Tammy Bruce: Balls, Lack Of Archives

Balls, Lack Of Archives

Feds Want Kinder, Gentler Language About Islamist Terrorists

They're not Genocidal, Islamist Fascists, they're, uh, Angry Puppies! Yeah, that's so much less offensive.

This has go to be one of the most ridiculous constructions ever developed by the those brainwashed by political correctness. The Feds have decided that calling Islamist Fascists Islamist Fascists is too broad based, and could potentially offend "moderate" Muslims. It's this sort of news that makes this post even more apropos.

'Jihadist' booted from government lexicon

The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language.

Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too.

The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.

For example, while Americans may understand "jihad" to mean "holy war," it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public. Similarly, "mujahedeen," which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.

U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims."

Gee, and I wonder who those "American Muslims" are who seem more concerned with the truth than they do with the raping of Islam by other Muslims. It's not Vikings, or Quakers, or Scientologists out there marauding in the name of Islam. It's actual Muslims who follow the fundamental Whabbist interpretation of Islam. It is a legitimate, if not the richest, most powerful arm in Islam, based in Saudi Arabia. it is also the sect which has build and funs the majority of mosques in the United States. To ignore that fact means we will never address the core of the problem.

What are some of the suggested elements of the vague, non-offensive way to refer to our throat-cutting, head-slicing, child-murdering Islamist enemy?

"Never use the terms 'jihadist' or 'mujahedeen' in conversation to describe the terrorists. ... Calling our enemies 'jihadis' and their movement a global 'jihad' unintentionally legitimizes their actions." [...]

On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: "We are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don't insult or confuse them with pejorative terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' which are considered offensive by many Muslims." [...]

"We must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders the legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some," it said.

Just one note here--anyone who could remotely see the shooting of a child in the back and the murder of thousands of innocent civilians as 'noble' is already a lost, disturbed soul and a mentally ill person and is not affected by whatever words we might use. To think otherwise is the epitome of Narcissism, Groupthink and just plain old idiocy.

This is not some renegade band of Muslims. It is a movement of fundementalist Islamists who, along with Iran, Syria, Lybia, and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have a worldwide network with a goal of establishment a global caliphate. For our own government to deny this is deadly madness as they implement nothing less than a whitewashing of language in order to further ignore who our savage, genocidal enemy really is.

Bottom line, here's a newsflash for the DoD, The State Dept, Homeland Security and the White House: If a Muslim is moderate, they wouldn't be concerned with us using accurate terms to describe the enemy, and understand it's not what we say that's a danger, it's what Islamist are doing which is the threat. That is, if they were actually moderates 'advising' our government. Moderate would be more concerned with madmen using the name of their prophet to murder innocents; moderates are fervent supporters of the United States and appalled at the increasing violence done in the name of Islam; if they're moderate, they would be marching for and demanding an end to the obscene violence done by Islamists and encouraged by the Whabbist sect of Islam based in Saudi Arabia. Moderates understand it's not the lexicon the United States uses in fighting this rabid enemy that's the problem, it's a worldwide Islamic movement that is destroying whatever vestiges of actually "moderate" Islam that existed.

At this point, we all have to wonder what in the world the collective Fed is smoking. But after almost seven years, I suppose it is sort of fun for them to eliminate Islamic Fascism and jihadists with the stroke of a pen. Perhaps then they think we won't notice that bin Laden, Zawahiri, and so many other Islamic Fascist jihadists are out there planning to murder as many people as possible.

« Close It

Posted by Tammy · April 25, 2008 07:57 PM · Permalink · Comments (6)
Balls, Lack Of | Just Plain Stupid | Just Wrong | Moronic Convergence | Political Correctness

Now That Florida Has Made These Illegal...

Perhaps the company that makes them can send hundreds of pairs up to Washington, DC. Lord knows they need them, and there's plenty of room in all those custom-pleated slacks of theirs.

Posted by Tammy · April 24, 2008 11:03 AM · Permalink · Comments (4)
Balls, Lack Of

Another Cartoon Jihad?

A post by Maynard

Moving to squelch blasphemy, Pakistan banned YouTube. In enforcing the national censorship, a Pakistani service provider unintentionally shut down YouTube for the whole world.

How could this happen? Internet traffic is dynamically routed to seek the quickest path, in the same way that you listen to traffic reports and route your car. It seems that this service provider, in an effort to establish itself as the national bottleneck, made the electronic claim that it had the inside track on quick delivery of YouTube traffic. This unintentionally sucked in YouTube-bound data packets from everywhere in the world, all of which disappeared into a black hole. To undo the damage, Pakistan has rescinded the ban, at least for the time being.

The Internet is a global organism. This is an interesting example of its vulnerability.

