogant, to the point that they cannot admit their mistakes. America can be arrogant at times, but that arrogance is fleeting. Never mistake Pride for arrogance. American's are a proud people, because they realize the inherent superiority of their system, and realize that it needs to be tweaked from time to time. The American Way is an ever changing system that evolves with the times, rooting out injustice, albeit sometimes slowly, and making the necessary changes to bring about the values that America was founded on.

Those values include the knowledge, (note; I did NOT use the word "belief", because it is NOT a "belief" but is FACT) that "All Men Are Created Equal". (note for the feminists out there; the use of the term "men" means "mankind", so just shut up about it).

Americans know that all men are CREATED equal, but also realize that life isn't fair, so not all men END UP equal. To that end the American Way allows one to use their brains, ambition, and sometimes luck to create a better set of circumstances for themselves and their family, which carries over naturally into their community.

This gives rise to True Freedom. True Freedom is socio-economic mobility, which means that one can move through the strata of society (the "socio" part) through economic success (the economic part) and that your lot in life is NOT tied to your birth circumstances, but rather on your ABILITY as a human to be successful or not. At this point I want you to think about this tidbit, Capitalism is Economic Darwinism.

Under a socialist society, with policies of resource redistribution (i.e. THEFT) you cannot rise above your socio-economic status, as in the interest of "parity" you are taxed at ever increasing rates once you attain a certain income level, using the justification that you only need so much to live on, and since another guy only makes so much money compared to what you make, he is going to need more help to stay close to you economically. That is the antithesis of True Freedom. A socialist government decides what level you can attain by the level of society as a whole, thereby stealing not only your earnings, but your Freedom to Succeed, all because there are people that may not be as capable or driven as you are.

French Pride causes the majority of French people, whether in the street or parliament, to believe that their system is perfect the way it is, and only needs to be applied more forcefully. In this article is a very telling sentence:

When Sarkozy says the best social system is the one that produces jobs and that the French model is not doing that, his comments are met not with approval but retorts that the French model is fine and needs only to be better applied.

Proof positive the French cannot admit failure. Indeed, French animosity towards the U.S. is legendary, and I suppose throwing it in their faces that we kept them speaking French and not German twice doesn't help, but the fact remains that the French are regarded on the world stage as has-been's, a joke, a country of people too fearful to stand up for themselves or what is right for fear of "offending" somebody.

That the French have not been able to see clearly for decades is, of course, no surprise, and I suppose with their appeasement of radicals that these riots are simply the expected results of failed policies in the French government, but insight is provided not only to the French incapability to understand True Freedom, but the inability of the French to understand America.

What catches many French leaders in a bind is their belief that the alternative to their strong state intervening to ensure colour-blind equality is the cut-throat capitalism and ethnic segregation they say prevails in English-speaking countries.

In America, ethnic segregation does not exist as the French understand or interpret it. In America segregation is self imposed, as people tend to stick within their comfort zone, which is generally with people like themselves. Segregation is America is also, by and large, not predicated on color, religion or national origin, with the exception of the above mentioned caveat, but rather is an economic indicator. Any segregation in The U.S. is based in Economics, as people that can afford to move to better neighborhoods where the houses are bigger, the average income higher and mainstream values of hard work are evident by the success of the area are free to do so.

If anything America has replaced the old system of social strata by birth or lineage, where one could not move between classes due to long standing traditions or societal taboos, with a new system based on economics, and in the process has always worked to assure that the possibility of attaining that socio-economic mobility is there for anyone that has the ability and drive to reach for it.

French Pride keeps them from realizing that they have a system based in the noblest goals of creating a utopian paradise which will never work, and have hewed to a system born of idealism, without regard to reality.

An honest assessment of the Capitalist system of the United States of America will show that even with all of the faults we have here, we continue to march ever forward into the future with one eye on the past, to learn from our mistakes, and remembering that we must stay grounded in the fact that life is not fair, and we can only address real inequalities, not imagined wrongs and pipe dreams.

That is the difference between The American Way, and The French Model.

Those are the reasons that France is withering on the vine, both internally and on the world stage, while America stays strong.

Capitalism?
Or Socialism?
Growth and Opportunity?
Or Stagnation and Devolution?

You tell me which country you want to live in.


