The Orange County California Newspaper

This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. Not printed in the Orange County Paper. Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace. 

From: 'David LaBonte' 

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print' it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register: 

Dear Editor: 
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry. 

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. 

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. 

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, and Japan.  None of these first generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America’s one people. 

When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking for the French-American or the German- American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl. 

And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags. 

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of  Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill.  I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet. 

(signed) Rosemary LaBonte 

KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET.  LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN.

As with all things published and forwarded in cyberspace, I wanted to verify the validity of the story. In other words, were the contents of this email an actual OCR rejected opinion? So I went to “Snopes” to find out. FALSE says Snopes in bright red letters. You have to read this to believe it.

I was amazed to learn that the story wasn’t false at all; it was very true. This letter was submitted and subsequently rejected by the OCR. As I continued to read, it became apparent that the Snopes “investigator” didn’t dispute the facts surrounding the story, rather they disagreed with Ms. LaBonte’s premise and began spinning their own rebuttal to the unpublished essay.

I went back to the beginning of the Snopes article and there it was under the “claim”. Something to the affect that Ms. LaBonte’s letter to the editor failed to accurately contrast and compare immigrants from different eras…which the Snopes author was kind enough to rectify by giving us the “true” version.

When Snopes should have been verifying the authenticity of the facts surrounding the letter, they instead created their own myth, and then injected personal subjective bias and announced “False!” Case closed.

I learned a valuable lesson today. Snopes does not fact check, it evaluates the “truth” in light of its own subjective bias. If you’re looking for the liberal translation of truth, by all means use Snopes. If you need to verify facts, go somewhere else.

I’ve been a fan for years. “Culture Warrior” was spot-on and still applicable today. But lately I think you’re off the mark concerning Obama’s critics.

You dismiss anyone advocating Obama’s failure as an idealogue. 

Do you want him to succeed in expanding government into the private sector and implementing a far left agenda that, no matter how you spin it, is progression toward socialism? Obama’s success equals the end of traditional America…as written by Bill O’Reilly.

I don’t give a squat what brand of politics Obama or anyone else wears.  I’ll stand against Rep, Dem, or Ind alike if they, by their actions and rhetoric take this country towards socialism.

You don’t owe Helen Thomas an apology, but one should be forthcoming to all “idealogues” standing between Obama and the social abyss.

Regards

This is my winded response to another well written and researched essay by Dan@Minuteman1: THE UN MAY SOON BE IN CHARGE OF OUR KIDS  http://minuteman1blog.blogtownhall.com/

Limiting parental rights in favor of governmental control brings to mind past regimes that used the young to advance their agendas.  

There’s a similar youth group very active in American politics; the Young Democratic Socialist (YDS). Their stated mission:

“YDS is the only US affiliate of the International Union of Socialist Youth (IUSY). IUSY is the largest political youth organization in the world. Internationalism is an important part of the socialist tradition, and YDS takes global solidarity very seriously.”

“IUSY is a diverse coalition, with members ranging from the ANC Youth League in South Africa, to the Sandinista Youth of Nicaragua, to the Swedish Social Democratic Youth. While we are one of the smallest organizations in our international, we are very active at the intentional level, working on common days of action, campaigns and hosting IUSY events and conferences here in the United States.

As the right wing of the world tries to replicate the worst of the US political and economic system, now more than ever, YDS has an important role to play in our international, offering a critical perspective on neoliberalism and "The US model".”

“On the other hand, we have a lot to learn from our friends abroad --where socialism is a vital part of national political life, where trade unions and socialist parties are strong and influential. It is a good reminder that we are not "out to lunch" -- our movement is strong worldwide, even if our ideas are misrepresented here in the US.” http://www.ydsusa.org/ourmovement.html

I don’t think it’s any accident that liberal democrat legislative and judicial actions and decisions are similar to YDS goals.

The socialization of America is slowly occurring using an insidious patient strategy; chipping away little by little, like the artist slowly molding his sculpture.

For those conservatives who think we can turn this around in 2010 or 12, ask yourself how many countries have gone from Democratic Socialism back in the other direction? 

The argument can be made that Reagan did it. But that was before California was blue, before the Dems owned all three branches of government, before the welfare state and government employed and/or union workers (Dem voters) outnumbered traditional thinkers. 

