The Failure of Socialism: The French Example

Thanks to reader "Expat" for a reminder on the importance of what is happening today in France. Believe it or not, but the French really do have lessons they can teach Americans. Lessons like the failure of socialism and how to avoid societal collapse:

Socialism Makes People WorseBy Dennis Prager

Throughout much of last week, hundreds of thousands of students in France were angrily protesting.

They have been joined by the major French labor unions, which are threatening a general strike.

And what is this all about?

It is all about a new law in France that allows a company to fire a person under the age of 26, without cause, within two years of being hired.

Wow. Imagine that. You might get fired from your first job.

As it happens, the whole point of the law was to encourage companies to hire young people.

The unemployment rate among young people in France is 23 percent. And in many suburbs, it is double that. Meanwhile, French companies are understandably loath to hire 22-year-olds when they cannot fire them except "for cause," which under union rules means something like committing mass murder in the workplace.
What these massive demonstrations reveal is the narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility inculcated by socialist societies.

Enough generations of socialist policies have now passed for us to judge their effects. They are bleak. Socialism undermines the character of a nation and of its citizens. In simpler words, socialism makes people worse.

These young people in France really believe that they should be able to be hired at their tender ages and that a company must not be allowed to fire them from their first day at work (except "for cause," which, as we are learning in America, is increasingly difficult to establish). In America, most of us would call the French young people's attitudes "spoiled."

Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.
Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations -- except to be taxed.

And that is why the citizens of less socialist -- and more religious -- America give more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries. That is why Americans volunteer time for the needy so much more than citizens of socialist countries do. That is why citizens of conservative states in America give more charity than citizens of liberal states do. The more Left one identifies oneself on the political spectrum, the more that person is likely to believe that the state, not fellow citizens, should take care of the poor and the needy.

Under socialism, one is not only liberated from having to take care of oneself; one is also liberated from having to take care of others. The state will take care of me and of everybody else.

The same holds true for foreign affairs. Why did the conservative government of Spain support the American war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and send troops there, while the Spanish socialists withdrew Spanish troops as soon as they were voted into office? Because the idea of risking one's life to bring freedom to others -- or to risk one's life for another nation for just about any reason -- is alien to the socialist mindset.

Similarly, in the great litmus test of moral acuity -- the Middle East -- socialist countries and parties virtually all line up behind the Palestinians. They do so either out of moral confusion or out of cowardice -- it takes a lot more courage to support Israel than to support the Palestinians and the whole Muslim world.

The socialist idea sounded altruistic to those who began it, and it sounds altruistic to the naive who believe in it today. In practice, however, it creates self-centered individuals and a narcissistic society. So while it may have begun as a way to help others, it has come to mean a way of evading responsibility for oneself and for others.

That is why France is so frightened of the utterly rational idea that a young person should have a two-year trial period at work before being granted a lifetime job. Such an innovation in France would mean that young people would have to work hard and earn the right to lifetime employment. But if socialism means anything, it means that one shouldn't have to earn anything. One merely has to breathe.

As much as America has been adversely affected by socialist thought, it is still inconceivable that in America hundreds of thousands of students would shut down their schools in order to gain the right not to be fired by the first company that hires them. But every time America's socialists, the Democrats, prevail in an election, we move in that direction. No matter how pure their motives, the Left makes America and its citizens less noble people, just like the spoiled French students.

Socialim: It's failed every time it's been tried. So why do socialists just keep trying?

Talk about being stuck on stupid!

If Bush is Hitler, What is Venezuela's Hugo Chavez?

What would Cindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson and the Hollywood left do if President Bush changed the constitution to allow him to stay in office for an indefinite term without facing re-election?

What would they say if he passed a law that made it a crime to insult him?

How would they react if he summarily fired workers who opposed his policies, wiretapped, then broadcast their phone calls on television, ordered troops to shoot protestors, closed down radio and television stations?

What would their reaction be if President Bush refused to provide funds to state governments controlled by Democrats?

