Joel Henry Hinrichs, III was unsuccessful at blowing up a football stadium packed with innocent Oklahoma University students, so he settled by blowing himself up. Now he has a “memorial paver”, which at first was reported to be paid for by the University, but later reports say the father paid $150.00 for the memorial stone. However, Hinrichs father said, “”They never sent me any indication of cost…” … OU offered to place the stone and never billed him.

University of Oklahoma President David L. Boren said:

“We need to encourage understanding and compassion in our society instead of more anger and intolerance based upon misinformation,” Boren said. “What kind of people would we be if we refused to allow a grieving family the right to remember their deceased son or brother? Of course, if there had been any evidence that he was attempting to harm others our decision would have been different, but there was none.”

No evidence??? Really.

There are far too many unanswered questions about this case like: TATP, the attempted purchase of 22 bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, a large cache of explosives found in his apartment, 2 years unaccounted for after dropping out at OU in 2002 only to re-enter in 2005, his muslim roommate, etc….. (Tulsa Chigger)

See the chronological order of events pertaining to Hinrich here.
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

If you ask someone whether he wants American troops out of Iraq within a year or two, the answer is likely to be “yes.” Indeed, I would give that answer as well.

The question of whether most Americans want out of Iraq is not marginal as no sane person likes war and the idea of killing. However, at what point would the American people support withdrawal? Would the American people support a withdrawal even if doing so meant the US would have to accept defeat?

This certainly would lead to the total radicalization of the entire Middle East including moderate Arab countries like Jordan and Egypt plus the reestablishment of Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The ‘Surrender-crats’ have claimed a mandate from the 2006 Election results for immediate withdrawal but I haven’t seen any polls or other evidence to substantiate this.

Here are the numbers from the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives….

Public Opposes Immediate Troop Withdrawal

Low Support for Immediate Pullout
According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).

CBS News’ survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).

57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people” (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).

Americans Believe Immediate Retreat Leads to Bad Consequences
A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable” (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).

70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).

Majority Supports Funding War, Troops
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

If I were to put on my mainstream media hat I would write an article about Iraq under the current title. It is the only article I would write, repeatedly and with context; the kind of context that supports my title. Nothing more, nothing less.

Every now and then I would reluctantly slip in an article about the good merely to present the facade of balance. But that would be rare.

To be sure, the war in Iraq brings little in the form of good news by our standards. But the war in Iraq is not about everyday standards in the United States, a normal life where one doesn’t fear being hunted down for having the wrong political opinion, a normal day in school where desks are not used for shields or the prospect of taking a stroll to the market and actually making it back home alive to enjoy dinner. That is the story of hope. It is supposed to be the story of Iraq after we have liberated the country from the grip of terror. For millions in pre-war Iraq it was the story of hope before we removed the iron fisted rule of Saddam Hussein.

Today’s good news has to be measured in degrees of evil. Killings are down, some members of a family are spared instead of all being slain or a suicide bomber only managed to blow himself up or killed fewer innocent people than he had hoped.

So as you see hope is the key to everything here. It dictates expectations, helps us measure progress and provides the basis for how we report the news. If I hope things will get better I will look for stories that will indicate the possibility. If however I hope for failure to prove a point such as opposition to the war, then well, you know, I will obscure signs of progress and only look for signs that show hopelessness.

Democrats in Congress and their supporters in the mainstream media fall into that second category. I don’t believe they actually hoped for failure so much as they hoped to be able to craft a message. A safe bet that could be cashed in no matter which way their supporters leaned. Thus the original vote to support the war in Iraq was based on the appearance of hope that quickly transformed down a path of angst, to anger, to blame and hopelessness. This is the bad and ugly reality of political expediency that would never settle for victory once a stance had been taken in opposition.
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (1 Comment)

In true Illinois and Cook County tradition Bradley Stephens, Rosemont, IL trustee will be named to fulfill the remainder of his father’s term as Mayor of the Chicago suburb. Donald Stephens the first and only Mayor of Rosemont passed away on April 18th after battling stomach cancer.

In what has become a disturbing reality in Chicago and the surrounding areas we have seen a spate of hereditary successions to political office. Whether it be by death, illness, resignation or retirement the elected officials of the area seem to think political office is the family business and the offices within are for them to bestow upon family as they see fit.

