E-mail terror supporter Asad Ullah here islam4uk@hotmail.co.uk. He is the registered owner of the 'Saved Sect' website which supports exiled cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad, most famous for saying:

there is no doubt that fighting the enemy, whether close to you or far away, is a duty upon Muslims, especially after the criminals, aggressors and occupiers have spread their atrocities and corruption among the believers and in their homeland, and have violated the sanctities of Allah

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.

Therefore, dear brothers and sisters know that democracy and "freedom" are both forms of taaghout, and hence, it is a prerequisite of being a Muslim to reject these and declare animosity towards them.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:48 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 2 kb.

Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to read much of the news coming out of the Alito hearings. I did hear where Kennedy attempted to lecture on morals. I don't even think the pot calling the kettle black euphamism is strong enough for that. When you leave a woman to drown just to save your political career, you lose all rights to speak to anyone about morals.

What I have heard, though, is this. The Democrats are beginning to sound like a one-trick pony.

"Alito will do away with abortion."
"What's going to happen to abortion under Alito?"
"How will Alito vote on abortion cases?"
"Alito is going to take away womens' rights."

Are the Democrats being alamrists? Are they just trying to keep from getting another Conservative on the bench? Are they trying to push their agenda? Let's take a look at the facts. Most of the historical abortion cases that I have heard of have been decided 6 - 3. With the death of Chief Justice Rhenquest and the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice, nothing changes. We lost a consistantly constitional vote and gained another. Even if Judge Alito were confirmed and voted consistantly conservative on every issue, it would only bring most abortion votes to a 5-4 decision. Now, to be fair, there are some issues that were voted 5-4 that would now change. And there are some that we are completly unsure about such as upholding the partial birth abortion ban. But is that enough to stop Alito? Is that even why we are here?

The purpose of the Senate confirmation hearings, according to the Constitution, is simply to provide advice and consent to the President. It doesn't say that he has to follow their advice, or that their consent is completly necessary for a judge to be confirmed. Only that they provide it to the President. And historically, the Senate confirmation hearings have not been used as a formum for a partisan witch-hunt. This practice started in earnest with Justice Clarance Thomas. If you want proof of how the confirmation hearings should be conducted, take a look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don't agree with anything that she does politically and neither do most of the Conservatives who confirmed her. Yet she received 99% of the vote during her hearings. This is because instead of asking her how she was going to vote on certain issues, the Senators at that time stuck what they were supposed to cover. Does she know the law? Is she an honest person? Can she judge impartially? How highly is she rated by her peers? Covering the confirmation hearings with all the propaganda about how a judge is going to vote or what his politics are based on is simply a waste of our time and money. And even more so when a windbag like Kennedy takes time to bluster and lecture.

And if the Senators do their job correctly and Alito is confirmed (which is the only logical outcome at this time), what then? Will abortion be overturned? Not likely. The first thing that you have to keep in mind is that these justices can't just get into office and start overturning any law that doesn't suit them. Someone would first have to bring forth a case challenging the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. And in this case, it would probably have to be something that has not yet been tried. Most tactics (for lack of a better word) that have already been ruled on are either not going to be accepted by the court for a second look or ruled on in the same way. However, I'm certain that there are enough bright lawyers out there looking to make a name for themselves that someone can find a novel approach to this issue. So, assuming that Alito gets nominated, some hotshot young lawyer finds a new way to say Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and manages to get heard, AND one of the historical "swing vote" judges decides that he agrees with the argument AND both Roberts and Alito agree with the argument....Roe v. Wade could potentially be overturned. Woe and betide us! Women will have to move back into caves! All their human rights will be taken away! They'll become a subclass of people and even lose their right to vote!

Or maybe not. You see, all Roe v. Wade has ever done is move the decisions about abortion to a federal level and take it out of the hands of the states. And with this, out of the hands of voters. Which is EXACTLY where abortion proponents want it. They're terrified of letting the people speak on this issue, so they have hidden behind the judicial nonsense perpetrated by the original Roe ruling. Whether or not you believe in abortion, you should be completly appalled at the way this has been handled. To allow a judge to add (or take away) rights that do not appear in the Constitution allows for the complete bypass of our entire system of checks and balances. The liberals have been up in arms lately over President Bush's alleged "power grab" with the entire wiretap story. Yet they refuse to acknowledge the same type of situation when it happens with our court system.