XPOSTED@ The Wide Awakes and Cao's in full and shortened versions @MadTech's and Conservative Angst

And linked to Cao's Open Trackback Party and Jay's Extravaganza of Free Linkage

I big tip o' me Chef Hat to Ric@Release the hounds for the story linked in the title.


It seems that a last ditch effort by the Dem's to stave off drilling in ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge was defeated and exploration will be starting up just as soon as the requisite number of lawsuits by militant environmentalists are filed, dismissed, appealed, tossed up to a higher court, tossed back down again, dismissed again, appealed again, tossed back up to a higher court yet again, ruled on, taken finally to SCOTUS, where it will refuse to be heard and finally after another generation or two of lawyers gets rich from this crap exploration can begin.

I expect exploration to begin about the time that ANWR is home to the very last untapped oil on the planet.

Anyway, as everyone knows, it gets mighty cold up in Alaska, and those drilling rigs are gonna be way, WAY out from regular supplies, and even though supplies will be shipped in, I thought I would do a small public service to the boys that are gonna be up there for a while by giving them a couple of surefire recipes for Polar Bear Stew.

Something you guys should remember before trying to cook one of those big white bastards:

Although polar bear meat is considered delicious it is never eaten raw like other meats because it carries many parasites. The polar bear liver is never eaten or fed to the dogs because it causes Vitamin A poisoning, which results in severe illness or even death.

So there's your warning for ya'.

Now, from funkymunky comes this delicious recipe for our tasty friends that occassionally star in commercials for Coke.

Polar Bear Stew

4 pounds (1.8 kg) polar bear meat
Water to cover
3 tablespoons (45ml)salt
1 1/2 cups (360 ml) dried potato
1 cup (340 ml) celery flakes
1 tablespoon (15ml) dry union
2 cups (480 ml) dehydrated carrots
1/2 cup (120ml) melted butter
1 3/4 cups (420 ml) flour
1 teaspoon (5ml) garlic powder or garlic salt
3/4 teaspoon (3ml) pepper

Cut meat into bite-sized pieces and boil in salted water for 1 1/2 hours or more. Then add dry vegetables; mix melted butter with flour, blend in seasonings and add to meat. Cook 15 minutes longer. The stew is ready. Makes eight to ten servings
Cooking Alaskan by Alaskans
Norma Silook, Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island

Not to be one of those wasteful nellies that are ruining the planet I have decided to toss in some directions for our petro-explorers so when they do make that stew so that they can have not only a warm coat, but a fantastic handmade souveneir to remind them of those years they spent in Alaska making 50+ bucks an hour to bring us cheap gas so we can drive to the end of the driveway to collect our mail.

Well, I was gonna tell ya' how to tan hides, but it is illegal for people to hunt polar bear unless they are an "alaskan native" which means even if you are third of fourth generation alaskan if you are white FORGET IT!!!

Which makes me wonder just why discrimination is ok if it is against the perceived establishment. In other words the white folk. Hmmmm.

Happy Hunting anyway boys.

I thought with the riots in Francistan that "aren't" occurring right now that it would be timely to repost this little gem. When I first wrote this people said "It'll never happen"......guess what?

It has started!!!


The elections in France have led to a surprise, and a radical imam of the Paris Mosque has been elected President of France. Within weeks the France the world knew for so long is gone, destroyed by a dark vision of the future justified by "the will of the people and Allah the Merciful".

The Islamic Caliphate of Francistan is newly established, and the purges of artists, free-thinkers, public arts and anyone non-muslim is in full swing.

The Louvre has been looted and her collected works destroyed after the newly elected President of Francistan issued orders that all graven images are forbidden. Every museum in France falls before the "Moral Police" and their "Enforcement Squads". Anyone caught trying to smuggle art out of the country is summarily beheaded.

Decrees go out across the land that Burkahs are now mandatory, men cannot shave, and the borders are closed as a precaution. Dhimmitude is the order of the day.

Any that are not devout muslim find them selves being fired from jobs and land taken from them. They are forced into camps and told that they would be found housing as soon as possible, but the squalid camps deteriorate quickly with the coming of winter, and the Red Cross and Red Crescent are denied passage to check the status of those in the camps.