They would go absolutely bonking crazier than they are already! Yet, these same lovers of freedom embrace Hugo Chavez, the dictator of Venezuela, who has done all that and more:
RealClearPolitics The Man Who Controls Venezuela By Peter Mork

Jesse, Cindy, Ed Asner and the rest of the hate America left have all made pilgrimages to Venezuela to heap praise on Chavez for all he is doing for (or TO) the Venezuelan people.

It's called democracy leftist style. Change election laws to create a one party Marxist state and jail, torture (the real kind, not Guantanamo) and kill anyone who dares to object.

Do that and the America hating left will shower you with praise.

For Socialist Brain Washer Bennish: Not Even A Slap On the Wrist!

An excellent wrap-up of the Colorado School Teacher controversy by the man who first brought it to national media attention. From the Rocky Mountain News, "Not Even a Slap on the Wrist" by Mike Rosen:

There were no surprises in the resolution of the Bennish affair. He kept his job and Cherry Creek Schools paid lip service to the virtues of balance and fairness in a platitudinous official statement issued last Friday by Superintendent Monte Moses.

In fact, I offered my radio listeners a near-verbatim prediction of it several days earlier. I was wrong in one element. I thought Bennish would at least get a slap on the wrist. If he did, Moses refused to disclose that when asked during his news conference. He finessed the issue with this bit of fancy footwork: "Some think Mr. Bennish should be fired. Others think he should be praised. In my judgment, the answer is neither." This is known as a false dilemma: firing or praise. There was another alternative: He gets to keep his job, on probation, with a formal letter of reprimand placed in his file for violating the district policy requiring a balanced presentation to students. Furthermore, his classroom behavior is to be closely monitored in the future.

If anything like that happened, Moses refused to divulge it, citing the district's "personnel policy." Why such a policy should be allowed to defy the public's right to know wasn't addressed. What can you expect? Public education is a government monopoly far more responsive to the teacher unions than to parents, students or taxpayers. The outcome was both unsatisfying and inevitable.

Bennish, himself, was smugly remorseless, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part. When asked if he regretted comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, he smiled and arrogantly replied, "I think next time I would've said Mussolini." Ironically, if Bennish truly lived in a country run by a dictator, he'd be at risk of losing much more than his job. Nevertheless, we owe Jay Bennish a debt of gratitude. His classroom diatribe, recorded for posterity by Sean Allen, brought this issue to the attention of many in the public who were unaware of the nature and scope of this problem.

Bennish is a political activist. He proudly admits that his mission as a teacher is to "promote social justice." When leftists speak of social justice, it's a buzz word for socialism, connoting forced income redistribution, excessive regulation of business, price controls, racial and gender quotas and preferences, nannyism, politically correct censorship, subordination of U.S. security and sovereignty to international organizations, etc. The whole leftist agenda.

Peggy Raines, a Bennish mentor at Northern Arizona University's College of Education, where he got his degree, took pride in saying that, "he may have got some of that left-wing orientation from me." Boasting about many of her former students, Raines said, they were taught to be "change agents." "They care about social justice issues. They care about making the world a better place." Well, so do I and other conservatives. We just have a different belief as to how to do that. Bennish and Raines want to remake the world to fit their utopian socialist vision. We heard Bennish's contempt for capitalism. He declares it to be at odds with human rights. I think it's the economic dimension of liberty, and I think socialism is forever doomed to failure because it's at odds with human nature.

This conflict of visions, as Thomas Sowell describes it, is at the heart of the war of ideas. The Bennish affair is about the battle to influence impressionable young minds. Liberals now control that turf in K-12 public schools and colleges. They don't want to yield it to conservatives. Bennish justifies his classroom political proselytizing under the pretense of developing "critical thinking" skills. Baloney. A critic can be one who makes judgments based on reasoned evaluations of facts. But Bennish is a hostile critic, one who finds fault, a severe judge. He confuses critical analysis with ideological criticism, subjecting his captive student audience to simplistic, doctrinaire left-wing rants.