The crackdown was an effort to block video previews of an upcoming film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders. His movie portrays Islam as fascist and prone to inciting violence against women and homosexuals.

Posted by Maynard · February 28, 2008 08:53 PM · Permalink · Comments (1)
Balls, Lack Of | Hollywood/Films | Maynard Post | War on Radical Islam

The Dangerous Hypocrisy of Condi Rice

From the Wall Street Journal, a blunt assessment of the absurdity of the Annapolis Conference for Jew-Haters, Terrorists and Their Appeasers, with a special, and more than appropriate swipe at the rank hypocrisy of Condi Rice. Her actions, and this summit, only give aid and comfort to the beasts of the world.

Condi's Road to Damascus

Remember Nancy Pelosi's spring break in Damascus? Condoleezza Rice apparently does not. When the House Speaker paid Syrian strongman Bashar Assad a call back in April, President Bush denounced her for sending "mixed signals" that "lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror." Today, said sponsor of terror will take its place at the table Ms. Rice has set for the Middle Eastern conference at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

Only at Foggy Bottom would Syria's last-minute decision to go to Annapolis be considered a diplomatic triumph. The meeting is supposed to inaugurate the resumption of high-level negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, with a view toward finalizing a deal on Palestinian statehood before the administration leaves office. On a deeper plane of geopolitical subtlety, it is supposed to bring Israel and the Arab world together in tacit alliance against Iran...

Put simply, there is nothing the U.S. can offer Mr. Assad that would seriously tempt him to alter his behavior in ways that could meaningfully advance U.S. interests or the cause of Mideast peace. Yet the fact that Ms. Rice's Syria policy is now a facsimile of Speaker Pelosi's confirms Mr. Assad's long-held view that he has nothing serious to fear from this administration.

So look out for more aggressive Syrian misbehavior in Lebanon, including the continued arming of Hezbollah; the paralysis of its political process; the assassination of anti-Syrian parliamentarians and journalists; the insertion of Sunni terrorist cells in Palestinian refugee camps, and the outright seizure of Lebanon's eastern hinterlands. Look out, too, for continued cooperation with North Korea on WMD projects: Despite Israel's September attack on an apparent nuclear facility, the AP reports that North Korean technicians are back in Syria, teaching their Arab pupils how to load chemical warheads on ballistic missiles. And don't hold your breath expecting Syria's good behavior on its Iraqi frontier to last much longer.

In the meantime, our friends the Saudis want to make sure they don't have to touch any Jews at this thing.

Why the U.N. is Impotent

A post by Maynard

Is it just me, or is there something unspeakably disturbing in this symbolism?

Whether or not you agree with me on this (intentionally vague) assessment, you can see why the mad mullahs of Iran don't exactly quake in their boots when they receive another sternly-worded letter.

This sculpture graces the Visitor's Plaza at the United Nations building in New York. It was presented to the U.N. as a gift from the government of Luxembourg in 1988.

I guess it's a nice enough ideal, in its passive way. Nobody should reach for a gun when a less forceful tool will do the trick. But when push comes to shove, I'd rather have Snuffy close at hand than depend upon thusly-armed boys and girls in powder-blue uniforms to come and save the day.

(By the way, it's looking like Libya will host the next U.N. conference on racism. The previous conference, in 2001, broke down into an anti-Israeli anti-Semitic hate-fest, and was boycotted by the U.S.)

Posted by Maynard · June 20, 2007 06:21 PM · Permalink · Comments (2)
Balls, Lack Of | Maynard Post | Scourge of the UN

Bush Keeps Surrendering, Wants to Chat With Terrorist

Terrorist says no. This speaks for itself. (HT Hot air).

U.S. trying to open a dialogue with al-Sadr, commander says

The U.S. military is seeking talks with Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr directly and through the government of Iraq, according to a top American general.

A Sadr aide confirmed that U.S. officials had approached the anti-American cleric's supporters but said that Sadr would never begin a dialogue with what they describe as "occupation forces."

"He has a grass-roots movement that he's always going to have; [not if he were dead] we have to recognize that," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq, told McClatchy Newspapers in an interview this week. "We're trying to talk to him. We want to talk to him." [...]

Odierno told McClatchy that he wasn't sure whether Sadr's resurfacing in the Shiite holy city of Kufa last week was a good or bad thing for American forces in Iraq..."I'm mixed; I'm not sure yet," Odierno said referring to the effect of Sadr's return on security. "I'll take a wait-and-see attitude."