Europe cowers in the shadow of a radical islamic caliphate that is now in possession of nuclear weapons, as the UN attempts to negotiate with the new leaders of Francistan. The UN's power in the world waned tremendously after President Jeb Bush followed the advice of his Secretary of State John Bolton and withdrew from the corrupt organization and threw them out of the country.

From their new offices in The Hague they still attempted to sway world events, but any clout they had was lost when Moammar Khadaffi was made Secretary General. Ever since they were seen as a nuisance with no real authority and were ignored more often than not.

The government of the US watched carefully the developments in Francistan, and indeed was finalizing plans at that very moment to destroy all of Francistans nuclear capabilities at the first sign of trouble with a secret space based weapon that was in a geo-synchronous orbit over Europe. (In actuality they had 6 of them).

It was at precisely that moment that a delegation walked up to the White House gate and asked to see the President.

It was the government in exile of old france that had been ordered put to death for daring to speak against islam and demand a return to the tenet's that had made france a great country once.

They were asking to see the President.

A secret service agent walked into the room and whispered into the Presidents ear. Grimly the President stared at the floor and nodded, mumbling "I see".

Straightening up he looked the secret service agent dead in the eye and said, "In honor of the many years of friendship that Old France showed the United States, and in the same spirit of that friendship, I won't be meeting with the delegation from the Old French Government, and send my condolences about the current situation their with the radical muslims. Be sure to express my shock that a group as peaceful as Jihadists would even dream of destroying cultural works of art and beheading people for simply wanting to be different than the muslims would, and ummm, Joe?"

The secret service agent looked up with a sparkle knowing what was coming....."Send them out some cake" said the President.

"Of course President Bolton." Came the Reply.


XPOSTED@The Wide Awakes, Cao's, MadTech's and Conservative Angst

Click on the title and sing along.


XPOSTED@Cao's and MadTech's

All righty then. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has gone TOO FAR this time. Taking away parents rights, to be parents, to determine when their children will recieve education about sexual matters. And taking away the right of parents to determine WHO will education the children. I'm writing a letter (or 10) to my elected reps, to the President, and so should everyone else. The government has NO RIGHT to step into these matters, and if you care about your kids, or relatives kids, take some action.

A new ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is prompting cries of judicial activism.

On Wednesday the court dismissed a lawsuit brought by California parents who were outraged over a sex survey given to public school students in the first, third and fifth grades.

Among other things, the survey administered by the Palmdale School District asked children if they ever thought about having sex or touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex."

The parents argued that they -- not the public schools -- have the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."

But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit dismissed the case, saying, "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children...Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Talking to children in first grade is way out of line. They do not have the ability to even remotely understand this stuff. You know what I think? This is bad...I think these judges are fucking perverts who want little kids to be in the know about these sexual things...these judges want the kids to be taken advantage of. They have a thing for the most innocent of our citizens. Why can't they just go jack off or masturbate in a corner and let the kids be...kids. Fuckers. And since it is the parents who pay for public education, via taxes, they DO have a right to overide what is being taught.

"The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."

Earll said the court essentially declared parenthood unconstitutional.

"It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child -- but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers.

"Every parent in America should shudder at this decision -- liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican," Earll said.

Yeah...and the villagers are all fucking perverts who want to use the children. THIS cannot hold up. Come on people...write some letters and make some phone calls. Spread this around. Stir the pot.

Cross Posted @ And Rightly So

Today is the blogburst for the crew over at StoptheACLU.com, (linked in the title), or STACLU for short. Go check them out over there and follow the links to read some other great blogbursts. Actually I suppose you could go follow the links and read some great blogburst posts if you find this post boring. I have been accused of several things before, and boring has never been one of them.

Anyway, on to today's STACLU Blogburst.

Today I am speaking to the morons, imbeciles and general miscreants that support the aclu and believe that they are a great organization.

Let me tell you some of the things that the aclu has wrong.

Child porn is NOT protected free speech. It is a CRIME!!!!

Child porn is proof positive that there are some people that would better serve society as fertilizer.

Illegal aliens are NOT entitled to any benefits beyond a swift kick in the ass back over the border they snuck across. They are NOT citizens of this country, which means that our laws do NOT apply to them, so due process is NOT due to them.