Bennish is a disciple of leftist activists like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, committed socialists who share his disdain for capitalism and his jaundiced view of American history, obsessing on our faults and minimizing our virtues. This is the direction increasingly taken in our public schools, with many teaching from Zinn's "textbook," a leftist screed titled, A People's History of the United States. My preference is to celebrate our history, on balance. Yes, expose students to our historical shortcomings and injustices, but emphasize our overwhelming virtues. As Jeanne Kirkpatrick puts it, "We have to admit the truth about ourselves, no matter how good it is." And our public schools should be instrumental in teaching our kids why America is worth fighting for.

I'll apply my critical thinking skills and offer a remedy for this conflict next Friday.

"When leftists speak of social justice, it's a buzz word for socialism, connoting forced income redistribution, excessive regulation of business, price controls, racial and gender quotas and preferences, nannyism, politically correct censorship, subordination of U.S. security and sovereignty to international organizations, etc. The whole leftist agenda."

That sums up most of what drives leftist moonbat Bush haters. Anyone want to vote for that agenda? So why do we continue to let loons like Bennish use taxpayer dollars to promote that religion of leftist lunacy in our public schools?

Left Media Denies Reality of Muslim Violence in North Carolina

Here's an exerpt from the PDF of the handwritten letter that Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the accused attacker of students at the University of North Carolina sent to WDTV-11 in Raliegh Durham:

I live with the holy Koran as my constitution for right and wrong and definition of justice. The Koran, also spelled, Quron, is a scientific and mathematic miracle so there can be no doubt that it is from a supernatural source, i.e. Allah, the creator and controller of all things.
...
Allah gives permission in the Koran for the followers of Allah to attack those who have raged war against them, with the expectation of eternal paradise in case of martyrdom and/or living one's life in obedience of all of Allah's commandments found throughout the Koran's 114 chapters.

I've read all 114 chapters approximately 15 times since June of 2003 when I started reading the Koran.

The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths of and the torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH on March 3rd was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic territories. I did not act out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead. I live only to serve Allah, by obeying all of Allah's commandments of which I am aware by reading and learning the contents of the Koran.

I would be glad to have an on-camera interview.

Sincerly yours,
Mohammed Taheri-azar

So, the holy Koran is Mo's constitution for right and wrong and definition of justice? And that motivated him to rent the largest SUV he could and plow into a crowd of students in obedience of Allah's commandments.

Isn't Islam wonderful?

Lamestream Media Refuses to Call This a Terrorist Attack, or Mo a Muslim

Mark Steyn, in yet another brilliant column describes how the New York Al Queda Times in it's report on the story never mentioned the fact that Mo was a Muslim. The entire motivation for Mo's attack was based on his religion and the NY Al Queda Times didn't consider that "All the news that's fit to print."

More from Steyn:

And yet the M-word appears nowhere in the Times report. Whether intentionally or not, they seem to be channeling the great Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali, who died a millennium ago but whose first rule on the conduct of dhimmis -- non-Muslims in Muslim society -- seem to have been taken on board by the Western media:

The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle. . . .
Are they teaching that at Columbia Journalism School yet?

A fellow called Mohammed mows down a bunch of students? Just one of those things -- like a gran'ma in my neck of the woods a couple of years back who hit the wrong pedal in the parking lot and ploughed through a McDonald's, leaving the place a hideous tangle of crumbled drywall, splattered patties and incendiary hot apple-pie filling. Yet, according to his own statements, Taheri-azar committed an act of ideological domestic terrorism, which he'd planned for two months. He told police he was more disappointed more students in his path weren't struck and that he'd rented the biggest vehicle the agency had in order to do as much damage to as many people as possible. The Persian car pet may have been flooring it, but the media are idling in neutral, if not actively reversing away from the story as fast as they can.

Taheri-azar informed the judge he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah," and it was apparently the will of Allah that he get behind the wheel of Allah.

Meanwhile, a new Washington Post/ABC poll finds that, in the words of the Post, "nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence."

"Often" targeted? Want to put some hard numbers on that? Like to compare the "violence" Americans perpetrated on Muslims after the slaughter of thousands of their fellow citizens in the name of Allah with, say, the death toll perpetrated by Muslims annoyed over some itsy-bitsy cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper? In September 2001, 99.99999 percent of Americans behaved with remarkable forbearance. If they're less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt these days, perhaps it's because of casual slurs like the Post's or the no-jihad-to-see-here-folks tone of the Times.