The U.S. military has begun to draw distinctions between Sadr and what it calls "rogue" Mahdi Army members. [Has anyone checked with Muqtada about this?] It most often links the men whom it detains and kills to Iran through their weapon of choice: explosively formed projectiles, which are armor-piercing bombs that the American military claims come from Iran. Separating Sadr from the Mahdi Army commanders [in our own little fantasy world to justify negotiating with a terrorist enemy] whom the American military is targeting could set the stage for U.S.-Sadr talks.

Hmm, okay, that's like if we decided, in our own made-up world, to 'separate' Hitler from the concept of 'the Nazis' making it easier for us to negotiate with Hitler? Because it's the Nazis who are the bad guys and not Hitler, because he's...separate?

Sweet God. Is it possible everyone making decisions about Iraq is on drugs? Is the president being blackmailed? Is there a nuclear bomb ready to go off? Is the president drinking? Seriously. I really can't explain this anymore; I'm at a complete loss.

Posted by Tammy · May 31, 2007 09:04 PM · Permalink · Comments (3)
Balls, Lack Of | War on Radical Islam

Bush Further Prepares for Surrender in Iraq

As I noted a few days ago when Muqtada al-Sadr returned to Iraq and we welcomed him like a statesman, our surrender is official and well underway. The only thing missing now is a slew of Black Hawk helicopters crashing in the desert.

U.S. Commanders Talking to Iraqi Militants About Cease-Fires

U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander said Thursday.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he has authorized commanders at all levels to reach out to militants, tribes, religious leaders and others in the country that has been gripped by violence from a range of fronts including insurgents, sectarian rivals and common criminals.

"We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces," Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Baghdad.

President Bush and his incompetence has reduced the greatest military in the world to asking the enemy to stop shooting at us. And they will, of course. It will buy them time, and means instead of looking to win the war, we now simply want to save face and get out.

How dare President Bush allow this to happen. We now are asking the savages who murder innocent people, who cut peoples heads off, who still have two of our troops, for leniency and mercy. A cease-fire helps only the savages who will use that time to rearm, celebrate and plan. It's a pathetic move that will inspire and embolden the enemy worldwide. His cowardice should disgust every decent person on Earth and should outrage every Gold Star family in America.

U.S. Has Two-Part Strategy with Iran...

a--man

Part one: Bend over. Part two: Say, "Please Sir, may I have more Sir?"

U.S. has two-part strategy with Iran

WASHINGTON - The United States is pursuing a two-track strategy with Iran that reflects the high stakes in any engagement with a nation President Bush accuses of bankrolling terrorism and secretly building a nuclear bomb.

Monday's talks in Baghdad are one element. Discussion between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors is only supposed to cover Iraq, where they have competing and overlapping interests. Then there are the U.S. Navy's exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from Bush about new U.N. penalties against Tehran.

Wow, this is a great plan to deal with a criminal nation that's paying for terrorism and building the bomb--have tea, order our Navy to pretend they're confronting the enemy, and then ask someone else to slap their hands. If we had only tried that with Hitler, I'm sure World War II never would have happened. Oh wait, we did, and...it did. Oops.

Yeah, that'll show 'em.

Posted by Tammy · May 27, 2007 01:04 PM · Permalink · Comments (1)
Balls, Lack Of | Death of Right and Wrong | Fed Incompetence

President Bush's Surrender in Iraq is Official

The Face of Victory

I noted to you at the beginning of the troop 'surge' in Iraq that the only indication that we were serious about defeating the Islamist enemy there and elsewhere would be our immediate dispatch of Iran Death Squad leader Muqtada al-Sadr. We could have easily ignored him as our surrender, but the Bush admin has gone further in our genuflect--we are now legitimizing the savage by encouraging him to play a role in Iraq.

US urges Sadr to play 'positive' Iraq role

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States on Friday urged radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to play "a useful and positive role" in Iraq after his dramatic return to frontline Iraqi politics.

"Now that he's back from four months in Iran, we hope he'll play a useful and positive role in the development of Iraq," said White House national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe. [Oh yeah, I'm sure after spending months with his insane and genocidal puppet-masters, he was drilled with lesson about being 'positive'--ed.]

I am deeply sad to say this effort is now lost. The president has no intention of defeating the enemy there. Consequently, we should leave Iraq. Yes, the enemy is there and it is the front on the WoT, but the president clearly does not have the will or the gravitas to confront the enemy. Let us take our troops out of harms way, because that is now what the presdient offers them--they are sitting ducks, a sacrifice for nothing. al-Sadr is the Iranian agent who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of our loved ones. And he walks with impunity, with protection, and our deep bow.

I would guess one of the last things inserted into the Iraq funding bill was money for the duck masks our troops will wear as they are given the order to 'sit.'