The Dems are legislating the demographic change and psyche in this country, guaranteeing there is no turning back to the “worst of the US political and economic system”.   They are working extremely hard to make this a one-way street to socialism, and seem to believe in it with all their collective hearts.

They missed the bus in the 30’s and 70’s, but learned their lessons.

This is a somewhat lengthy post on anti-Semitism by Douglas Davis, former senior editor of the Jerusalem Post.

What struck me were the parallels drawn between 1930s and modern Europe. Keeping in mind our current domestic political trends, it’s all a bit unnerving.

By Douglas Davis

At my dinner table on Friday night, a holocaust survivor admits that she is trying to persuade her son to take his family out of Europe to America, Canada, Australia, Canada, Australia, Israel...’They say they can’t leave me, but I tell them: “Go, get out. My parents left my grandparents behind in Berlin and brought me to safety in England. Now I want you to leave so that my grandchildren will be safe.”’ There is an unbearable desperation in her plea. But she has a point.

As tens of thousands of demonstrators march through the streets of Europe, the chants are modified but the message remains substantially intact: ‘Hamas, Hamas, Hamas — Jews to the Gas’. Or, more simply: ‘Death to the Jews’. Many European Jews, even well-established, affluent Jews, have been checking the suitcase they keep packed under the bed. They have been here before and many are (albeit reluctantly) reading the writing on the wall.

To some extent I thought I was inured. I grew up in postwar apartheid South Africa where a subtle undercurrent of anti-Semitism was a fact of everyday life. So while I was disturbed by manifestations of mob anti-Semitism, I was also less vulnerable to shock. That’s just how people are. Living in genteel, leafy Hampstead Garden Suburb provides an additional layer of protection from such crass outbursts.

But my sanguine state ends abruptly when I am out walking on Saturday. A hundred yards from my front door, I encounter the slogan, freshly painted in yellow, across the pavement: ‘Kill the Filthy Jews’. I am shocked. And shocked that I am shocked. The message is too close for comfort. The leafy gentility is, after all, an illusion.

Those who study these matters tell me that the current convulsion of anti-Semitism is the worst in a generation. They also say that there is a direct, causal link with the Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza. Once upon a time, anti-Israel protesters insisted they were motivated by political animus against Zionism rather than racial prejudice against Jews. The Hamas Charter, which sets out of the guiding principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement — xenophobic, racist and anti-Semitic — removes the distinction.

Last week Basim Naim, the Hamas Minister of Health in Gaza, sought to capitalise on the wave of European support for his movement and to confer some respectability on Hamas among those who lean to the left. Writing in the Guardian, he decried the ‘continuing attempt to discredit and demonise Hamas’. Boldly, he asserted: ‘Our struggle is not against the Jewish people, but against oppression and occupation. This is not a religious war. We have no quarrel with the Jewish people’.

Mr Naim’s disingenuous depiction of Hamas as a friend of the Jews took my sense of credulity to a place that is accessible only to my psychiatrist. The ideology contained in the Hamas Charter (which was adopted in 1987, not 1887), leaves no room for interpretation. ‘Our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave,’ it declares. Every Muslim is enjoined to confront the enemy in the land of the Muslims: ‘a woman must fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorisation, and a slave without his master’s permission... In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. We must...join the ranks of the Jihad fighters’.

Article Seven of the Charter provides the religious justification: ‘The Prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: “The [end of days] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!’”’

Then the Hamas Charter morphs into the oldest hatred: primitive, European anti-Semitism. Jews, says the Charter, have accumulated ‘huge and influential wealth’ which they use to implement their ‘dream’. It has allowed them to take over the world media and to foment revolutions (the French and Communist revolutions receive special mention) in order to ‘fulfil their interests and pick the fruit’. The Jews, it says, used their influence to start both world wars and they used their money to ‘establish clandestine organisations which are spreading around the world to destroy societies and promote Zionist interests’. Among these ‘destructive spying organisations’, the Hamas Charter makes special mention of the Freemasons, Rotary clubs, Lions clubs and B’nai B’rith.