This is an area that has seen Todd Stroger succeed his incapacitated father as head of the Cook County board, though wholly unqualified. Dan Lipinski stepped in to fill his father’s congressional seat after a post primary late withdrawal in the 2004 race, and interim President Bobbie Steele passed his county board seat to her son. These are but a few among many cases and it is no surprise, though one does weary of the practice. My proximity to my father did not make me a great die maker and neither does it make these beneficiaries of nepotism good representatives of their constituency. Often their prior public service is pointed out as a qualification but frequently that public service was a result of familial machinations more than any type of qualification. In Illinois this seems to cut across party lines (as if we really had anything resembling an option), as both sides have taken advantage of their power to enrich their progeny or other relatives. This is often done at the expense of the governed.

Stephens tenure saw the tiny Village of Rosemont grow to become a convention and entertainment powerhouse in the Chicago area. While the municipality benefits from excellent geographical location its growth was shepherded by the elder Stephens during his 51 year tenure and for that he deserves praise, but no such accolades should be given to the son who apparently is a winner in the lucky gene club.

It is about time we start looking at qualification over family connection and substance over a particular surname. Otherwise we need not bother going to the polls and instead can watch the birth announcements and society pages to determine our representation. We have a voice and we need to start using it at the ballot box lest we lose it forever.

[Discuss over at the Republic...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

In an article about the Democratic debate of last week Hussein Obama indicated he was a bit nervous and that is why he had a few missteps. The author reports on an answer he gave about what to do if America were attacked (the answer was abysmal) and then contrasted that with Hillary Rodham’s response:

Contrast that with the reply from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) — her best during the 90-minute debate. “Retaliate,” she said. “Focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.” Sun Times

It would appear that when it comes to a Hillary Rodham presidency it is perfectly OK to find who attacked us and “Retaliate” and “destroy” them. She is super critical of the war on terror in Iraq and the job in Afghanistan. She will not appease her base and apologize for her vote to authorize war but criticizes President Bush for using the authorization she gave to prosecute it. She can claim we were lied to but if that is the case the lies started when the string of Democrats lamented about all the WMD Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) possessed.

I believe it was Dick Morris who told us Hillary would drop her last name and go with Rodham in order to show she is her own woman. Given that she is getting more of a fight than she expected from Hussein Obama it appears that she has decided to drop Rodham and keep Clinton in order to profit from the love the Democrats have for her degenerate husband. When asked about this name change Hillary had this to say:

Clinton appeared surprised last week when asked why her presidential campaign had dropped her maiden name. Clinton laughed, shook her head and replied: “I haven’t, I haven’t,” before dashing off. brisbane times

As a typical Democrat she has no courage of her convictions. There is no way in hell anyone decided to do this without her knowledge and blessing. She would have people drawn, hanged, and quartered if they took it upon themselves to do something this substantial without her approval. She knew, she did it and she lied about it.

Jack Murtha is a disgrace to this country. He tried to illegally take $50,000 from someone he thought was bribing him and was able to beat the charges by testifying against the others who were involved. Now he touts himself as some sort of moral authority. Murtha also thinks that he is the voice of America. Unfortunately, he is not very bright and for a guy who spent his life living off the government he is unaware of how things work. Here is a bit from the weekend:

“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Politico

Impeachment is a tool used when (in this case) a President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not a tool that is used to influence a President. The threat of a veto over ride or the threat of not approving a nomination are methods to influence a President. Impeachment is a legal proceeding that involves a crime. Once again Jack Murtha shows the world he is a blithering idiot. In his world you should say “we want the President to pass an increased minimum wage. Tell him if he vetoes it we will impeach him.” Jackass.

Stay tuned, it will get a lot more fun.

[Discuss this post over at the Big Dog's...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

I was feeling a little frivolous and cheeky over the weekend, and wrote an article for American Thinker. Here’s the start:

It was only a matter of time before Democratic politicians (as opposed to just late night talk show hosts) began commenting on the fact that the leading Republican candidates have an awful lot of ex-wives floating around. Although he’s carefully vague, one has to assume that, when Howard Dean said of Rudy Giuliani that “His personal life is a serious problem for him,” he was talking about Giuliani’s two ex-wives (not to mention his sordid divorce so that he could marry his current wife), his third wife’s ex-husbands, and his son’s disdain for the whole marriage-go-round.