I hope the president has nightmares. I hope Pfc. Anzack visits him in his dreams. We will eventually reap the cost of this cowardice and incompetance, and no matter what we need to be ready, but just as with Clinton and Carter, let us never forget who is responsible for this pathetic tragic loss. In the meantime. llet's get out and elect someone in November '08 who can clean up the already apparent international mess of empowered tyrants because of the Bush/Rice/Baker Doctrine of Surrender.

Posted by Tammy · May 25, 2007 10:55 AM · Permalink · Comments (13)
Balls, Lack Of | Fed Incompetence | Terrorism | Tyrants | War on Radical Islam

Chinese Missiles 'Worry' The Feds

The Feds are all atwitter over Chinese long-range missiles and that communist pit's massive spending on offensive military equipment.

What will we do about it? Uh, nothing. The Chinese know this, too, and not because they have some remarkable spy ring in operation. Nope, all they have to reflect on is how pathetically we've been dealing with North Korea and Iran. That tells them all they need to know. Heck, we don't even have the balls to stop their posioned food, medicine, and now toothpaste from coming into our country. No doubt, it's not fear and hatred of America that is spreading around the globe because of President Bush's foreign policy--it's more like contempt borne of pity.

US fears over China long-range missiles

The US is increasingly concerned about China’s deployment of mobile land and sea-based ballistic nuclear missiles that have the range to hit the US, according to people familiar with an imminent Pentagon report on China’s military.

The 2007 Pentagon China military power report will highlight the surprising pace of development of a new Jin-class submarine equipped to carry a nuclear ballistic missile with a range of more than 5,000 miles.

Washington is also concerned about the strategic implications of China’s preparations later this year to start deploying a new mobile, land-based DF-31A intercontinental ballistic missile that could target the whole US.

The report also outlines concerns about the build-up of missiles across the Taiwan Strait, China’s recent anti-satellite missile test and its development of technologies to deny access in space.

Gee, I wonder why they're doing this when we're such good trading partners. Yes, isn't it amazing that all the tyrannical despots in the world somehow feel free and easy to do whatever they please? We can thank not only the Bush administration's refusal to confront evil, but the American left (incl the Democrat party) for empowering tyrants with their continual rhetoric of surrender, cowardice and self-loathing.

Posted by Tammy · May 24, 2007 06:07 PM · Permalink · Comments (3)
Balls, Lack Of | Internationalism | Politics | Tyrants

Effort to Remove 'Guest Worker' Program from Bill Fails

Some senators suddenly discovered what I have been arguing for quite some time--the creation of a 'guest worker' program codifies the idea that only certain brown-skinned people will do certain jobs. It creates a permanent under/slave class which is the antithesis of what this nation stands for. That said, if this bill passes in any form, what this nation stands for won't matter because this bill is cultural/economic/rule of law suicide. None of the 'details' in this bill mean anything--ultimately, rthis bill does one thing and one thing only: it establishes immediate legality for the 20 million plus illegals. It's that simple. All this other talk is meaningless.

Senators Fail to Strip Key Provision From Compromise Immigration Bill

Farm-state Democrats late Tuesday helped defeat an effort by two of their colleagues to strip the temporary worker program from the comprehensive immigration reform bill now being debated in the Senate

Senators voted 64-31 to reject an amendment by Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Byron Dorgan to strike the provision for as many as 600,000 unskilled workers to enter the U.S.

Arguing against the measure, Boxer alleged that it was designed "to keep a supply of desperate low-wage workers" and is "a way to keep our workers down, keep their wages down, keep their benefits down, keep them weak, and in my view, at the end of the day, destroy the middle class."

Oh, but immediately legalizing 20-40 million illegal alien Mexicans won;t also do that? Sheesh.

The Heritage Foundation continues to work trying to alert people to the suicidal cost of this little project of the newly-dubbed on Tammy Radio "Senate Monkeys," animals obsessing about themselves, running around making a lot of noise, while getting nothing done except tearing the place apart.

Conservatives also point out that the illegals, once legal, would automatically be eligible for Social Security and Medicare and would not be required to pay any back taxes, something bill supporters say is simply impossible to calculate.

Conservative Heritage Foundation President Robert Rector estimates the total cost of the bill to be in the trillions of dollars, warning, "This $2.5 trillion cost is going to come smashing into the Social Security and Medicare systems at exactly the point those systems are already going bankrupt. So the bottom line is that these individuals will make no net contribution in taxes while they are working. They will be a deficit. But when they hit retirement, they will be an astonishing cost on the taxpayer."

Look! The Repubs Aren't Smiling Anymore

(L-R) U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), and Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) take questions yesterday during a news conference about the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. (Getty Images)

Gee, I wonder why.

