It's a Jihad Christmas Charlie Brown

Abdelilah Hirz's Harsh Sentance

Abdelilah Hirz was sentenced to 20 years Thursday in Morocco for his part in the 2004 Madrid train attacks that killed 191 people. According to my calculations that amounts to 5 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 16 minutes, and about 39 seconds per person. Harsh. This is why terrorists should be tried in the country where they commit terrorist attacks. In completely unrelated news, 98.7% of Morocco’s population is Muslim. Morocco sent the tough message that jihadists will get more than five weeks for murdering an infidel. Stay tuned for my post in twenty-five years about Abdelilah Hirz’s future terrorist attacks. In Morocco in 2006, Sadek Noshi Yassa was sentenced to six months in prison for distributing books and CD's about the Christian faith to Muslims. This means that in Morocco you can kill about five infidels for the same price as giving someone a Bible.

Better Solutions, not just opposition

After having lost the White House, along with more seats in both the Senate and the House, the RNC seems to be getting a little desperate.

I think some people figure that since bashing George W. Bush at every turn seems to have worked for the Democrats, it's now the Republicans turn to bash Barack Obama.

There are likely going to be several instances when Republicans will be able to raise concerns about what Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their cohorts do.

But we shouldn't turn to mindless character assassination at every possible opportunity. It hasn't helped the country the last 8 years that the Democrats have been doing it, and it won't help the country now.

It's irritating that the RNC put out the following video, desperately trying to link Obama to disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.



If the Republicans would like to return to the majority, they have to be willing to offer better solutions, instead of simply opposing everything that comes out of a Democrat's mouth. They also need to be willing to work with Democrats when they get it right.

Since Obama hasn't even taken office yet, Republicans should be working with him, instead of engaging in trivial, negative attacks that the voters have rejected the last two election cycles.

America is facing some serious challenges right now, and we should be rooting for and not against our president.


PS. For all those people out there that want to make comments... if the link doesn't show up, then click the title of the post you want to comment on.

Ungrateful Shoe Thrower Supporters

There is a legitimate debate about whether the invasion of Iraq was a good strategy in the war on terrorism. Some see the Iraq war as a distraction from fighting the jihadists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Others see the Iraq war as good possibility to establish a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. We won’t know for many years if the war in Iraq was a good strategic decision. While there are legitimate strategic reasons that one could use to argue against the war in Iraq, a lot of the arguments against the war are ridiculous. The idea that the war was somehow immoral is absurd. This dishonest article by Karim Talbi that I read on Yahoo News is a display of both annoying journalism along with annoying opinions.

Dishonest journalism is when Karim writes things like, “Hundreds of Iraqis joined anti-US demonstrations to protest at Bush's farewell visit to Iraq, which was plunged into a deadly insurgency and near civil war in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion.” Nearly every article put out by the mainstream media uses the dishonest tactic of repeatedly mentioning only one side of the argument time after time, conveniently forgetting to mention that Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam Hussein and huw much improvement has been made the last couple years.

Al-Baghdadia, which is the MSNBC of the Middle East released a statement, “in line with the democracy and freedom of expression that the American authorities promised the Iraqi people. Any measures against Muntazer will be considered the acts of a dictatorial regime." After reading that comment the only two possibilities is that Al-Baghdadia was either joking or is mentally retarded. No, freedom of expression does not include throwing things at the President of the United States.

Of course, it would be inappropriate to mention dishonest journalism without mentioning Keith Olbermann. Olbermann’s reaction to the shoe throwing incident is as follows, “The official White House transcript of the joint news conference by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad reeding nothing more than 'audience interruption.' Also, that it happened just after the president said that although 'the war is not yet over ... it is decisively on its way to being won.' Our fifth story on the Countdown: Mister Bush's final trip to Iraq -- perhaps his entire legacy in that country -- likely to be remembered for that ‘audience interruption.’” (misspellings on Olbermann’s website not corrected) Yes, Olbermann believes that Bush’s entire legacy in Iraq will be remembered for one journalist throwing his shoes. Yes, the shoe throwing incident is obviously way more important than the freedom of millions of people. Now for the ungrateful Iraqi quote. When asked how he felt about the shoe thrower, Um Seif, an Iraqi said, “Me, I support him. Everyone should support him. Don't you remember what the Americans did to us? Have you already forgotten?"

Here is a brief timeline of what the Americans have done for the Iraqis.