Many of the other Republican candidates don’t look so good either when it comes to managing their private lives. John McCain is on wife number two and may have started his relationship with her while still married to wife number one (although since his first wife and children have forgiven him, surely we should too). Fred Thompson is likewise on wife number two, and many people will either be envious of or put off by the fact that his second wife is significantly younger than he is. Newt Gingrich also boasts a spotty marital history, marred by the popular (but untrue) belief that he served divorce papers on his first wife while she was hospitalized for cancer treatments. And as with Thompson, Gingrich’s current wife (his third) is a much younger woman. Of the leading names on the Republican side, only Mitt Romney has a clean marital record, having been married to the same woman for 38 years (a commitment that may well have been helped by the fact that, just as he is an extremely handsome man, so too is his wife a very beautiful woman).

In striking contrast to the Republicans, the Democratic frontrunners can boast that they have many fewer marriages between them. Hillary Clinton’s marriage, despite its manifest peculiarities, has lasted 32 years. One can wonder what kept her with a compulsive womanizer for so long, but the fact is that she took her marriage vows seriously, and she and Bill are still together. Barack Obama also has a good track record (aided perhaps by the fact that he’s younger than the other candidates, so hasn’t had as much time to get into trouble). He and his wife have been together 15 years. John Edwards, he of the beautiful hair, has beenmarried to Elizabeth for 30 years. Al Gore and Tipper have been married 37 years.

Usually, when faced with these numbers (both years of marriage and number of spouses), the discussion wanders off into rants about hypocrisy. As in “It’s hypocritical for conservatives to divorce.” Or, “It’s hypocritical for a feminist such as Hillary to put up with a rampant womanizer.” As for the first argument, I don’t know that any of these much-married conservative candidates have ever advocated the end of divorce, and I’m sure all would agree, with themselves as terrible examples, that stable family relationships are good things. As for the second argument, Hillary’s private decisions about love, family and (one assumes) political expediency are hers alone, and should not be used against her in a hypocrisy argument. As the Victorians used to say, “Who knows the mysteries of the human heart?”

I actually would approach this whole marriage thing another way, and (unsurprisingly to those who know my biases) it’s a way that favors the Democrats as spouses, and the Republicans as leaders.

The rest is here.

[Discuss this post over at the Bookworm Room...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

We were watching a show on the 1960s the other day, which brought back to me vivid memories of San Francisco’s Summer of Love in 1967. I was only a child then, in a very traditional home, but you couldn’t be a child in the City without being aware of the vast societal upheaval going on.

Mr. Bookworm asked the children what they thought today’s big issues were. Each, without any thought, piped up “global warming.” They couldn’t think of any other issue and refused at first even to consider the War in Iraq as something that , in future, might matter from a historical perspective.

I can’t blame the children. Outside of strictly academic worksheets (reading, writing & arithmetic), at least 30% of the handouts they bring home from school hammer home environmental issues. I’m certain, therefore, that my very worried children would be relieved to know that the UN is coming up with a plan to fix it all. I’m one of those who believes that the sun might actually be somewhat involved in the global warming trend, but I rather doubt the ultimate UN plan will propose something useful like attaching large jet propulsion systems to the earth to push us a little further away from our beloved big star.

There is, however, a simpler proposal than removing us from the sun’s harmful emissions: everybody should stop drinking coffee. Turns out that fresh roasted coffee is a big CO2 off-gaser. This probably didn’t matter a few decades ago, when Sanka was the drink of choice. But now, with more than 13,000 Starbucks worldwide, there’s no doubt in my mind that something has to be done.

[Discuss this post over at the Bookworm Room...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

It appears to me, as it does to the other bloggers listed in this post, that Israel and her leaders have some soul searching to do. But who am I, an American, to point any fingers? America’s leaders need to do some soul searching of their own.

Time For Olmert to act like a Hero, says Yid With Lid

Olmert must do what Goldwater told Nixon to do a third of a century ago, show how that he loved his country more than spitting the country by trying to hold on to his office. It is time for him to act like a hero for once and resign.

War is coming. Is Israel ready? Asks the Gentile Warrior and Dhimmitude News Network

Movement in the north and continuous agitation in the south. Awhile back I penned a piece explaining the strategy that I saw taking place against Israel. It included the actions of Mahmoud Ahmadinjad, Bashir Assad, Hassan Narallah and Hizbollah, and Khalid Mashaal and Hamas. This report in the Jerusalem Post appears to add credence to my speculation.

Hizbullah is trying to cross over the Litani River and into southern Lebanon, despite being banned from such action by UN Resolution 1701, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said during Sunday’s cabinet meeting.