Posted by Tammy · May 22, 2007 11:17 AM · Permalink · Comments (7)
Balls, Lack Of | Corruption | Immigration | Politics

Bush Admin Sinks to New Low on Iran

Ahmadinejad has plenty to laugh about

We have now agreed to meet and negotiate with a lunatic nation which has said publicly it seeks to wipe Israel and the United States off the map and kill every Jew on earth. In the meantime, they are the primarily funder and exporter of terrorism worldwide, and are responsible for the training and arming of terrorists who kill our soldiers in Iraq.

Our response? A coffee-klatch.

Cheney spokeswoman: U.S. willing to discuss Iraq situation with Iran

CAIRO (AP) — The U.S. said Sunday it is willing to talk to Iran if discussions deal only with Iraq, where the Bush administration says Tehran is undermining the Baghdad government and exporting deadly roadside bombs.

"We are willing to have that conversation limited to Iraq issues at the ambassador level," Vice President Dick Cheney's spokeswoman said after he met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak...

"Iran has agreed to this (negotiation) after consultation with Iraqi officials, in order to lessen the pain of the Iraqi people, support the Iraqi government and establish security and peace in Iraq," the state-run IRNA quoted Mohammad Ali Hosseini, the foreign ministry spokesman, as saying.

That's like the Allies agreeing to meet with Hitler to "lessen the pain" of the Jews. How do we do that? Kill them faster with gas instead of bombs? Hmmm....

And Bush and Congress wonder why their disapproval ratings now match that of incompetent clown Jimmah Carter.

While the link above reflects a Newsweek poll (a magazine known for its BDS), it also doesn't mention the fact that the congressional disapproval rating is as high as Bush's. The most recent AP-Ipsos poll has both the president and congress scoring just slightly higher than Carter at his lowest, now for obvious reasons.

Do we now have to worry what damage Bush will do, a la Carter, once he's out of office?

Bush Says Talks With Iran Possible

a--man

Yes, it's crude, but when President Bush announces that we're willing to have bilateral talks with the primary sponsor of terrorism in the world, this is exactly what his problem is.

Thereby, once again, rewarding the terrorists among us. What a difference 6 years makes, going from "If you harbor terrorists you are the enemy" to outreach to a country that exports and sponsors terrorism, admittedly harbors bin Laden's al-Qaida leadership one of whom shouts out "Hey dad!" when saying hello to the terror leader himself.

Bush says talks with Iran possible

NEW YORK -President Bush said Tuesday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might have one-on-one talks with Iranian leaders at an international conference on Iraq next month, but that Tehran's nuclear program would not be on the table.

In an interview, Bush initially appeared to rule out any contact with Iran, a member of his "axis of evil."

"What I'm not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians," he told PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show."

Later, he said Rice and Iran's foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. "They could. They could," Bush said...

Bush said if a meeting occurs, Rice's message to the Iranians would be: "Don't send weapons in (to Iraq) that will end up hurting our troops, and help this young democracy survive."

Yep, I'm sure that'll do the trick. Bush is absolutely devoid of any clarity or leadership whatsoever. Whoever neutered that man must have used an ice-cream scooper because there's one big giant crater where his manhood used to be.

Flashback: The Day Jimmy Carter Was Attacked by a Rabbit

A post by Maynard

It was April 20, 1979, exactly 28 years ago, and Jimmy Carter was celebrating Adolf Hitler's 90th birthday and quietly contemplating his recent triumph in convincing the Shah of Iran to relinquish power to the collection of genocidal maniacs who have gone on to promote war and terrorism against the West. Perhaps Jimmy, out of concern for his reputation, was already planning to write his book in which he would blame those pesky Israelis. But for the moment, all he wanted to do was paddle lazily down the stream. And so he did...until the rabbit attacked.

It is a matter of historical record that Jimmy Carter is the only president ever to be attacked by a rabbit. Does one need to ask why? No doubt the rabbit was expecting a negotiated settlement. It seemed a likely prospect, considering whom he was dealing with. But Jimmy, for the first and only time in his life, decided that this challenge should be answered by violence. No, not even a pause to issue a strongly-worded letter. Jimmy simply grabbed his paddle and whacked away until his adversary fled in terror. Bravely done, Mr. Carter! Bravo!

Artist's conception of Carter and the rabbit

The Secret Service photographed the incident, and thus it passed into history. You can see the pictures and read a less vitriolic account in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Knut to Bush: Try Saying No For Once

Knut has balls and an undisturbed bottom!

Knut of Berlin has done something no other Western world leader has in this time of war: He has kept his dignity despite the efforts of others. Knut may be small and naked, but even he knows when to say no, and who not to associate with.

Knut Health Scare Over, He Was Only Teething

..."It was only toothache," said a spokeswoman for the zoo. "He's growing a back tooth and it hurt him like it hurts most small children." Knut would be back on show on Tuesday, she said. "He's playing again but his cheek is swollen."...