The nomination of Samuel Alito to our highest court can be used for two things. It can be used by the partisan hacks to divide our great country further in their effort to dismantle the constitution through judicial activism or it can be used to get us back on track. As voters, the choice is ours. Contact your senator and let him know how you feel on this and every issue that means something to you. And if they don't listen, then send them a clear message at election time.

Posted by: Drew at 02:23 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 990 words, total size 6 kb.

Various Russian news agencies report that a lone knifeman entered a central Moscow synagogue and began randomly stabbing congregants. At least eight people were stabbed, four of them are in critical condition. Three of the victims were foreigners, including an American, and Israeli, and a Tajik. The name of the American victim is not known at this time.

Rabbi Yitzhak Kogan reports that the assailant said, "I've come here to kill." The assailant, 20 year old Alexander Koptsev, was apprehended by the Rabbi and his son. No known ties exist between Koptsev and antisemitic nationalist groups.

When I lived in Russia, ten years ago, antisemitism was rampant. I guess things haven't changed all that much.

UPDATE: Looks like he was a skinhead, or 'gooligan' as they say in Russia.

News Search: Moscow Synagogue

Posted by: Rusty at 12:36 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok so my wife only shares a variation of one name with Ms. Jolie who as it turns out may be officially knocked up. Be careful brad that young-un may come out and throw a roundhouse at yer noggin.

I reckon that was an appropriate pic cept Angelina will be facing the porcelain god now.

Here are your White Trash Wednesday bloggers

Click for Exclusive Actual “white trash” family conversation from inside a tin box somewhere in the deepest darkest reaches of Bumfuct Egypt.

more...

Posted by: Howie at 12:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.

Has the Northeast Intelligence Network suffered from jihadi cyber attack? Here is the message I get when going to their site:

Any one in contact with Douglas Hagman, let me know.

UPDATE: Up and working now, so Dave's explanation (in comments) might be right.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:15 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

I wonder what former Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd has to say about this? Via Dan Riehl: Heath Ledger slams West Virginians, Mormons:

"I heard a while ago that West Virginia was going to ban it. But that's a state that was lynching people only 25 years ago, so that's to be expected," Ledger said.

"Personally, I don't think the movie is (controversial) but I think maybe the Mormons in Utah do. I think it's hilarious and very immature of a society.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:58 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ya know, if some idiots want to make a movie about queer cowboys, then hey, it's a free country, right? But by the same token, if the vast majority of We the People are disgusted, repulsed, and sickened by the thought, and choose not to see it, then hey, it's a free country, right? Personally, I'm only glad John Wayne isn't around to see the depths to which we've sunken.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 12:03 PM (0yYS2)

2 John Madden on the subject: "When you think about fag cowboys, you think about Heath Leger, and when you think about Heath Leger, you think about fag cowboys. You take the fag cowboys and Mormons and they just dont go together the way they do with Heath Leger. I mean Heath Leger and fag cowboys go together like Brett Favre and Lambeau Field and cold weather, and what was the question?"

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 11, 2006 12:16 PM (e/IFH)

3 Words like "Fag" and "Queer" aside. I saw the movie. It's an excellent story of two men, who fall in love. Let's not confuse sex with love. [They find a bond that in another time would be wonderful]. The movie isn't graphic; you donÂ’t see their erect penises, you see them embrace and be tender towards each other. They were forced to remain inside the confines of society. Go see the movie. It wonÂ’t make you gay by watching it, it may even give you something to think about.

Posted by: Chevy at January 11, 2006 12:50 PM (TJt6I)

4 Nicely said Rusty.

Posted by: thirdee at January 11, 2006 12:56 PM (S0mC1)

5 Chevy: what proof do you have that seeing the movie won't make you gay?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 11, 2006 01:07 PM (RHG+K)

6 I think I'll pass, a movie that is based on the premise of: Homo's, Homo's on the range, where the deer and the antelope play Just isn't my speed. Thanks for the feedback Chevy, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Posted by: dave at January 11, 2006 01:26 PM (CcXvt)

7 Chevy, First of all, queers call themselves queers, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, especially if the gander's queer. Second, I know what love is, and I know the perfectly natural, asexual, bond that men can form, espcially under trying circumstances; it's called "brotherhood", and it's quite common among soldiers, and yes, cowboys. Wanting to give your buddy a Dirty Sanchez is not the natural expression of amity between men, which is why it's called "queer". Third, I'm not afraid of becoming queer just by watching a movie, though you might have trouble wrapping your simplistic liberal mind around the idea. I just find the whole concept repulsive, and want nothing to do with it, and I damned sure won't support such degeneracy with my money. If you like watching gay cowboy porn, then by all means go ahead, because as I said, it's a free country, but don't expect normal, red-blooded men to go for that shit, 'cause it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 01:32 PM (0yYS2)