1. Saddam Hussein was regularly murdering Iraqis.





2. The United States and it’s allies, freed Iraq from the dictator allowing the people to choose their own government and gave the opportunity for Iraq to try Saddam for his crimes.






Americans can be free to debate about whether Iraq was central part or a distraction in the global war on terrorism. But there should be little doubt that killing Saddam and bringing freedom to Iraq is a good thing for Iraqis.

Seriously, Who Throws a Shoe!

In case you missed it. Reporter, Muntazer al-Zaidi, from Al-Baghdadia throws two shoes at President Bush. I am impressed with Bush’s reflexes. In related news, Muntazer al-Zaidi was kidnapped last year. He was freed a few days later. It has been alleged that Munazer al-Zaida faked his kidnapping for attention.



According to the blog Patterico's Pontifications after the alleged shoe thrower was surrounded by people he was screaming "Don't taze me bro!" in Arabic. A commenter on this blog claims that MSNBC is going to give this journalist a show in the timeslot following Rachel Maddow. Seems about right. Also, in case you didn't notice, yes it was funny that I linked to the very post that I am writing in as a source about who is alleging that Munazer al-Zaida faked his kidnapping. That's right, I am making that allegation right now. I don't have any proof that he wasn't kidnapped, but I don't believe he has any proof that he was kidnapped. Tiebreaker goes to whoever has never thrown any articles of clothing at the President of the United States.

On a side note, if anybody that reads this knows why sometimes the link to make comments goes missing when I post youtube videos, I would be interested in knowing why and if there is a solution.

ACLU Says Jihadists Guilty Pleas Shoudn't Be Accepted

It has been clear lately that the ACLU remains committed in their efforts to help jihadists escape justice. Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the mastermind behind the attacks of September 11th , and others offered to plead guilty before a military commission. In response an ACLU lawyer Anthony Romero said, “"No one should be surprised that a system that allows for serial torture and abuse and holds detainees for years without charging them or granting them access to attorneys has led the defendants to capitulate and seek to plead guilty. It's abundantly clear that a coerced guilty plea resulting from years of torture and abuse would never have been accepted in a legitimate court and should not be accepted here.” This is all part of the ACLU’s efforts to force court cases out of the military justice system into the federal courts. I assume that by torture the ACLU is referring to waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, and cold rooms. The ACLU may call these methods torture, I call them effective. The CIA has prevented more than a dozen terrorist attacks using these techniques. The ACLU misunderstands the purpose of these techniques. It’s not to coerce the jihadist into admitting that he is guilty, but rather it is to coerce the jihadist to give information that will save lives by preventing future attacks and capturing or killing other jihadists.

The ACLU was very excited last June at the Supreme Court’s horrible decision. That is when the Supreme Court ruled that non-U.S. citizen enemy combatants held outside of U.S. territory can challenge their detention in federal courts. The ACLU is clearly disappointed that Khalid Sheik Mohammad does not want to appeal the decision but wants to plead guilty. Unfortunately, for the ACLU Khalid Sheik Mohammad does not share their goals. He is anxious for “martyrdom” and will also use the opportunity that the court and the media give him to score some propaganda points for the jihadists about the righteousness of their cause. The ACLU’s dream would be for Khalid Sheik Mohammad to be released because all evidence against him can be dismissed due to “serial torture.” I would much rather have the CIA deal with these prisoners than the ACLU. Perhaps the ACLU should be happy that the civil liberty of life was protected when these techniques saved peoples lives.

Thank you Obama, for bringing it up

Since Barack made an issue of it on Monday Night Football, I feel justified in posting my college football playoff scenario here.

Obama wasn't thinking big enough when he started talking about it. Instead of 8 teams, there clearly needs to by 16 that make it. Here's how the playoffs would work best in my opinion.

1- Conference champs get in. That leaves 5 at large spots.
2- Teams in the top 25 of the BCS that have beaten a conference champ (or any team that happens to tie for the conference championship) during the regular season get in.
3- If the bracket still isn't full, highest rated non conference champs are in.
4- Only 2 teams are allowed in from any given conference.
5- BCS rankings are used to break ties in all cases.
6- Home games are played at the lowest seeded schools field, except for the championship game, which rotates between the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose Bowl sites.

So here is my bracket along with the reason they got in.