After half an hour his two keepers decided to break off the show and took him back to his cage where two vets examined him and concluded that he had a fever. They couldn't be entirely sure about his temperature though because he refused to let them put a thermometer up his bottom.

Now if we could only teach President Bush the same trick, we might actually get something done in Washington, DC and the Middle East, and stop winking at terrorists.

If things continue at this rate, I just may have to write-in "Knut von Berlin" in 2008.

Posted by Tammy · April 17, 2007 06:30 PM · Permalink · Comments (3)
Animal Issues | Balls, Lack Of | Nature

Israel Surprise: Terrorists Not Reasonable

For some reason, Israel is surprised in their negotiations for a 'prisoner swap' with terrorist group Hamas, that the terrorists aren't being reasonable. That really shouldn't surprise anyone, after all, they're negotiating with monsters who exist because their very foundation rests on inexplicable savagery and the unreasonable.

All this because Israel has caved into Hamas' demands for so-called Palestinian prisoners to be released in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Hexbollah then kidnapped several other Israeli soldiers which is what finally compelled Israel to strike Hezbollah in Lebanon. Now Israel is doing exactly what the terrorist network wanted in the first place. And what they've always done, btw. Prisoner exchanges are nothing new between Israel and terrorists. And they wonder why the savages are being unreasonable--because it works and terrorists, with Olmert and Bush at the helm, are the ones in charge.

Israel sees "disappointment" over Hamas prisoner list

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli ministers expressed "disappointment and reservation" over a list of prisoners Hamas has demanded freed in exchange for a captured Israeli soldier, the prime minister's office said on Tuesday.

Hamas, which leads the Palestinian government, has handed over the names of Palestinian prisoners it wants Israel to free in exchange for Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit, who has been held by militants in Gaza for 10 months...Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held his first discussion on the list on Tuesday with security officials, including Defense Minister Amir Peretz, his office said in a statement.

"During the discussion, disappointment and reservation were expressed over the list of prisoners Hamas is asking to be freed," the statement said. A Hamas cabinet minister, Wasfi Kabha, told Reuters on Monday that there are around 1,400 names on the list, including Marwan Barghouthi, a
Fatah leader widely seen as a possible successor to moderate President Mahmoud Abbas...

Freeing leading militants from Israeli jails is a highly emotive issue for Palestinians, as well as for Israelis who have lost relatives in attacks.

Oh, for those who are confused by that euphemism, 'lost relatives" doesn't mean people who took the wrong turn on the road during an attack and had to Mapquest themselves back. No, it's a soft way of referring to innocent civilians who have been murdered by the terrorists who are on the 'exchange' list.

Global Security has some background on Marwan Bargouti, the terrorist leader who is also on Hamas list. This is what happens when you negotiate with terrorists. Israel has always agreed to prisoner exchanges, and that is exactly what Hamas and Hezbollah expected when they kidnapped Israeli troops. Finally, instead of capitulating Israel struck back, and then retreated when worldwide castrati leadership (led by President Bush of course) became afraid and told Israel to back off.

Once again, terrorists are setting the agenda, thanks to an American president and Israeli prime minister who care more about pandering to the braying worldwide nihilistic left than they do about the more important and perhaps difficult thing--doing what's right.

Posted by Tammy · April 10, 2007 04:51 PM · Permalink · Comments (3)
Balls, Lack Of | Politics | War on Radical Islam

Why Do We Appease?

A post by Maynard

Oliver North's editorial, "The Price of Appeasement", addresses Western impotence in dealing with the rogue nation of Iran. Why is the Iranian military allowed to cross into an adjacent nation and take hostages and face no consequences other than a few sullen words?

We know there are real factors, both practical and political, that make a tough response difficult. These details are endlessly debated, and I've got nothing to add to that discussion right now. But North's editorial ends with these words, and he makes a crucial point:

Between 1942 and 1945, the U.S. launched the Manhattan Project to build a bomb that would end World War II. At the time, it was the largest, most expensive scientific and engineering project ever undertaken — costing about $2 billion — roughly $20 billion in today’s dollars. To stop hostage taking as an instrument of Iranian state policy requires freeing the world from bondage to oil. A "Manhattan Project" to develop an alternative energy source would make appeasing radical Islamic hostage holders unnecessary.

We're wrestling with numerous symptoms of the same fundamental problem: The world runs on oil, and the bulk of the oil reserves are in the hands of people that range from unreliable to satanic. This is a formula for an endless series of global crises.