This psychopathic babble is unpleasant stuff, but, like it or not, that is the formally enshrined ideological platform and considered worldview of Hamas. It should be dismissed with contempt, but its message resonates in important Middle East capitals, from Tehran to Damascus and Doha. Sadly, it has found an echo on the streets of Europe, too.

All this raises some important questions. What part of the Hamas message inspires tens of thousands from the left, right and centre of the political spectrum to take to the streets of Europe with their chants of support for Hamas and hatred of Jews? What part of that noxious Hamas ideology is so compelling that it has led some into violent confrontation with the police? And where are those protestors when Muslims are killed in other conflicts, from Afghanistan and Chechnya to Darfur and the Philippines?

Hamas has provided the touchpaper for a Thirties-style outburst in Europe. Anti-Semitism is rampant. Synagogues are burned and Jewish cemeteries are desecrated, while individual Jews are met with gratuitous verbal and, at times, physical abuse in the street.

In Britain, a cross-party group of MPs is moved to speak of their ‘horror’ as ‘a wave of anti-Semitic incidents has affected the Jewish community’. There is, they note, a ‘discernible sense of anxiety and vulnerability’ among British Jews.

In Germany, anti-Semitic violence directed at Jewish institutions is reported to be spreading nationwide after a police officer guarding a synagogue in Berlin’s Mitte district, the pre-war centre of Jewish life, was attacked with an iron bar.

In Italy, the Flaica-Uniti-Cub trade union, which represents workers in shops and malls, calls for a boycott of businesses with Jewish associations, directing shoppers to focus particularly on clothing stores, many of which, the union pointed out, are traditionally owned by Italian Jews. And in Denmark — Denmark! — schools with large numbers of Muslim pupils are refusing to enrol Jews because, they say, their security cannot be assured.

There can be no doubt that, for many, Israel-hatred is a cover for Jew-hatred. There can also be no doubt that this figleaf is becoming redundant. The contagion has passed through the membrane and the post-Holocaust taboo against open expressions of anti-Semitism is slipping away.

The Hamas Health Minister might have been stretching the truth when he said ‘we have no quarrel with the Jewish people’. Sadly, though, he was not telling fibs when he said he and his comrades ‘welcome and appreciate the stand taken by leading Jewish figures in Britain and around the world against Israel’s aggression against Gaza and for the rights of our people’.

I am hoping that my psychiatrist will be able to explain why so many Jews have been propelled into the arms of those who seek their destruction. Precisely what part of the Hamas Charter are they defending?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3276096/the-terrible-warning-of-a-holocaust-survivor.thtml

Is it me, or does anyone else find it odd that the emerging mantra from the incoming administration is morphing before our very eyes from “change we can believe in” into “we are one”. This from a candidate who won the presidency in large part by mercilessly berating a sitting President and emphasizing his own skin color. Well, to be fair to Obama, the liberal media was doing the shouting; he was just throwing fuel on the fire.

We are one. That’s interesting. Then why all the rhetoric during the campaign about race? Race emphasizes our differences, not our oneness. If skin pigment truly isn’t an issue, if we indeed are one, why is it that only you sir, and the Democrats put color in the forefront? That speech on race and all the talk about your white grandmother…for what? To bring us together? If we are one, why would anyone’s skin color matter? Why bring up the issue at all? And when mentioned, why not shrug it off and simply say insignificant…not a concern. 

The fact is the majority of your constituents don’t have a clue about government policy or your “change”, other than the little catch phrases fed to them by the Obama network (a.k.a. MSNBC) and 30 second campaign commercials. But they do know you’re black. And the numbers show minorities voted their skin color. That’s making us one? And the smaller percent of your voters, the “educated” liberal elites that carry your water, are so eaten up with white guilt, all they see is skin color.      

Here’s the official line: “There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.”  And here’s reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjRfKVwRUds

Is it a big deal that we now, for the first time in history have an African American in the White House? Only if race is important to you. Personally, I could care less. I don’t care if the next 50 presidents are black. Not an issue for me. But you won this election (and you know it) by accentuating America’s diversity, not our oneness.

And now, having used our differences to your advantage…after demonizing the opposition and driving a wedge further into America…NOW you want us all to be one.

How nice. 

Adolf Hitler: “Who controls Berlin controls Prussia, and who controls Prussia controls Germany.”

Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov: "What happens to Berlin happens to Germany; what happens to Germany, happens to Europe."

The lessons aren’t lost on the Russians, nor should we forget them. 

The Russian Gas Trap

January 13, 2009

By Peter Zeihan

At the time of this writing, the natural gas crisis in Europe is entering its 13th day.

While the topic has only penetrated the Western mind as an issue in recent years, Russia and Ukraine have been spatting about the details of natural gas deliveries, volumes, prices and transit terms since the Soviet breakup in 1992. In the end, a deal is always struck, because Russia needs the hard currency that exports to Europe (via Ukraine) bring, and Ukraine needs natural gas to fuel its economy. But in recent years, two things have changed.

First, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004 brought to power a government hostile to Russian goals. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko would like to see his country integrated into the European Union and NATO; for Russia, such an evolution would be the kiss of death.

Ukraine is home to most of the infrastructure that links Russia to Europe, including everything from pipelines to roads and railways to power lines. The Ukrainian and Russian heartlands are deeply intertwined; the two states’ industrial and agricultural belts fold into each other almost seamlessly. Eastern Ukraine is home to the largest concentration of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers anywhere in the world outside Russia. The home port of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is at Sevastopol on Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, a reminder that the Soviet Union’s port options were awful — and that Russia’s remaining port options are even more so.

Ukraine hems in the south of European Russia so thoroughly that any hostile power controlling Kiev could easily threaten a variety of core Russian interests, including Moscow itself. Ukraine also pushes far enough east that a hostile Kiev would sever most existing infrastructure connections to the Caucasus. Simply put, a Ukraine outside the Russian sphere of influence transforms Russia into a purely defensive power, one with little hope of resisting pressure from anywhere. But a Russified Ukraine makes it possible for Russia to project power outward, and to become a major regional — and potentially global — player.

Related Links

·                           Part 1: Instability in a Crucial Country

·                           Part 2: Domestic Forces and Capabilities

·                           Part 3: Outside Intervention

·                           The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

·                           Russia and Rotating the U.S. Focus

·                           Europe: Feeling the Cold Blast of Another Russo-Ukrainian Dispute

·                           Global Market Brief: Europe’s Long-Term Energy Proposal

Related Special Topic Page

·                           Russian Energy and Foreign Policy

The second change in recent years is that Russia now has an economic buffer, meaning it can tolerate a temporary loss in natural gas income. Since Vladimir Putin first came to power as prime minister in 1999, every government under his command has run a hefty surplus. By mid-2008, Russian officials were regularly boasting of their $750 billion in excess funds, and of how Moscow inevitably would soon become a global financial hub. Not surprisingly, the 2008-2009 recession has deflated this optimism to some extent. The contents of Moscow’s piggy bank already have dropped by approximately $200 billion. Efforts to insulate Russian firms and protect the ruble have taken their financial toll, Russia’s 2009 budget is firmly in deficit, and all talk of a Russian New York is on ice.

But Russia’s financial troubles pale in comparison to its neighbors’ problems — not in severity, but in impact. Russia is not a developed country, or even one that, like the states of Central Europe, is seriously trying to develop. A capital shortage simply does not damage Russia as it does, say, Slovakia. And while Russia has not yet returned to central planning, rising government control over all sources of capital means the Russia of today has far more in common economically with the Soviet Union than with even the Russia of the 1990s, much less the free-market West. In relative terms, the recession actually has increased relative Russian economic power — and that says nothing about other tools of Russian power. Moscow’s energy, political and military levers are as powerful now as they were during the August 2008 war with Georgia.

This is a very long-winded way of saying that before 2004, the Russian-Ukrainian natural gas spat was simply part of business as usual. But now, Russia feels that its life is on the line, and that it has the financial room to maneuver to push hard — and so, the annual ritual of natural gas renegotiations has become a key Russian tool in bringing Kiev to heel.