People that our government have caught in the war on terror that are not citizens of the U.S. are also NOT protected under the laws of the United States. They are not citizens of this country, they are enemy combatants of our country, and the fact that the military doesn't just pop a cap into their 8th century skulls is proof positive that our military is noble and generous beyond belief.

Crosses are not offensive, anymore than than the crescent and star are offensive. It is the people that use that symbol to further their own radical agendas that are offensive. American Christians are NOT trying to create a "Christian theocracy" in America, but attacks on the CULTURE of America, which has heavy Christian influences IS going to cause a backlash against the Godless, secularist human hating bastards that are trying to ruin this country.

Drugs are NOT harmless. Legalizing drugs is NOT and option.

Fact: The ACLU was founded by a communist, and the goals of not only the ACLU, but the CPUSA and the DNC are socialist goals, and the antithesis of the American Way.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.


Linked at Stop the ACLU

Wow...Kender acts FAST when I leave him a comment with the word *NOW* in it. I noticed he hasn't put up any new posts for a few days so I yelled at him (sweetly of course.) He immediately sent me keys to this site so I could help him out. So here I am, Raven the mad woman.

I was reading my local news paper and came across this gem:

Rollinsford — Grammy-winning musician Robert Cray spent yesterday standing in a hayfield surrounded by shoes while his wife ordered him around.

Cray has toured the world, played with icons of music and been recorded on nearly 40 records, but he was fine with the arrangement. The world-class bluesman was in this 3,000-person town off Route 4 near the Maine border to film a music video for “Twenty,” the anti-war title track from his latest album.

“I just want people to see what I deem as a war for no reason, but only for greed,” Cray told reporters during a break in filming. “There’s been nothing proven about weapons of mass destruction or anything like that and all these boots out here are of innocent victims.”

The 2,027 pairs of black military boots spread behind Cray were courtesy of the American Friends Service Committee traveling exhibit “Eyes Wide Open.” Each pair represents a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq. To date, the exhibit has traveled to more than 60 cities. Organizers call it a memorial to those killed and “a witness to our belief that no war can justify its human cost.”

Spread in neat, tombstone-like lines in front of a leafless hickory tree in Todd and Kristin Adelman’s field, the boots took more than six hours to set up. They covered about 32,000 square feet, according to Marq Anderson, the “Eyes Wide Open” tour manager.

Isn't this special? Using the boots of our men and women in the military to get a point out? How does this make any point other than to disrespect those who gave all in the name of freedom? Really now. These musicians need to use more mature methods to speak their tune. Sheesh. It's one CD I won't be buying.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

First of all, I want to thank you on behalf of Stop The ACLU, all of our contributors, and supporters. It is an honor to have this interview with you. We appreciate the Alliance Defense Fund does for America by fighting the ACLU, and protecting life, and liberty.

1 Could you tell us a brief summary of how ADF came about?

Enough was enough. Dismayed by years of the erosion of liberty through activist courts in1993, thirty-five leaders of various Christian ministries came together to discuss the growing legal threats to religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) was born. ADF’s purpose was to develop sufficient means to win - through training, strategy, coordination, and funding to support litigation. In just eleven short years, ADF has trained over 850 allied attorneys, 405 law students, and provided funding for over 1,500 cases, including twenty-six victories at the Unites States Supreme Court.

2. What inspired you to write your new book, The ACLU vs. America?

In December 2003, I appeared on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the ACLU’s legal attacks on the public celebration of Christmas. During that interview, Bill O’Reilly asked, tongue in cheek: “Isn’t the ACLU an organization that started out with good beginnings, but has just gotten off track over the past decade?” There was no way to answer it in a 25-30 second sound bite. Craig Osten (my-co-author) and I pondered O’Reilly’s question and realized that most Americans believe this myth that the ACLU had good roots. We knew that the truth had to be told: that the ACLU had a completely different agenda for America right from the start, an agenda that sought to legally undermine every American institution in order to reshape our nation as the ACLU and its founders saw fit.

3. What would you say to those people who say that just because the ACLU was founded on Communism does not mean that they still have communist goals?