Fresh Questions on Dubai Ports Hysteria

I realize most readers have likely had their fill of the Dubai ports story. But as the damage to President Bush's leadership and conservative chances in the critical 2006 elections becomes apparent, it's worth taking a second look.

It's becoming clear that the entire episode was orchestrated by Democrats to weaken the President and the GOP. But there is more to it than that.

Schumer's Ties to Rival Ports Firm?

Chicken Hawk Express has dug deep and learned that a rival firm, Eller & Co. with competing facilities in Miami was instrumental in creating the furor with the help of Senator Chuck Schumer (Defeaticrat-NY). In posts here and here Chicken Hawk Express describes the tactics that Eller and Co. used to gain leverage over Dubai Ports World.

There have even been reports that Eller was hoping to buy DP World's stake in American Ports at firesale prices.

So our Republican friends fell right into the lap of Senator Schumer and his big money friends at Eller & Co. Will the next campaign finance report reveal contributions to Schumer from Eller executives?

As Flopping Aces suggested on February 23, something really "smells" here.

Bacon Bits Chastises GOP

It's clear that Republican squeamishness over the Dubai ports deal has damaged our chances in the all important battle for Congress in 2006. Bacon Bits touches on that subject today citing the concerns of Jack Kemp and another opinion leader that readers may find familiar:

Conservatives should be proactive, rather than reactive. We've got the brains and presumably that means conservative politicians do too, even in an election year. If their GOP constituents were flying off the handle irrationally about DP World in reaction to the liberal hype, said politicians should have worked to educate the body politic and in so doing, expose Democrat demagoguery with simple facts (as one always can), rather than fall prey to the pathetic one-upmanship game. No one wins with that kind of stupid politics as was on display a few weeks ago.

The Bush Administration is guilty as well, for not getting in front of this issue long ago when they had the chance. Just.Dumb.Politics. With potential serious repercussions, as we might find it harder than ever to cultivate, let alone keep, essential Arab alliances in the Middle East against the forces of Islamofascist jihad.

Kemp's column reminds me once again of one of the most important conservative political posts I've read recently. Mike at Mike's America is one of the lone voices in the wilderness, shouting out that we should not foresake the forest for the trees, especially now. Mike covers some valuable history as relates to pre-WW II and segues into the present day in expert fashion. (He's a political operative, after all, and has exceptional vision on these things.)

Aw shucks! It's one thing to have "vision" and quite another to convince others how "exceptional" it is.

Why Feingold's Censure Agenda Scares Democrats

Here at Mike's America it's no secret that Democrats have offered nothing but unrelenting Bush hate during a time when our nation is at war. Truly life and death issues face Americans every day and all we get from the opposition party is Bush hate.

But it seems there are a few folks out there who haven't heard, so we are thankful for Senator Feingold's (Defeaticrat-WI) recent move to censure President Bush for keeping America safe.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Impeachment Agenda

Russ Feingold reveals what many Democrats really want.

Republicans are denouncing Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to "censure" President Bush for his warrantless wiretaps on al Qaeda, but we'd like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor. He's had the courage to put on the table what Democrats are all but certain to do if they win either the House or Senate in November.

In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. Whether such an inevitable attempt succeeds would depend on Mr. Bush's approval rating, and especially on whether Democrats could use their subpoena power as committee chairs to conjure up something they could flog to a receptive media as an "impeachable" offense. But everyone should understand that censure and impeachment are important--and so far the only--parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress.

And not just the loony left either, though it's getting harder to distinguish them from the mainstream variety. Mr. Feingold is hardly some Internet crank. He's a third-term Senator from a swing state who has all but announced his intention to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. He was the first major Democrat to call for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, and half his party was soon demanding the same.

As a legal matter, Mr. Feingold's censure proposal is preposterous. The National Security Agency wiretaps were disclosed to Congressional leaders, including Democrats, from the start. The lead FISA court judges were also informed, and the Attorney General and Justice lawyers have monitored the wiretaps all along. Despite a media drumbeat about "illegal domestic eavesdropping," Mr. Bush's spirited defense of the program since news of it leaked has swung public opinion in support.