And a powerful tool it is. Fully two-thirds of Ukraine’s natural gas demand is sourced from Russia, and the income from Russian natural gas transiting to Europe forms the backbone of the Ukrainian budget. Ukraine is a bit of an economic basket case in the best of times, but the global recession has essentially shut down the country’s steel industry, Ukraine’s largest sector. Russian allies in Ukraine, which for the time being include Yushchenko’s one-time Orange ally Yulia Timoshenko, have done a thorough job of ensuring that the blame for the mass power cuts falls to Yushchenko. Facing enervated income, an economy in the doldrums and a hostile Russia, along with all blame being directed at him, Yushchenko’s days appear to be numbered. The most recent poll taken to gauge public sentiment ahead of presidential elections, which are anticipated later this year, put Yushchenko’s support level below the survey’s margin of error.

Even if Yushchenko’s future were bright, Russia has no problem maintaining or even upping the pressure. The Kremlin would much rather see Ukraine destroyed than see it as a member of the Western clubs, and Moscow is willing to inflict a great deal of collateral damage on a variety of players to preserve what it sees as an interest central to Russian survival.

Europe has been prominent among these casualties. As a whole, Europe imports one-quarter of the natural gas it uses from Russia, and approximately 80 percent of that transits Ukraine. All of those deliveries now have been suspended, resulting in cutoffs of various degrees to France, Turkey, Poland, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Austria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia and Bulgaria — in rough order of increasing severity. Reports of both mass power outages and mass heating failures have been noted in the countries at the bottom half of this list.

A variety of diversification programs have put Europe well on its way to removing its need for Russian natural gas entirely, but these programs are still years from completion. Until then, not much can be done for states that use natural gas for a substantial portion of their energy needs.

Unlike coal, nuclear energy or oil, natural gas can be easily shipped only via pipeline to previously designated points of use. This means the decision to link to a supplier lasts for decades and is not easily adjusted should something go wrong. Importing natural gas in liquid form requires significant skill in cryogenics as well as specialized facilities that take a couple of years to build (not to mention a solid port). Alternate pipe supply networks, much less power facilities that use different fuels, are still more expensive and require even more time. All European countries can do in the immediate term is literally rely upon the kindness of strangers until the imbroglio is past or a particularly creative solution comes to mind. (Poland has offered several states some of its share of Russian natural gas that comes to it v ia a Belarusian line.) Some Central European states are taking the unorthodox step of recommissioning mothballed nuclear power plants.

Because Russia’s goal in all this is to crack Kiev, there is not much any European country can do. But one nation, Germany, is certainly trying. Of the major European states, Germany is the most dependent upon Russian resources in general, and energy in particular.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Putin spent three nights this past week on the phone with each other discussing the topic, and the pair has a two-day summit set for later this week. The Germans have three primary reasons for cozying up to the Russians at a time when it seems they should be as angry as anyone else in Europe.

First, because most of the natural gas Germany gets from Russia passes not through Ukraine, but through Belarus — and because the Russians have not interrupted these secondary flows — the Germans desperately want to avoid rocking the boat and politicizing the dispute any more than necessary. The Germans need to engage the Russians in discussion, but unlike most other players, they can afford not to be accusatory, because they have not been too deeply affected so far. (Like all the other Europeans, the Germans are working feverishly to diversify their energy supplies away from Russia, but while Berlin can keep the lights on, it doesn’t want to ruffle any more feathers than it needs to.)

Second, as any leader of Germany would, Merkel recognizes that if current Russian-Western tensions devolve into a more direct confrontation, the struggle would be fought disproportionately with German resources — and perhaps even on German soil. Germany is the closest major power to Russia and would therefore be the focus of any major action, Russian or Western, offensive or defensive. France, the United Kingdom and the United States enjoy the buffer of distance — and in the case of the last two, a water buffer to boot.

German national interest, therefore, is not to find a way to fight the Russians, but to find a way to live with them. Germany traditionally has been Russia’s largest trading partner. Every time the two have clashed, it has been ugly, to say the least. In the German mind, if Ukraine (or perhaps even adjusting the attitude of Poland) is what is necessary to make the Russians feel secure, so be it.

Third, Germany has a European angle to think about. To put it bluntly, Merkel is always on the lookout for any means of easing Germany back into the international community with a foreign policy somewhat more sophisticated than the “I’m sorry” that has reigned since the end of World War II. After the war, France successfully hijacked German submission and used German economic strength to achieve French political desires. Since the Cold War’s end, Germany has slowly wormed its way out of that policy straitjacket, and the natural gas crisis raises an interesting possibility. If Merkel’s discussions with Putin result in restored natural gas flows, then not only will Russia see Germany as a partner, but Germany might win goodwill from European states that no longer have to endure a winter without heat.