Baldwin fastidiously claimed he was not a communist, and in fact, purged the ACLU board members who actually belonged to the party when Stalin and Hitler linked arms in 1939. Despite this, Baldwin had repeatedly expressed admiration for the Soviets and had many communist and socialist allies. In an interview a few years before his death, ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin said to Peggy Lamson (a former ACLU board member): “The Communists say, we don’t care what the majority says, this minority is right, and if we can impose our will on the majority, we will do so.” This type of self-image sums up the modern-day ACLU, which has demonstrated, time and time again, blatant disregard for the will of the people and the democratic process. For example, the ACLU has filed or supported lawsuit after lawsuit to either block public votes on constitutional amendments affirming traditional marriage, or to overturn the results (which have yet to be in the ACLU’s favor). When Alaskan voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1998 affirming marriage as between one man and one woman, the ACLU’s former executive director said: “Today’s results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote.”

4. I have read in your book that the ACLU filed a brief in favor of legalizing child pornography. When I wrote about this, many people wanted solid proof. Where can one see in the record how the ACLU defended this?

There are several examples. The files at the U.S. Supreme Court are a good starting point. In 1983, the ACLU submitted a friend of the court brief in the case of New York v. Ferber, arguing that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU Policy Guide states: “The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of all forms of communication. The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds, laws that restrict the production and distribution of any printed and visual materials even when some of the producers of those materials are punishable under criminal law.” (i.e. child pornography).

In the mid-1980s, when I serving as the Director of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, the then-legislative counsel of the ACLU testified that it was the ACLU’s position that once child pornography was produced, there should be no government restriction on its sale and distribution.

5. Recently a judge in California ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross was unconstitutional despite the majority of San Diego voters supported keeping the cross. What are your thoughts on judicial activism in America today? Should judges be using international law in interpreting the Constitution?

In his biography by Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin said: “I placed my faith in the courts…” What he meant by that was that he knew the ACLU could not achieve its aims through state and federal legislatures or by taking their case to the people. He knew that the courts would be the most useful method of imposing the ACLU’s agenda on the people. The outgrowth of that strategy is the judicial activism we see today, where the ACLU and its allies are using the courts to deny the expressed will of the people and to impose new laws via judicial fiat. In the Mt. Soledad case, the ACLU attorney James McElroy expressed his disdain for the majority when he said after the vote: "It still doesn't mean a damn thing. Voters should have never voted on it."

ADF believes that judges should interpret the Constitution as written and consistent with its original meaning. It is not an “evolving document” with emanations from penumbras as judicial activists’ state.

As far as international law, this is just another example of how the ACLU has tried to change the rules to get their way. They came to the realization that the Constitution can only be stretched in so many ways, that they are eventually going to reach a limit with how far they can advance their agenda with domestic laws and courts alone!

I think Chief Justice John Roberts said it quite eloquently during his confirmation hearing when asked about international law. He said: “Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don't find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it's in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever." He went on to state that international law was a misuse of legal precedent and we would wholeheartedly agree.

Nevertheless, the ACLU, along with its former counsel Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have been the biggest proponents of using international law as precedent to undermine our national sovereignty, which millions have sacrificed and died to defend and preserve.

6. What do you find is the biggest threat to liberty in our society today? How can we counter this?

The biggest threat to liberty today is the agenda of advocates of homosexual behavior, which Craig Osten and I detail in our previous book, The Homosexual Agenda: The Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The ACLU has helped develop much of this agenda and has worked very closely with these advocates. The ultimate goal of many homosexual activists is to progressively silence and punish any dissenting viewpoints when it comes to homosexual behavior. In places such as Sweden and Canada, people with sincere religious objections to homosexual behavior are facing fines, loss of employment, and even imprisonment for expressing their views.

How can we counter this? First of all, we can show up. When ADF and its allies have shown up against legal advocates of homosexual behavior in the courtroom, with the training, strategy, and coordination to win, we’ve been successful in defeating the agenda of homosexual advocates, including same-sex “marriage.”

Secondly, it will take resources. The ACLU and its allies, including radical advocates of homosexual behavior, have tremendous financial resources at their disposal. The ACLU Foundation has $175 million in assets. The Gill Foundation, whose mission is to push the homosexual agenda, has spent millions of dollars to achieve its aims. The Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and Defense and Education Fund, and Planned Parenthood, all have massive amounts of funds, including millions from corporate America, to spend.