1- Oklahoma (conf. champ)
16- Buffalo (conf. champ)

8- Ohio State (High BCS ranking)
9- TCU (High BCS ranking)

4- USC (conf. champ)
13- Mississippi (beat a conf. champ)

5- Utah (conf. champ)
12- Boston College (beat a conf. champ)

2- Florida (conf. champ)
15- Troy (conf. champ)

7- Boise State (conf. champ)
10- Cincinnati (conf. champ)

3- Texas (beat a conference champ)
14- East Carolina (conf. champ)

6- Penn. State (conf. champ)
11- Virginia Tech (conf. champ)

I realize that under this scenario, Alabama gets the shaft, but remember, they could have just won their conference, and they'd have been in. I want to create a situation, where some bigger schools would actually look to play teams like Utah and BYU during the regular season. Right now, the SEC just schedules a bunch of no names to beat up on. Could you imagine a Florida-Utah series? How about BYU - Notre Dame? (Beating a conf. champ would be one of Notre Dame's only ways to get in until they finally just join a conference.)

Any argument you hear against a playoff system is just hogwash, and can be defeated when logic is applied. When college football will finally just run their own system instead of letting a bunch of outside businesses to decide who's best is unknown. But I picture having my grand kids on my knee, telling them about the stupid way we used to decide a championship in college football. That is if I can cut down on the salt.

Bailout Buisiness

I'm sure everybody is surprised that the $700 billion or so bailout pushed by congress on us earlier this year isn't working. In fact, the economy seems to be getting worse. What would surprise me is if somebody actually knew where this money has gone.

Government, for some reason, never seems to be able to do things well as the "invisible hand" of the market. The invisible hand, for those who don't know is an economic theory penned by Adam Smith. Basically, he argues, that in a free market, individuals, while pursuing their own self interest, tend to promote the good of the community as a whole.

Americans, instead of government, need to decide who should be bailed out, and who should have to close their doors. So far, about $350 billion has been spent. The government has spent it on companies like AIG, who then immediately blew several thousand on some luxury getaway for the top executives. In AIG's defense, most executives get heavily awarded for running their company into the ground. Some of the bailout money has also been given to very large banks, which is having the unintended consequence of the larger banks buying out the smaller banks.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas has a better solution. He thinks the American worker should decide who gets bailed out. His proposal is simple. Give Americans a 2 month tax holiday. Not only would you not have to pay federal taxes, but you wouldn't have to pay the FICA tax which is 7.2% (someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I hear anywhere between 6.2 and 7.65) The thing about FICA tax is that your employer has to match the 7.2%. So not only would we get all our federal with holdings for two months, but also we'd get an extra 14.2% from FICA.

This would cost the government less than the $350 billion remaining. Not only would that save the government a couple billion (contrary to popular belief, that is a lot of money), but it would allow the invisible hand of the American economy the chance to bailout those that most deserve it. Rep. Gohmert explains his plan better here. Newt Gingrich also asks: "If two months would be good for the American economy, why not six months?"

The indication is that Rep. Gohmert is going to bring this idea to the floor on Monday, or whenever Queen Pelosi decides to reconvene.

There is a petition here that you can sign if you so choose. I like petitions, because it gives us all the chance to have a voice. Remember what happened when the public let congress hear it about amnesty, and more recently the moratorium they wanted to extend on drilling?

Ange does make a good point about why politicians might not be keen on this idea. If this goes through, Americans might realize how much they're getting taxed.

Gays have the right to marry

I spotted the following bumper sticker, and thought it was somewhat ironic.

Just so we're clear, I don't discriminate against gays or think they shouldn't have the right to get married, as long as they're marrying someone of the opposite sex.

By the way, if we redefine marriage to let gay men or women marry each other, why shouldn't we open up the definition to include a man marrying more than one woman at once? Or perhaps a 35 year old woman marrying a 12 year old little boy? Maybe we could redefine marriage to give the right to 3 women to marry a single cat (male or female).

Just wondering.

Survivor

This is so sad. This is a picture of two year old, Moshe Holtzberg who was in the Jewish centre that was attacked by the jihadists. He turned two last Saturday in what has to be the saddest birthday imaginable. He was found, covered in blood, crying next to the dead bodies of his mom and dad. This picture was taken at his parents' funeral.

The bottom picture is the boy with his dad in happier times. The boy continues to cry for his mom, not understanding that she is dead. These murderers are pure evil. I am sure Allah is pissed that young Moshe survived. Hopefully, Allah will deprive the "martyrs" of at least some of the virgins that they are expecting.