I wish I could point to a simple solution, but there isn't one. I'm not quite sure what specific goal a new "Manhattan Project" would pursue. Certainly something unconventional. Drilling in Alaska isn't enough. Some possibilities:

Solar energy from the desert or from satellites
Ethanol, not from corn (which is a huge boondoggle!) but rather from sugar or cellulose
Geothermal technology, extracting heat from deep below the surface of the planet
Breeder reactors
Fusion reactors
Cold fusion

I won't try to give an answer, but that's the question we should be asking: How do we move to replace oil with an alternative source of abundant energy? If we establish that roadmap, then we've got the key to rise above this evil. Otherwise we're stuck on a path of continuing appeasement.

Posted by Maynard · April 10, 2007 02:04 AM · Permalink · Comments (12)
Balls, Lack Of | Maynard Post | Science & Technology | War on Radical Islam

Britain Denies Deal For Hostages

Uh huh. The politicians of the world must really hate the internet, especially when it juxtaposes their absurd spin with the relevant headline of the day. No deal? And I'm Jayne Mansfield in drag.

Britain suspends operations in the Gulf

Britain has suspended boarding operations in the Persian Gulf and is reviewing all procedures after the seizure of 15 of its sailors by Iran.

"For the moment we have stopped UK boarding operations," First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff Jonathon Band said yesterday...Despite the growing tensions, Britain was ready to discuss with Iran the question of territorial waters in the northern Gulf — the ostensible cause of the crisis — The Guardian newspaper reported.

In the meantime, some speculate that the cease of operations is meant to allow the Royal Navy to produce new uniforms. Apparently, the British Naval Command grew concerned with the potential of their future captive marines being humiliated when stripped by the captors so they could put on pajamas. These new uniforms will allow hostages to avoid that torturous and humiliating self-esteem reducing step. (HT and fashion design courtesy of Pat S.)

Shocker: The British Sailors Actually Know How To Look Upset

They look more unhappy being home than they did as guests of the Members Only Jacket Man.

At their press conference this morning. What? Is it that your days of goodie bags, pancakes and chess are over??

Posted by Tammy · April 6, 2007 12:01 PM · Permalink · Comments (4)
Balls, Lack Of | Just Plain Stupid | Just Wrong | Military | Moronic Convergence

A Few Book Suggestions for Bush and Blair

Just some ideas that might get them back on track.

Posted by Tammy · April 2, 2007 07:34 PM · Permalink · Comments (5)
Balls, Lack Of | Books | Politics

Dems Finesse Cut-And-Run With Screw-the-Troops

Monsieur Harry Reid

Harry Reid and John Kerry are now threatening our troops on the battlefield with complete abandonment if the president doesn't follow their orders. This should clear up once and for all any doubt about the level of depravity of Democrat party "leadership."

Reid may move to cut Iraq war funds

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement...

"In the face of the administration's stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who signed on Monday as a co-sponsor of Reid's proposal with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis...

In recent weeks, the House and Senate voted separately to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but set an end date for combat in Iraq. The House proposal orders all combat troops out of Iraq as of Aug. 31, 2008, whereas the Senate orders some troops to leave right away with the nonbinding goal of ending combat by March 31, 2008...

Mindful that they hold a shaky majority in Congress and that neither chamber has enough votes to override a presidential veto, Democrats are already thinking about the next step after Bush rejects their legislation.

Reid said Monday that if that happens, he will join forces with Feingold, one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it.

In other words, they'll spend more weeks on another bill they know will be vetoed, all to send more reassuring love letters to the enemy as they tell our troops they're failures who don't deserve support.

We know, of course, it's not the troops who are the problem--it's politicians and Washington, DC generals who don't have the courage to allow our military to do its job. In fact, I agree funding should be cut--to the House and Senate until those poseurs agree to act like adults who actually care about this nation.

Lastly, here's a message for Harry and Johnny and Russ and all the self-loathing Mal Nars in Congress: You do not even deserve to breathe the same air as these people, who defend our nation and freedom, whom you infantilize, condemn as failures, malign and seek to "cut off." Watch, look and listen Reid, Kerry and Feingold, and every other self-obsessed coward on Capitol Hill. Look at what makes this nation great, because it certainly is not you:

Iran's British Marine Hostage Drama Deepens

Several serious developments today.

First, Britain had asked for access to the kidnapped marines and sailors. That has been denied.

Britain does not know where sailors are held; says access denied

LONDON -- British officials do not know where Iran is holding 15 sailors and marines captured in the Persian Gulf, and requests for access to them have been denied, the Foreign Office said Sunday...The Foreign Office said Sunday that British requests for access to the 15 Britons have been denied...U.S. News and World Report, citing a U.S. Army report out of Iraq, said the capture of the British soldiers was not the first time Iranians have taken Western forces by surprise in the border area.