Thirdly, Americans need to become educated on the threats to liberty, and that is why we wrote the ACLU book, as well as our previous book on the homosexual agenda, to awaken the majority of Americans who still respect the values of life, liberty, and family that made our nation great.

7. Is it possible to reform the ACLU? Can they be changed, or is countering them the only option?

It’s not a public company and is controlled by a private board. It’s tough to “reform” an organization that had a very different agenda for America right from the beginning. In addition, they have had eighty years to build the legal precedents that they have used to advance their agenda, and even if the ACLU went out of existence today, those precedents would still be in place. Therefore, it is going to take a long-term, strategic effort to reverse those legal precedents, and put new ones in place that affirm religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family.

8. What is your strategy in fighting the ACLU? Are there other ways people can get involved?

ADF has a four-fold plan to fight and eventually defeat the ACLU. That plan is training, coordination, funding, and direct litigation. Our goals include training at least 5,000 allied attorneys over the next ten years to take on the ACLU and its allies and building an in-house attorney mentoring program - to train and equip the next generation of attorneys. But you train all the attorneys you want, and if they do not have a coordinated plan of action, it is not going to make much of a difference. That is why ADF focuses on strategic coordination to make sure that we are working in unity towards a common goal of reversing the legal damage inflicted by the ACLU and its allies on our nation, rather than working against each other. Thirdly, we make sure that when our allied attorneys show up in court to take on the ACLU, that they have the necessary financial resources to win. ADF has funded over 1,500 grants for legal cases and projects in just eleven years. Finally, ADF wants to grow litigators, lawyers on our staff who are actively involved in defending religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

9. Currently there is legislation in the House by Congressman Hostetler that is asking to reform the attorney’s fees act in the Civil Rights Act to not apply in Establishment Clause cases. Does ADF support this?

We talk about the need to reform this in our book, as it has become a financial cash cow for the ACLU and one of their weapons in their campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation to force public officials to bow to their agenda. While ADF does not delve into legislative issues, we hope this effort by the congressman passes to fix this loophole which the ACLU has exploited for years to bully towns and municipalities into compliance.

10. Do you support grassroots efforts like Stop The ACLU.Com and Stop The ACLU.Org in informing the people of the ACLU’s actions and other civil liberties groups? How can we motivate others to get involved? What would your advice be in helping our organization’s success?

ADF is thankful for any efforts that raise awareness of the ACLU’s dangerous agenda for America and encourages citizens to get involved in combating it. I believe that the American people are increasingly rejecting the ACLU’s agenda as more and more of it is brought into the light. Keep on doing what you are doing, highlighting the ACLU’s most recent outrageous statements and positions, and I am sure your efforts will be successful.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Linked in the title is a site that you should read. When you read it you will understand that when we lose our guns, our Freedom goes with them.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I have been thinking of the second amendment of the Constitution more than usual lately.

I will get to what the second amendment really means in a moment, but to lay a foundation for the importance of the second amendment, we must first look at the most likely outcomes of having the second amendment repealed here.

Stories like this one, and this one are bad enough, showing that gun crimes have gone up in England and Australia since they banned guns, but what should really scare the readers of this article is this story here. The last one tells about the UN wanting to take guns away from every citizen in the world.

These stories are a few years old, so my more senseless reader's may believe that they no longer apply. "After all", they'll say, "if the UN wanted to take guns they surely would have done it already. I mean, it HAS been four years since they said that."

The UN does want to take our guns away from us.

Kat has a great write up about this, and points out very well that the second amendment was meant to protect us from the government, and the ability to protect ourselves from the dregs of society that would prey on us is completely secondary to the purpose of the second amendment.

I know at the time of the writing of the Constitution and it's amendments that the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the vicious, violent world we live in, and the thought that criminals would be given such ardent defenders of their actions and that ordinary citizens would be treated as criminals for trying to protect their life and property certainly never crossed their minds. The ideas that have permeated modern society, those like socialism, where the state takes care of you and you are not responsible for your actions, where you need not worry of your fellow citizens because the government was there to save them for you, those ideas would certainly have been abhorrent to those men of self reliance and selfless sacrifice.

They wrote the second amendment so that the government would think thrice before taking up arms against it citizenry. They, of course, wrote other provisions into those amendments that would keep the government from intruding into our hard won lives and trampling those bled-for rights, like Amendment III and Amendment V, regarding quartering soldiers in one's home and eminent domain.