Still, it will be a tough sell: the European states between Germany and Russia have always lived in dread that one power or the other — or, God forbid, both — will take them over. But Germany is clearly at the center of Europe, and all of the states affected by the natural gas crisis count Germany as their largest trading partner. If Merkel can muster sufficient political muscle to complement Germany’s economic muscle, the resulting image of strength and capability would go a long way toward cementing Berlin’s re-emergence.

The following is a travelogue from a former Marine and now missionary, Donald Miller.

I haven’t seen Don (always Lt Miller to this old Corporal) for more than 30 years. Fortunately, one of the Marines I was stationed with  reconnected us.

Don is a warrior of a different sort now and takes his marching orders from someone with a little more rank than the Commandant. But as the old saying goes, once a Marine…

I’m always fascinated and enjoy his logs and am certain you will too.

Travelogue

By Don Miller

Dateline: Harare, Zimbabwe, December 27, 2008

Monday morning early we are to leave for Namibia via Victoria Falls. It is with mixed emotions that we go. It has been good here, very good. But then there are the parts that are not so good; like my room for instance.

Don’t get me wrong, I am thankful to have a place that locks to protect my belongings. It locks quite well and resembles a prison cell in many ways. Four very high concrete walls, one well-barred small window, and a double door, one of wooden door on the inside with one of steel bars on the outside. There is a bed and the old frame of a treadle sewing machine upon which I set my things. At the end of the day, my room is a mix of good news and bad news. The bad news is I have rats, big rats. They run up and down the walls and scamper all over at night, knocking things over, waking me up and peering down at me from their perches in the rafters. Good news is we also have snakes and snakes like ratatouille. Bad news is the main snakes, as I have been told, are black mambas and cobras, both of which have been seen on the premises. Good news is it gets a bit cool in the evenings here so the snakes would be sluggish, perhaps. This would be especially true sometimes in my room because the roof leaks and the rain is cold which might be enough to slow down the venomous rat-eaters. Bad news is the leaks were right over my bed when I first discovered them one night after coming back from a meeting on a day in which we had had a monsoon downpour. Good news is someone took the blanket to dry the next day and I hung my sheets over a makeshift clothesline I strung in my room between the bars. Bad news is the blanket never found its way home. Good news is I am warm-blooded. So you see, there is always some good news and some bad news.

We have been staying at a place called an orphanage. That it has orphans is self-evident. That it is a properly licensed, government regulated, standard-following facility I doubt greatly.  It is a place where people dump children. How many orphans there are I was not able to ascertain. My guess would be somewhere between 20 and 25. And every one is special and some are HIV-positive. Oh yes, this is Africa where AIDS is king. It is not a political issue like in the USA, not a cause célèbre, not a misfortune of misguided pride; it is an ugly fact of little lives. Meet Shongedzai.

When I first saw him I thought he was a she, sitting there in a utility trailer the children used as a playground. “She” looked like a thin six-month old, void of baby fat and more alert in many ways than a six-month old would be. Sitting still, he would slowly turn his head until I was in range, and then would turn his eyes, make contact for only a second, and then turn away. Coming back from time to time to check me out. It was all slow motion. This orphan is two years old, does not speak, does not walk, both parents died of AIDS, he is HIV-positive and has TB. Because of the tempo in this place, Shongedzai is often placed in a chair to watch the world go by without him, slowing sweeping right and left, flies walking with abandon the smooth insouciance of his beautiful face. Seems like no child here is bothered by the flies. They drink from the pool above the nasal-lachrymal apparatus, explore the unflinching nostrils, look for leftovers at the corners of the mouth.