But as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they're living in some new dictatorship. Liberal journals solemnly debate impeachment, and political-action groups have formed to promote it. One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.

When the fever gets this hot in supposedly mainstream forums, Mr. Feingold is right to conclude that the facts behind any censure or impeachment motion won't really matter. All that will count is the politics, which means it will come down to a question of votes in Congress. And several leading Democrats have already raised the "impeachment" card.

California Senator Barbara Boxer loudly wrote four legal scholars late last year asking if the NSA wiretaps were impeachable. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced a resolution calling for the creation of a "select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

In other words, everything that Mr. Bush has been accused of during the last five years, no matter how Orwellian or thoroughly refuted, will be trotted out again and used as impeachment fodder. And lest you think this could never happen, Judiciary is the House committee through which any formal impeachment resolution would be introduced and proceed. As the country heads toward 2008 and a Democratic nomination fight, John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton would be hard-pressed to avoid going along with Mr. Feingold, Al Gore, and others feeding the bile of the censure/impeach brigades.

Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold's public service in floating his "censure" gambit now. He's doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.

Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let's have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what's really at stake.

And the minute Democrat-Defeaticrats take control of either body, you can bet that right after impeaching President Bush, they will handcuff the folks who have worked so hard to keep us safe the last five years and wave the white flag of surrender and dhimmitude faster than you can say "Patriot Act."

Winning is Not Easy, Just Absolutely Necessary

History repeats itself!

Doom and Gloom at the End of World War II. The cover of Life Magazine from January 7, 1946 (feature article here). Winston Churchill paints after being turned out of office while Europe was in chaos.

The mainstream media at the time reported doom and gloom. Where was our plan for victory? History repeats itself today in Iraq where our slow, steady, measurable progress is met with "but, but, but" from the same people who are desperate to escape accountability for never having any practical, effective solutions of their own on how to solve the immense problems we confront in geopolitics.

It took fifty years to clean up the mess after World War II. Would the naysayers say we shouldn't have bothered? Had we followed their lead, everyone in Europe, or at least the few permitted to survive the Holocaust, would either be speaking Russian or German.

Today, Germany, Japan and Italy are our allies in an international system that promotes economic prosperity, freedom and peace. Even Russia has changed from being an implacable foe to being more of an occasional nuisance.

The naysayers would have told us that none of that was possible. Or that somehow, they would have done it "better." Though if you look back at the last time they had the chance to do it "better" you will realize they handed North Korea the ability to make the nuclear weapons that currently threaten peace in Asia.

Jump forward to today where an unrelenting focus on what is not going right undermines the efforts to promote policies that history has shown to be successful. Those policies represent the best practical, effective and workable, though difficult, way forward in dangerous times.

Yet the naysayers continue. Never recognizing progress, only trumpeting failure and shortcoming. And still, they offer no real alternative, just a suggestion that somehow, they would do it "better." When pressed, that "better" they claim to represent is little more than a rehash of the current Bush policy which they oppose.

Take for example ex-presidential candidate John Kerry's "global test" and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright's recent admonishment to President Bush that we are losing our allies. Well guess those folks didn't see the news that both Canada and Germany recently elected more pro-American (read PRO-BUSH) governments and the recent diplomatic successes of President Bush's trip to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. No doubt they ignored the re-election of pro-Bush Prime Minister Howard of Australia too.

When there is hard work to be done, it's "better" to stick with the people whose success is proven rather than those who can only say "no."

A Former Muslim Woman: Islam is Beyond Repair!

The Los Angeles Times (go figure) has this astounding story of an Arab-American woman, Wafa Sultan. She was born a Muslim in Syria and witnessed the murder of one of her professors at the hands of Muslim extremists. It was that moment that brought her to reject Islam as a religion of peace.

You will want to read more about her story in the LA Times. But what really caught my attention was the interview she gave, in ARABIC to AL JAZEERA.

Sadly, much of what this remarkable woman has to say is being ignored by Muslims. Perhaps they are just too busy feigning outrage over cartoons.

Transcript from the Middle East Media Research Center:

2/21/2006 Clip No. 1050

Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan: There Is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006.