8 Chevy, I watched the movie and immediately felt the urge to sodomize my half brother Heath.

Posted by: Nick Barclay at January 11, 2006 01:37 PM (3OPZt)

9 well said Maximus! I personally don't hate queers, just don't want to see the homo mafia in everything that is natural, because it is not! They want rights, give them their rights.........15% off Vaseline now get the *uck back in the Closet(Dice Man was right)

Posted by: Andy at January 11, 2006 02:56 PM (tMU4W)

10 That's it Andy. I have two gay neighbors that are just plain nice guys, and I wouldn't let anyone cause them any trouble, but they know how to keep private matters private, as all people should. I don't really care what consenting adults do with one another, I just don't want to know about it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 03:22 PM (0yYS2)

11 Stop saying gay cowboys! They're gay sheep herders! Big difference...

Posted by: Chad at January 11, 2006 03:30 PM (E2GpM)

12 Let's just pray this thread doesn't get linked to one of the pro-homo sites. IM, as usual, you cut through the BS and got to the point. Well said, my friend!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 11, 2006 03:32 PM (rUyw4)

13 Yeah they are sheepherders nobody ever liked them in the old westerns either: the sheep crop the grass to short not like cattle. So if they are to be hung they should be hung as sheepherders not as queers.

Posted by: john Ryan at January 11, 2006 04:18 PM (TcoRJ)

14 Good point on the technicalities, they're damn sure not cowboys. Thanks JJ.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 05:31 PM (0yYS2)

15 They are not gay, they are homosexual. I am not ruining the english language to satisfy a bunch of faggots. Sorry if you do not like my opinion but I think they are disgusting, especially bisexual men who do not tell their wives or girlfriends about their boyfriends. At least Suha Arafag knew about Yasser.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 11, 2006 05:32 PM (e/IFH)

16 Faggot traditionally meant a stick of wood, and gay meant happy. Don't know how they got converted to mean polesmoking rump rangers, but that's their current context.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 07:34 PM (0yYS2)

17 >>>I saw the movie. It's an excellent story of two men, who fall in love. So if the two cowboys in question turned out to be long-lost brothers, would it still be an "excellent" and touching story about two men who fall in love? After all, they don't show any erect penises, and they really really love each other.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 11, 2006 11:55 PM (8e/V4)

18 They are sheepherders - shepherds! Not cowboys! What's the matter Hollywood? - so out of it you missed that obvious detail? what next - a pickup is a car? Boots are shoes (or just footwear)? Want to make gay love story movies - fine. But please play at least a lil' bit attention to detail! I mean - what next - a gay love story about two sailors filmed against the backdrop of the Arizona desert?

Posted by: hondo at January 12, 2006 07:52 AM (3aakz)

19 So ... they are NOT gay cowboys, but gay shepherds. .... Does this mean they ran out of ewes?

Posted by: charlie at January 12, 2006 09:24 AM (2ZhL/)

20 Their gay cowboys because someone in Hollywood realized that pointing out their actually shepherds opens them up to a lot of old jokes - AND THEY WANT TO BE TAKEN OH SO SERIOUSLY!

Posted by: hondo at January 12, 2006 09:49 AM (3aakz)

21 So two gay sheepherders walk into a bar... Let's have a contest to finish that joke. Howzabowtit?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 10:29 AM (0yYS2)

22 No, hondo, the people who do these things and write these scripts are ignorant. Not stupid, but ignorant of anything that is not in their little circle. That is the reason they cannot understand how anyone could vote for Bush. They really have no idea about how the vast majority of the people in the US live and think. And honestly, they probably think a cowboy herds sheep. Any three-year old here in Texas would know that not to be true.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 10:30 AM (rUyw4)

23 They know the difference between herding cattle (cowboys) and herding (is that the word?) sheep (shepherds). I know they do - I'm surrounded by them here in NYC. Ang Lee might not know - but they do.

Posted by: hondo at January 12, 2006 12:47 PM (3aakz)

24 two gay sheepherders walk into a bar..... one turns to the other and says, hey ya wanna get shitfaced ? How's that IM ?