Eminent domain has been under attack recently, with the Supreme Court of the United States declaring that it is constitutional for cities to take property from private citizens to build up the economics of their town.

Private property is one of the great hallmarks of America's system, being able to keep our weapons is another. One of those rights has been seriously eroded by an activist court. How long before they take the next one away even more than it has been already. We have more laws on the books regarding guns that most anything else I believe, some 11 thousand plus the last I read, (can't find that link at the moment), and that hasn't helped crime rates one bit.

Take a look at this and you will see that the evidence clearly shows that less gun control means less crime.

But back to that bit about the UN desiring our weapons. The U.S. military is prohibited from being used against U.S. citizens in the U.S., that is why when martial law is declared it is the national guard that goes in.

Can you imagine if the UN has more power, more sway, and managed to get the U.S. to demand that it's citizens turn in their guns? When we refused the UN would bring in an international coalition of troops to "keep the peace" as U.S. Law Enforcment went about the business of chasing down all of the new "criminals" with guns.

Article VI of the Constitution lays out the system for making new amendments, and it is a rather lengthy process, so that route, I would have to think, is one that is not worrisome. In other words, an amendment taking our guns would cause one hell of a fight, and may even start another civil war which would, much like the war on terror, have no defined boundaries, since one would be hard pressed to find an area in this country that was devoid of guns and gun owners.

Of more concern to the country is Connally Reservation, which, in six words, may keep the U.S. from falling to the control of the UN and the International Criminal Court, (ICC).

Before ratifying the United Nations Charter in 1945, the Senate was wise enough to amend the section dealing with the World Court by barring the Court from jurisdiction over matters which were essentially domestic "AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES."

Those six words, authored by Senator Tom Connally (D-Tex), are known as the "Connally Reservation" and are the only thing which COULD prevent the World Court from interfering in American internal affairs on the pretext that our tariffs, immigration laws, school curriculums, etc., affect American relations with other countries and are therefore "foreign" and not "domestic."

This very well may be the six most important words to ever be written down in this country. People have been trying to get that changed ever since, and it has been claimed that the Connally Reservation is a roadblock to world peace through world law.

If and when the Connally Reservation is repealed, look for war.

When that happens they will come for our guns.

When they have our guns, our Freedom goes with them.

Linked at Stop The ACLU

See the first in this series here

Open this in a new window and sing along with the latest horridly politically incorrect parody from Kender.

Mama's Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Camelboys

Camelboys aint easy to love but they're easy to kill
They hide with the people or they live in a cave in the hills
Turbans and bomb vests and dirty pajamas and new jihads every day
They're dead wrong and they're evil and our military
Is out to just blow 'em away

Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Camelboys
Don't let 'em shoot AK's while riding in trucks
Or go planting bombs on the roadside and such
Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Camelboys
They'll never stay home and when they go roam
We will just blow them all up

Camelboys like killin for Allah and catchin' our bullets
Wipin' their ass with their hands and man do they smell
Them that don't know 'em won't like 'em
And them that do still want to blow them to pieces
They're so wrong it aint funny
And it costs us money to make sure that they go to hell

Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Camelboys
Don't let 'em shoot AK's while ridin' in trucks
Or go planting bombs on the roadside and such
Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Camelboys
They'll never stay home and when they go roam
We will just blow them all up

Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Camelboys
They'll never stay home and when they go roam
We will just blow them all up

My friend Seth inspired me to this, so blame him.

The only music I could find for you to listen to while reading this, (if you so wish to do that) was here and it is a bit faster than the normal version. Open the link in a new window and sing along.

And please feel free to offer up better lyrics than I pumped out in the last ten minutes. I changed a few words to go better with the faster version. And the end of the tune is cut off at the end.