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
[...]
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

President Bush Gives Iraq Status Report

President Bush addressed the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. on Monday. It's a new series of speeches designed to refocus the American people on our progress in Iraq. As you likely will not get more than a quick soundbite from the lamestream media, I post more extensive excerpts. From a White House transcript:

...The work ahead in Iraq is hard -- and there will be more difficult moments. The Samarra attack was a clear attempt to ignite a civil war. And we can expect the enemy will try again -- and they will continue to sow violence and destruction designed to stop the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq.

The enemies of a free Iraq are determined -- yet so are the Iraqi people. And so are America and coalition partners. We will not lose our nerve. We will help the Iraqi people succeed. Our goal in Iraq is victory -- and victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.
...
At the end of last year, I described in detail many of the changes we have made to improve the training of Iraqi security forces -- and we saw the fruits of those changes in recent days in Iraq. After the Samarra bombings, it was the Iraqi security forces -- not coalition forces -- that restored order.
...
Having Iraqi forces in the lead has been critical to preventing violence from spinning out of control.
...
Today, Iraqi units have primary responsibility for more than 30,000 square miles of Iraq -- an increase of roughly 20,000 square miles since the beginning of the year. And Iraqi forces are now conducting more independent operations throughout the country than do coalition forces.
...
These terrorists know they cannot defeat us militarily -- so they have turned to the weapon of fear. And one of the most brutal weapons at their disposal are improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

IEDs are bombs made from artillery shells, explosives, and other munitions that can be hidden and detonated remotely
...
Because the Iraqi people are the targets, primarily the targets of the bombers, Iraqis are increasingly providing critical intelligence to help us find the bomb-makers and stop new attacks. The number of tips from Iraqis has grown from 400 last March to over 4,000 in December. For example, just three weeks ago, acting on tips provided by local citizens, coalition forces uncovered a massive IED arsenal hidden in a location northwest of Baghdad. They found and confiscated more than 3,000 pieces of munitions -- in one of the largest weapons caches discovered in that region to date. Just two weeks ago, acting on intelligence from Iraqis, coalition forces uncovered a bomb-making facility northeast of Fallujah. They captured 61 terrorists at the facility and confiscated large numbers of weapons.

In all, during the past six months, Iraqi and coalition forces have found and cleared nearly 4,000 IEDs, uncovered more than 1,800 weapons caches and bomb-making plants, and killed or detained hundreds of terrorists and bomb-makers.
...
Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti-IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication -- using details from that article -- the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet. We cannot let the enemy know how we're working to defeat him. But I can assure the American people that my administration is working to put the best technology in the hands of our men and women on the front lines -- and we are mobilizing resources against the IED threat.
...
Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devises" in Iraq. Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions -- along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons -- are increasingly isolating Iran, and America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.
...
We still have difficult work ahead in Iraq. I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that the road ahead will be smooth. It will not. There will be more tough fighting and more days of struggle -- and we will see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to come. The terrorists are losing on the field of battle, so they are fighting this war through the pictures we see on television and in the newspapers every day. They're hoping to shake our resolve and force us to retreat. They are not going to succeed. (Applause.)

The battle lines in Iraq are clearly drawn for the world to see, and there is no middle ground. The enemy will emerge from Iraq one of two ways: emboldened or defeated.
...
Since the morning of September the 11th, we have known that the war on terror would require great sacrifice -- and in this war we have said farewell to some very good men and women. One of those courageous Americans was Sergeant William Scott Kinzer, Jr., who was killed last year by the terrorists while securing polling sites for the Iraqi elections. His mom, Debbie, wrote me a letter. She said: "These words are straight from a shattered but healing mother's heart. ... My son made the decision to join the Army. He believed that what he was involved in would eventually change Iraq and that those changes would be recorded in history books for years to come. ... On his last visit home... I asked him what I would ever do if something happened to him in Iraq. He smiled at me with -- his blue eyes sparkled, as he said, 'Mom, I love my job...If I should die I would die happy, does life get any better than this?'" His mom went on: "Please do not let the voices we hear the loudest change what you and Scott started in Iraq. Please do not... let his dying be in vain. ... Don't let my son have given his all for an unfinished job. ... Please...complete the mission."