The last day I was at the center (it is now January 12, 2009) I heard him crying pitifully. Another orphan was carrying him around but he would not be consoled. Taking him from the child, I walked and talked with him till he was settled down. And then we sat as the day slowly slipped away, me keeping the flies at bay and hoping I was not loving fluids to the many mosquitoes. Shongedzai would lay still on my chest, then would slowly sit up at the sound of another child, give his cursory inspection, then lay his head back down. It seemed so methodical, so unnatural. Then he would sit up and turn to look at me, seeing who it was or assuring himself it was who he thought it was. I sat there and prayed for Shongedzai. In a country totally destroyed by Robert Mugabe, the president since 1980, where inflation even makes the US economy look good, what chance does he have? I am just so thankful we serve a good …no, a great God. Someday there will come a recompense, one for such as Mugabe, and one for the Shongedzai’s of this world. God keeps a careful balance.

Our meetings in Harare were very well received. I would teach from 9-12, 3-5 and 6-8 and sometimes, most time, the hours were longer. Christmas was just another day for the team. We were invited to a aunt’s home of one of the men coming to the meetings. What a gross contrast. In a walled and gated yard were gather the family. It was like entering another world and indeed it was. Outside people deal with 50,000,000,000 Zim dollar bills (if you want one, I can send you one). Inside, inside the elite, privileged class buy whatever means they arrived there, they deal in US dollars, or South African rands, or any other stable currency.

On December 30 we left early in the morning (before 5 AM) for Victoria Falls, not for a vacation, but to meet people from the next mission. Our host in Harare wanted to drive us which turned out to be a mixed blessing. It took about 20 hours to drive the 800+ kilometers (500 miles). There were 11 of us crammed into a rover-type vehicle. It was diesel and getting fuel, as mentioned before, is almost impossible. That and the fact the vehicle was running terrible. Up hills I could have run beside us. South from Harare to Bulawayo and then north to Vic Falls. You see, there are no direct roads to too many places in Zimbabwe. It was a long, very long trip. Late in the night we had to slow down as an elephant crossed the road before us.

Arriving at last in Victoria Falls, which is also a town, our hose chose a campground in which to sleep. He and the children with us had blankets, we the clothes on our backs. My team settled down for a rest but as the swarm of mosquitoes descended, I had had enough. At 1:30 in the morning I went looking to a decent place to stay. The Kingdom, a casino looking for better days, wanted to charge me $254 for the night. So I was back out on the streets. Finally I found Shoestring, a place right up my alley. For $9 per person a night we had a comfortable bed, clean bathrooms, and even a shower. Collecting my team, we were soon asleep in mosquito-free luxury.

Victoria Falls is great if you haven’t been there. We spent a few hours there before crossing the border and meeting up with our Namibian contacts, which what another providential adventure.

This email is long enough and I am running out of time. I am mentioning only a fraction of the things we are experiencing here. It is a good trip and we look forward to the next leg. As I mentioned above, it is now January 12, 2009, and we are getting ready to leave for Zambia tomorrow. Next email I will tell you about our work with the Romanians and the Namibians in Kongola.

God bless,

Don

The attached video covers a gamut of issues and is sure to appeal to your common sense.  Conversely it will drive the left into a frothing tizzy…as reason and sound judgment normally does.

I’m always amazed by the predictability of the Bush haters. No matter the subject, the left continuously parrots their favorite mantra: “Bush lied people died”. The environment; Bush lied people died. Economy; Bush lied people died. Domestic policies; Bush lied people died. Foreign policy; Bush lied people died. Whenever a Bush hater is backed into a corner with logic and facts, this cure-all balm is immediately and “liberally” applied regardless of topic. Countless threads have been hijacked and discussions diverted and or deflected with this liberal war chant. Did I say “war”? BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!

I’m posting this for all the rational readers out there who are tired of the tedious drivel. Please feel free to cut and paste when and where as needed.

WARNING: This is not an anti-troll antidote. More than likely it will only illicit further juvenile insults, hyperbole, and rage, as clarity and facts normally do.

LET’S FORGET…

When discussing the Iraq war, let’s forget the facts:               

Let’s forget that he invaded and brutalized the Kuwaitis.

Let’s forget Saddam killed thousands and terrorized his own people, including using mustard gas.

Let’s forget that nearly every intelligence agency in the western world believed Saddam Hussein had WMD and constituted an immediate threat.

Let’s forget that ninety-eight percent of the US congress…both sides of the house and senate supported the Iraq invasion.

Lets’ forget that he ignored and deified every UN resolution for more than 10 years.