Ladies and Gents, lads and lassies, I give you;



My Heroes Have Always Been Camelboys

I grew up a dreamin' o' bein' a camelboy
And lovin' the goatfuckin ways
Pursuin' the life o' my implodin' heroes
I burned up my childhood days
I learned all the rules of a suicide bomber
Don't ya press down the button too soon
Just take a short bus ride, or go to a disco
Go out with a scream and a boom


My heroes have always been camelboys
And they will be till I die
Sadly adhering to eighth century ideals
And a bunch of ragged old lies


Camelboys are spreadin their own brand of misery
By wiping their ass with their hands
Some will die from a bomb in a safe house in Baghdad
To be dropped in a hole in the sand
Pickin at sand fleas while down on their damned knees
And cryin to Allah each day
Dirty pajamas an' diapers on their heads
With their leaders a-hidin' in caves


My heroes have always been camelboys
And they will be till I die
Sadly adhering to eighth century ideals
And a bunch of ragged old lies

Sadly adhering to eighth century ideals
And a bunch of ragged old lies

XPOSTED@The Wide Awakes, Cao's and The MadTech's
Stop The ACLU

This is a special post for all those out there that keep screaming about the WMDs that weren't found in Iraq and we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

These people don't understand STRATEGY. If you can read this story and still tell me that you don't understand, once and for all, the reasons behind the war then do us all a favor and actually get that lobotomy. After all you are simply some paper work and a short operation from being LEGALLY stupid, as opposed to CONSIDERED stupid.


The Australian
Edition 1 - All-round CountryFRI 26 NOV 2004, Page 013
WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion
By Frank Devine

WHY are we in Iraq? It is not, as some ranters claim, because George Bush is stupid and bloodthirsty and John Howard a spineless crawler. Nor is it because the US has regressed to Wilsonian imperialism.
For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.
Although the US believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the WMDs were ultimately ``a cover for a much deeper game''. The big game began with the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and the US enlisting the assistance of Saudi Arabia in backing the Afghan resistance. The Saudis provided financing and guerilla fighters. They influenced other Islamic countries to send guerillas.
This international brigade included members of Islam's moneyed and educated elite (including Osama bin Laden) -- the core of al-Qa'ida.
When the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, this elite had become knowledgeable veterans of guerilla warfare, full of swagger about defeating the world's second superpower.
The oil billionaires back home, impressed with themselves for ``bailing the Americans out'', financed the warrior elite and the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
From this fortress headquarters, Friedman writes, al-Qa'ida (``the Base'' in English) pressed its grand design for an Islamist world federation, a new Caliphate, which would ultimately match, if not dominate, other superpowers. Global terrorism would be the means. Al-Qa'ida's opening moves -- attacks on American embassies and other establishments abroad -- were aimed, in Friedman's opinion, less at damaging the US than provoking it to a reckless assault on Islam.
This, al-Qa'ida believed, would stir the ``Islamic street'' to a confrontational mood with the West and rebellion against non-fundamentalist Islamic regimes, establishing the foundations of the great federation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the US, confident of its hegemony, had concluded that ``war was now optional'', that no power existed that could force it into war.
The passive US response to its early pinprick attacks emboldened and frustrated al-Qa'ida. The jihadists, Friedman writes, ``needed to strike a blow that would be devastating, [breaching] the threshold between what was tolerable and intolerable for the US''. Their initiative was the September11, 2001, attack on New York and Washington, which shocked and disoriented the Americans. Their first reaction was to speculate almost in panic about a September 11 with nuclear weapons.
This began an obsession with WMDs. US actions were practical and reasonably prompt, however. The US persuaded Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union to make inventory of their nuclear weapons and strengthen security on them.
Rather astonishingly, as Friedman reports it, the US pressured Pakistan -- the Muslim country most advanced in nuclear weaponry and the one in closest contact with Islamic fundamentalism -- into permitting US soldiers dressed as civilians to place a guard on its nuclear stockpile. To disabuse Islam of the illusion that the US was weak of will and, on the evidence of Vietnam, unable to sustain a prolonged war, the Bush administration decided to strike its own devastating blow in response to September 11.
The invasion and speedy subjugation of Afghanistan staggered the jihadists. But the US, having succeeded only in dispersing al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, rather than eliminating them, believed it needed to strike another heavy blow.
By then it had identified the jihadist campaign as ``a Saudi problem''. Most of the September 11 suicide attackers had been Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi money trails were everywhere. An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.
The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia -- Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.
``From a purely military view,'' Friedman adds, ``Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran.''
So the US struck, with consequences unfolding nightly on our TV screens. Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes.
The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: ``Not a single regime has fallen to
al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The
war goes on.''


Linked at Stop the ACLU and Hard Astarboard