I make this promise to Debbie, and all the families of the fallen heroes: We will not let your loved ones dying be in vain. We will finish what we started in Iraq. We will complete the mission. We will leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. (Applause.) And a free Iraq, in the heart of the Middle East, will make the American people more secure for generations to come.

May God bless the families of the fallen. May God bless our troops in the fight. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Dim Dems Response

Senate MINORITY Leader Harry "Clan of Corruption" Reid wasted no time in trashing this progress report: ""I would rather that he had spent his time focusing on how to form a government in Iraq. That is what is badly needed," Reid said.

Notice ole Harry didn't say anything about how the President should be spending his time to make sure the American people have jobs? By now, even ole Har has heard the news that FIVE MILLION NEWS JOBS have been created since August, 2003.

Poor ole Har... FIVE MILLION NEW JOBS and we are winning in Iraq!

Democrats Revert to Anti-Victory Strategy

You wondered what the next media generated anti-Bush hysteria would be? Here goes:

After two weeks of claiming that we couldn't take the risk by allowing the leases of a handful of terminals at six ports to be owned by Arabs, Democrats have reverted to form with Senator Russ Feingold taking the lead.

Feingold is feeding the moonbat base of the Democrat Party by proposing a censure of President Bush for his actions to monitor the overseas phone calls of Al Queda contacts in the United States.

That's right. We couldn't take the risk that one of our allies would be involved in one of our ports, but we sure don't want to spy on the phone calls of Al Queda cells already in the U.S.

Does it get confusing? Not really. Just keep in mind that whatever President Bush is FOR, these folks are AGAINST.

And I strongly encourage my conservative friends to avoid being manipulated by these charlatans in future.

Mad Ahmadinejad Hastening Armageddon?

Ever wonder why the lunatic in Iran, President Amadjihad (my name for him) behaves the way he does? We touched on the subject in an update at the end of this post on "Dude: Where's My Civil War."

Iranian President Amadjihad believes in the return of the 12th, or hidden Imam, a five year old who disappeared from Samara in Iraq (where the Golden Mosque was bombed a few weeks back). This blessed event occurred in the ninth century and they've been pasting his photo on goat's milk cartons ever since.

The return of this child is akin to the second coming of Christ in the Christian religion, and accompanied by war, pestilence and chaos. The Washington Times has a good overview here.

Is Amadjihad really counting down the next two years until the return of the 12th Imam? Looks pretty likely to me that he is.

Well, it's Monday and too early in the week to deal with Armageddon, so let's just make fun of the lunatic Amadjihad

Crazy Claus is Coming to Town.

Since we can't nuke these crazies and send them to their reward of 72 raisins just yet, let's pass the time by doing the next best thing: MAKE FUN OF THE NUTBAGS!

And who better to help us do that than our friends at The People's Cube. If you haven't dropped in at The Cube lately, it's worth a visit. There's a great St. Patrick's Day bit about drinking like Ted Kennedy and another great spoof: Muslims protesting that other nut, the Colorado teacher Bennish for insulting Hitler.

But the purpose of my visit today was the Amadjihad and his vision of Armageddon, which the folks at The Cube poke fun at with "Twelfth Imam is Coming To Town." Playing in the background is the catchy tune "Santa Claus is coming to town" with the new Muslim approved wording, which I excerpt below:

You have no clout

You better not spy

You better watch out, I'm telling you why.

Twelfth Imam is coming to town

H-Bomb is on list

I'll use more than twice

Good Muslims who die Will go to paradise

Twelfth Imam is coming to town

He knows if you're a Christian

He knows if you're a Jew

He knows if you're an in-fi-del

He's told me what to do

...

That's right folks, only two years shopping left before the action begins, so stock up on iodine pills and geiger counter stocking stuffers now.

Perhaps we could give ole Amadjihad a hand in preparing for the holiday by revising a few other infidel songs like "The Twelve Days of Christmas."

I'll start off, and invite readers to finish:

When the 12th Imam returned, my true love gave to me...