According to the news magazine, American troops working with Iraqi border guards within Iraq were attacked by a much larger Iranian military unit in September. U.S. News said no Americans were hurt in the incident, but four Iraqi soldiers, an interpreter, and an Iraqi border policeman remain missing.

Sure sounds like more "Iraqi civil war" proof to me.

In the meantime, Blair convenes the UK's "Cobra" team to address the issue.

The clutch of VIPs will gather in an operations room several floors below Downing Street as early as this afternoon to plot an escape from a military spat that now threatens to become an international incident...The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

The order to show restraint has been observed throughout the forces and the British government in the 48 hours since, but it is unclear how long both sides will be able to maintain control...The smaller-scale precedent, the taking of six British marines and two sailors on the same waterway in June 2004, was a painful lesson. The personnel were only returned after they had been paraded blindfold on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally. Three years on, the government is still pressing Iran for the return of its boats and kit, including valuable radar equipment...

COBRA is an acronym for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, where its meetings are held. Tony Blair, senior ministers, police and security chiefs all take part. It is called after events such as 9/11, 7/7 and can evoke emergency powers such as suspending Parliament or restricting movement.

The UK's Independent has a story about how we would have shot back, highly critical of the British apparently not doing so. Shooting back is nice. Hey, I have an idea. Let's actually start doing that ...in Baghdad, and at least in the general direction of the enemy--al-Sadr and that Iranian Death Squad of his. There's also the consideration if we actually dispatched that freak and engaged Iran as we should have, the British marines wouldn't have been taken hostage in the first place. Just a thought.

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive..."The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

It seems those easily removable velcro stick-on balls are available in Washington, DC and England!

Posted by Tammy · March 25, 2007 06:53 PM · Permalink · Comments (9)
Balls, Lack Of | Military | Politics | Terrorism | War on Radical Islam

UK Arrests Generic Ken Dolls Over 2005 Bombing

The three arrested are so generic we can't even be sure they have penises let alone ethnicity, national origin or religion.

Once again, the male equivalent of mannequins have been arrested in related to terrorism. These strange creatures have no countries of origin, no ethnicity, and certainly no religion. Considering this leaves us on our own, once again, to name the enemy, I just have one thing to say:

When will these Commie Viking Protestant Pagans just leave us alone?!!

UK police arrest three over July 2005 bombing

LONDON (Reuters) - British police arrested three men on Thursday in connection with the July 7, 2005, suicide bomb attacks that killed 52 commuters on London's transport system.

The men were arrested by counter-terrorism police "on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism" in the north of England, a police statement said.

Two were arrested at Manchester airport where they were due to fly to Pakistan. [Pakistan. How weird--ed.] The third was arrested in a house in Leeds, the northern city which was home to three of the suicide bombers.

The suspects were taken to a central London police station to be questioned. Searches were underway at five houses in the Leeds area and two premises in east London, the police said.

No one has yet been charged in connection with the attacks, in which all four bombers died.

The head of London's anti-terrorist branch said last year police were chasing several leads in Britain and abroad in an attempt to find anyone involved in the planning of the attacks.

The government has said that the four bombers were probably led by Mohammad Sidique Khan, the oldest of the group.

Two of the bombers had attended training camps in Pakistan and they were suspected of having links to militants there.

Terrorism experts say attacks are often coordinated by a handler or a planner, and it was very unlikely that a group of self-starting militants operating without any backing would be successful.

They also say

By Category

By Month

Balls, Lack Of Archives

Feds Want Kinder, Gentler Language About Islamist Terrorists

Now That Florida Has Made These Illegal...

Another Cartoon Jihad?

The Dangerous Hypocrisy of Condi Rice

Why the U.N. is Impotent

Bush Keeps Surrendering, Wants to Chat With Terrorist

Bush Further Prepares for Surrender in Iraq

U.S. Has Two-Part Strategy with Iran...

President Bush's Surrender in Iraq is Official

Chinese Missiles 'Worry' The Feds

Effort to Remove 'Guest Worker' Program from Bill Fails

Look! The Repubs Aren't Smiling Anymore

Bush Admin Sinks to New Low on Iran

Bush Says Talks With Iran Possible

Flashback: The Day Jimmy Carter Was Attacked by a Rabbit

Knut to Bush: Try Saying No For Once

Israel Surprise: Terrorists Not Reasonable

Why Do We Appease?

Britain Denies Deal For Hostages

Shocker: The British Sailors Actually Know How To Look Upset

A Few Book Suggestions for Bush and Blair

Dems Finesse Cut-And-Run With Screw-the-Troops

Iran's British Marine Hostage Drama Deepens

UK Arrests Generic Ken Dolls Over 2005 Bombing