Let’s forget that Hans Blix said before the invasion that, according to Iraq's own paperwork, the Hussein regime was in violation of the ceasefire terms in over a dozen different ways.

Let’s forget that since all the ceasefire terms held equal weight and validity under UNSCR 687, with no single category being listed as having priority, it does not ultimately matter which term he broke.

Let’s forget UNSCOM was not under the Bush Administration, it was the inheritor of UNMOVIC's mission and as such was a United Nations operation. Iraq was prohibited not only from having WMDs but also from having any programs, parts, equipment or materials for making them. Having the capacity to churn out lethal biological agents, whether they kill one person at a time or a thousand, means a simple retooling gets you WMDs. Iraq wasn't even allowed to have this kind of dual-use equipment in the manufacture of NORMAL things. But Saddam had them.

Let’s forget that Saddam had ample and multiple opportunities to avoid war. The simple fact is that one cannot read UNSCR 1441 and come away with the conclusion that "last chance to comply" means anything more or less than what it says. It is the commanding language, and personal opinions, either for or against, do not trump it.

Let’s forget that The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and-analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public. AND the Committee's Republican majority and Democratic minority agreed on the report's major conclusions and unanimously endorsed its findings.

Let’s forget that high ranking members of Hussein’s former Baath party gave detailed interviews confirming transportation of WMD to Syria.

Let’s forget the fact that Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen militia said this: “Iraqi scientists were turned over to Libya along with many documents and research from Iraq on nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that Saddam was attempting to use Libya as a laboratory to further his nuclear development just like he was attempting to do by sending his weapons to Syria. Saddam knew after the Gulf War he needed to start shipping his weapons and programs outside of his borders to avoid detection which is exactly why Saddam became so emboldened and laughed at the West everytime he stood in front of the camera. If you were to compare him in the 80's and 90's you would see a much more confident and defiant Saddam in the latter due to the fact he knew there was nothing to materially pin him on within the borders of Iraq.”

Let’s forget that forty nine countries were initially involved in the Iraqi war.

Let’s forget the majority of Democrats and others who supported the invasion…most privy to the same Intel:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Yes, let’s forget that the mainstream media is in large part liberally biased and would stop at nothing to discredit Bush or any sitting republican.

Let’s forget the deafening silence from this same “responsible and unbiased” media when the surge worked. 

Let’s forget the fact that the press all but ignores the independent embedded journalist reporting daily on progress in Iraq, yet clamors to shove a microphone in the face of any disgruntled vet.

Let’s forget ALL this just for the sake of argument.

Let’s ignore the facts and assume Bush singlehandedly duped the world and beefed up the Intel reports to go to war. Why would he distort the information? What was the motive? The liberal press would have you believe Bush is a bloodthirsty reckless cowboy.  And sadly many ill informed people do. Oil? Nope! The US has not received any marked increase in Iraqi oil.

So why would Bush lie? Why would he put America’s sons and daughters at risk? Unless you buy into the great Satan theory, there is only one rational explanation. He was unequivocally one hundred percent convinced that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat and that invasion was in the best interest of the US.

Personally, I’d rather have a president who bases his judgment and decisions on conviction and overwhelming evidence, rather than one that might hesitate for the sake of political expediency. Ring a bell?

How safe would America be with Saddam still in power? Does anyone have any doubt that he would have continued to defy the UNSC to develop WMD?  How close would he be to nukes? How many more Iraqis would have been imprisoned, tortured, and murdered for nothing more than disagreement? How many more mass graves would be added to the 270 already found? Why doesn’t the MSM ask these questions?

Yes boys and girls, let’s forget the facts…Bush lied, people died.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a facade for all other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1%-2% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- Muslim 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Palestine -- Muslim 99% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100% Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

And we continue to cater and negotiate in a politically correct way so as not to "offend" our Muslim "brothers."  Just call me Islamophobic!

This is probably the most credible source of information I’ve seen coming directly from Iraq, yet these guys are begging for money.

If the CPB can distribute tax dollars to NPR and PBS (Bill Moyer ring a bell), then why can’t they provide grants to help the guys risking their lives, to get near real-time information out of Iraq?  Or maybe they’re already “reporting” another version of the story.