Abbas’ Fatah Group Is Preparing Martyrs, The American Israeli Patriot

A group affiliated with Fatah has launched its “Summer Storm” campaign against Israel. The Palestinian daily Ma’an reports;

The Fatah-affiliated, Group of the Martyr Ayman Jouda, on Sunday declared that it has launched what it called the ‘Summer Storm’ campaign, to confront the Israeli attacks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Last Amazon:

At some point you would assume the Israeli Kadima government would wake-up and realize that you just cannot keep issuing the same old threats and think anyone or even their grandmother will take your threats seriously. Ynet News December 21, 2006:

Associates of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stressed before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Thursday that Israel’s restraint policy in the face of Qassam attacks will not last long. [snip]

Ynet News April 29, 2007:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted Sunday that Israel would launch military operations against gunmen in the Gaza Strip if rocket attacks persisted. [snip]

I am having real issues seeing the Olmert/Kadima drawn line in the sand - even with my reading glasses on. And if I am having problems; how much do you want to bet the Palestinian Authority cannot see the line either?

Palestinian plan to pay part wages draws union fire

JERUSALEM, April 28 (Reuters) - Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad plans to start paying partial salaries to government workers at the start of each month, a step union leaders said on Saturday fell short of the unity government’s promises.

Government employees’ union chief Bassam Zakarneh threatened a new round of work stoppages, starting with a one-day “warning” strike on Wednesday, to demand full wages and back pay.

IDF Chief of Staff: Ground Offensive into Gaza is Needed, by Hillel Fendel, also found at Yoni The Blogger

(IsraelNN.com) IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi says the only way to stop the Palestinian terrorists from firing Kassam rockets from Gaza into Israel is via an IDF ground operation. He said this to the Cabinet ministers at today’s weekly Cabinet meeting (Sunday).

“Our helicopters and mortar fire can reduce the Kassam rocket firings,” Ashkenazi said, “but cannot prevent them completely.”

[Discuss this post over at the Right Truth...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Hillary Rotten Clinton has been on the campaign trail for some time now and she is hitting it particularly hard now that Obama has passed her in the popularity polls. This makes me wonder how effective she or any of the others are at doing the jobs they were elected to do given that they are not around enough to read legislation before voting. How can they possibly take informed decisions. I imagine they miss few if any votes since John Kerry got hammered for his dismal attendance in the Senate when votes were cast. Hillary has trotted out the idea that she would use hubby Bill in her administration and the word is that her daughter will soon be on the campaign trail. Mommy dearest appears to be in a bit of trouble so it is time for America’s dysfunctional family to band together. I think Chelsea will stay at her cushy 6 figure job daddy and mommy secured for her, at least until it is her turn to run for office.

Hillary was out doing her Bush bashing again. She offers little in the way of substance but is long on name calling and blaming. I don’t mind so much that she calls Bush on what she thinks is wrong but the way she equates acts of his to tragedy and gives Bill a pass for the terrible job he did is beyond the pale. Here are two things that Hillary said in her hoarse voice (no word on whether it was her regular irritating voice or the southern irritating voice that was hoarse):

The New York senator also promised to “treat all Americans with dignity and equality no matter who you are and who you love.” The pledge was clear bow to California’s politically active and influential gay community.

~snip~

Taking on Bush’s policies, Clinton contended the president has ignored scientific evidence on global warming and stem cell research while also dismissing the concerns of the middle class.

~snip~

That speech, Clinton said, was “one of the most shameful episodes in American history. … The only mission he accomplished was the re-election of Republicans.” My Way News

Interesting that she will treat everyone with dignity and equality, except for the current President who she calls names and accuses of being a liar. I can’t see how she can accuse Bush of being a liar and keep a straight face. She says Bush lied but her husband was caught in a number of lies including the famous one he told on TV to millions of people. Seems that is OK in her book. This woman does not treat President Bush with any kind of respect that is due him and she does not treat him with dignity. I realize that her message about who you love and all that was directed toward the queer base homosexual community (you know that liberal thing about love the one you’re with) but everyone means everyone including the President. Ask the Secret Service guys who she called fu**ers and ask some of the others who have crossed her and see how much dignity they were treated with.