Posted by: memphis761 at January 12, 2006 02:03 PM (D3+20)

25 Sometimes you just have to push the sheep through the fence...

Posted by: George at January 12, 2006 02:07 PM (SyfL7)

26 Sorry, but no. Thanks for playing though, and please try again! How about this: Two gay sheepherders walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "We don't allow you people in here." One of the sheepers responds, "It's okay, we're into rams."

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 04:34 PM (0yYS2)

27 As they sit down at the bar, one says to the other” Mind if I push in your stool?"

Posted by: Brad at January 12, 2006 04:35 PM (3OPZt)

28 Good try Brad, but it's been done, and we need a whole joke. C'mon peeepul!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 07:27 PM (0yYS2)

29 So far the only movie reviewer I know who really loved the movie was Mr.Slave of the South Park Daily who gave it two schmeckels up.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 13, 2006 09:58 AM (9H6fQ)

30 What's the big deal about their being sheepherders rather than cowboys? You guys keep saying they are sheepherders like that was some kind of bad thing. Fact is sheepherders lived as rugged and difficult life as any cowboy. You ever read anything about the Basque sheepherders of the American west? They were tough guys! Anyway, Jesus portrays himself as a shepherd too! The "Good Shepherd." So how can being a shepherd be a bad thing? btw, it's a pretty good flick. Seems to me a lot of the people here are trashing it without even having seen it!

Posted by: ed jay at January 26, 2006 11:59 AM (11Y2B)

31 Saw the movie. Liked it. Live in Salt Lake City. Larry Miller and his Mormon counterparts can't cram their religion down our throats.

Posted by: Dennis at January 29, 2006 12:12 AM (6Dcjp)

32 Saw the movie. Excellent acting. Story not that believable. Live in Salt Lake City. Larry Miller and his Mormon counterparts can't force their strange religion down the throats of all Utahans.

Posted by: Dennis at January 29, 2006 12:18 AM (6Dcjp)

33 Brokeback Mountain will not get my money. This movie was done because sissy hollywood fags like the idea of big tough butch fags pushing them around (somebody has to be the girl). I mean, look at the village people! So far this movie has grossed 66million dollars. Sounds like a lot. Compare it to the last star wars movie. 108million on its 1st weekend alone. Real Americans know what they want, and this liberal fag cowboy shit is not it. It is being force fed to us.

Posted by: bobby at February 15, 2006 10:26 AM (v53kJ)

34 I grew around sheepherders. I know a little bit about sheepherders. They are hygenically challenged. They spend months at a time out in the wild, not bathing and doing their business in the bushes. They hang around camp fires and get all smokey. Also, they tend to take on the aroma of their charges. The only thing that could be worse would be a pig farmer. Kiss a sheepherder, not on your life, especially after I saw them castrate lambs with their teeth. Yetch! And about knocking Mormans, if the religion works for you, fine, if not, maybe you ought to be a Methodist or something else.

Posted by: Bob Gill at February 21, 2006 04:40 PM (t3jdx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Often in the pages of The Jawa Report we ponder the question of whether or not Islam can be reformed to meet modernity. Except for very liberal Muslims, we have found little hope. For instance, not a single Islamic country has either full religious freedom or freedom of speech. While a Hindu is permitted to practice his faith privately in many Muslim countries, he may not do so publicly. Nor can the believing Buddhist try to convert a Muslim or criticize Islam in any way in any Muslim country.

So, can Islam be reformed? I have speculated in the past that such reform might come, but only at great cost and through external circumstances. But, I have remained open, if not skeptical, to the possibility that such a reformation is possible and has, in fact, already begun. Today I learn that I am not alone.

Via McQ who has a discussion going over at Q and O, I learn that the Pope is equally skeptical. Had I not been on vacation, I probably would have caught Hugh Hewitt's full interview, the transcripts of which can be found at Radioblogger:

the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures . And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.

McQ has more on why this understanding is important in dealing with Iran.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:03 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

From the Associated Press via Yahoo!News:

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito came under aggressive questioning Wednesday from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who accused him of inconsistencies on issues ranging from voting rights to ethics to his membership in a conservative organization.

(a) IN GENERAL.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

The American Civil Liberties Union has officially announced its opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.