Now Hillary says Bush has ignored scientific evidence on global warming and stem cell research. That is a blatant lie. President Bush has ignored the scientific evidence that she and the rest of the moonbats go by. Bush has not ignored scientific evidence from reputable scientists who happen to disagree with the global warming crowd. The difference is that Bush does not call the GW followers names because they believe in that theory. It would be nice if they offered the same courtesy. There are as many or more scientists who refute GW as there are who espouse it. Sure we can have debate but this is not a solved issue as the left would have you believe. They just came out and said it is true so do this. That is not going to happen. As far as stem cell research, the evidence shows adult stem cells have been more effective. If they can find a way to harvest embryonic stem cells without killing the baby then OK, otherwise it is a no go. I don’t expect people who espouse delivering a baby to the very end of the birth canal and then killing it to understand this at all.

As for the Mission Accomplished speech. The major combat operations were completed, we removed what they had of a military and the mission of the ship and its crew was over. Sure we have had fights since that time . Was it the smartest thing to say? Probably not because most people, especially liberals, do not have the intelligence to grasp the bigger picture as evidenced by Queen Hillary’s remarks. Now as to the one of the most shameful episodes part, it is not even in my top 5. Since 1970 or so how about Watergate, Jimmy Carter and Iran, Bill Clinton and the Cole, Bill Clinton and the first WTC attack, and Bill Clinton and the stained dress (talk about not accomplishing a mission), Bill Clinton and lying about the stained dress, Bill Clinton being impeached, Bill Clinton and the Khobar Towers, Bill Clinton and the retreat from Somalia after the Blackhawk down incident, and Bill Clinton and [fill in any of the names of the numerous women he raped or had sex with]. You can deny these but most of those cited for Clinton involve terror that led to 9/11 and no matter how you spin it, applying the same standards Democrats apply to 9/11, they happened on his watch.

Hillary, if you ever want to debate these issues you let me know darlin’ (a little southern talk fer ya) and I will be happy to do so. Keep in mind that I do not mind slam dunking you with personal issues and items that your fellow candidates tip-toe around. I will be happy to embarrass you by hounding you about those mysterious law firm billing records that magically showed up a few days after the statute of limitations and in the same box you had carried everywhere for years. Yeah sugah (more southern fer ya) it would be fun for me, not so much for you.

Of course, I might have to move to a concealed carry state afterwards. People who cross you and hubby seem to die in rather strange circumstances.

Oh, one more thing. Could someone tell this idiot that George Bush is not running again. She should be discussing the differences among those who can actually run for office. Running against Bush means she is running from the issues.

[Discuss This Article With Big Dog]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

It is hard to fathom the views of Norman Finkelstein as credible. One must wonder does he hate his own people? He finds Jimmy Carter’s anti-Semitic book, “Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid” not controversial.

The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein spoke before a crowd of over 100 in the Rappaporte Treasure Hall Tuesday and lead a three-hour lecture discussing Israel’s human rights record, alleged exaggeration of the Holocaust to exonerate Israeli policies, as well as touching upon his long-time feud with Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Finkelstein says, “Dissent is tied to justice, justice tied to dignity,” said Harvard Professor Sarah Roy, who introduced Finkelstein. “Today, there is a war against dissent… our right to oppose has been stigmatized and devalued.” She also claimed that Finkelstein cut through “the artificial web of complexity” surrounding the Middle East Conflict.

“I’m being cast as a martyr these last few weeks,” said Finkelstein of his recent battles at DePaul to earn tenure. “Two thousand years ago, another Jew tried that with mixed results.” Describing former President Jimmy Carter’s controversial book Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid, Finkelstein said that “the actual content of the book… was remarkably uncontroversial… one might even call it tepid.” Instead, Finkelstein said, “what’s most striking is how uncontroversial this is, yet there is so much controversy when you bring it into a public forum.”

He also says this regarding the Middle East conflict, “is contrived, is fabricated, is conjured up.” Stating the World Court’s 2004 14-1 decision for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, Finkelstein said “it’s illegal to obtain territory through war… ‘disputed territories?’ Not so, says the World Court… it’s illegal under international law.”

His view on the Holocaust, “the second fake controversy is playing ‘the Holocaust card’…if you can claim that Jews have suffered uniquely, you do not have to hold them to a universal standard.” He said “every time Israel comes under international pressure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem diplomatically…there is a new claim of a ‘new’ anti-Semitism.”

I wrote two in depth articles regarding former U.S. President Jimmy Carter^[1] and Alan Dershowitz^[2] . My view of Finkelstein is that he is sick, depraved, and like Carter seeking five minutes of fame at the expense of Israel and her people.

[Discuss This Article With Layla Gonzales]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)