The bad news for Dems and their co-conspirators at the ACLU is that Alito is turning the confirmation hearings into a wonkfest - a solid, masterful recitation of relevant law in response to antagonistic questioning, with no emotional fireworks to attract much in the way of mainstream media attention.

Some sort of publicity stunt will be necessary to pull off the Borking. I expect that sometime soon, a mainstream media accomplice will discover some bit of old news to try to drum up a lynch mob among the leftwing loonie fringe.

Thanks to Jay Stephenson of Stop the ACLU, who has more, including a petition supporting Alito's nomination.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:11 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Honour thy father and mother that thy days be long in the land which the Lord gives thee.

MEMRI:

Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, a professor of Islamic law at Al-ImamUniversity, who frequently appears on Saudi TV recently made anti-Christian comments on Saudi Al-Majd TV. He told his audience to hate anyone "who worships Christ, son of Mary" and added that "whoever says 'I don't hate him [i.e. a Christian]' is not a Muslim..."

"But if this person is an infidel - even if this person is my mother or father, God forbid, or my son or daughter - I must hate him, his heresy, and his defiance of Allah and His prophet. I must hate his abominable deeds. Moreover, this hatred must be positive hatred. It should make me feel compassion for him, and should make me guide and reform him."

Posted by: Rusty at 08:57 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Dean Esmay has come up with "anti-war bingo", a game featuring your favorite meaningless anti-war zingers. Fun for the whole family!

Posted by: Rusty at 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

The family of an American hostage now believes that the video released by The Islamic Army in Iraq showing the murder of a hostage was Ronald Schulz. The family has scheduled a memorial service for Ronald Schulz. Mr. Schulz was in Iraq as a private civilian contractor helping rebuild the war torn country when he was abducted by the murderous al Qaeda linked terror organization. For more background, visit The Jawa Report's Ronald Schulz archive.

Norman Kember of England, American Thomas Fox, and Canadians James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden were taken hostage by an unknown group calling themselves 'The Swords of Righteousness Brigade'. As first revealed at The Jawa Report, 'The Swords of Righteousness Brigade' has been linked to the Islamic Army in Iraq. The Islamic Army in Iraq is an al Qaeda linked Salaafist jihadi group that has murdered foreign hostages in the past.

A French hostage, Bernard Planche, was released over the weekend, and we now know he was freed only after a joint U.S.-Iraqi security sweep caused his captors to flee. The best hope for the peace activists is that Coalition troops rescue them, despite the objections of the Christian Peacemakers Team's moral equivications.

We pray that the family of Ronald Schulz will find comfort and for the safe return of all hostages currently in Iraq. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

So, what I'd like to know is how come, with 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, nobody thought to suggest that Arlen Specter might be a senile old fart with his head stuck where "the sun don't shine?" This is such an assinine piece of legislation that anyone but a Hollywood actor could see it defines folly. Yet we have 535 elected legislators who apparently thought it at least reasonable?

Well, I'm ready to get rid of whoever is in office who couldn't see their way clear to pointing out such utter nonsense, not so much because the folly itself offends me, but because it offends the very principles of the nation that I consider my own, not to mention civilization itself. I mean, did anyone tell Arlen or the half-wits that stood silently behind the old coot that the Federalist Papers were anonymous? Huh?

Jesus H. Christ!

And yeah, Arlen, I do mean to offend you... you foolish old twit! Although I could hardly do as good a job of it as you've done yourself. Apparently the damage done by mercury-amalgam fillings is irreversible.

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:55 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?

"She just radiates good feeling. She looks you in the eye. She is smiling now. She is cooing in the most delightful little way," he said.

Rusty has written several posts on winning the propaganda war. I won't pile on.

But it should be noted that Zarqawi isn't fixing Iraqi babies with spina bifida. Nor is Mookie al-Sadr, or the Ba'athists and fedayeen remnants. Neither is Sistani, for that matter. The surgery wasn't performed in any of the oil-rich nations of the ME, either.

The soldiers who found this kid didn't care about p.r. The people who arranged the trip didn't, neither did the doctors who performed the surgery.

I do care, though, because it's stories like these, published to a worldwide audience, that shows we are something that our enemies aren't.

Human beings.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:10 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

(Updated please scroll down)Evansville Ind. has been preparing to mourn the loss of Private Jonathan Pfender. Mr. Pfender was killed serving in Iraq. The last report I had heard was that his family was awaiting the arrival of his body in Evansville for burial.

FOX59 : Evansville -- An Evansville woman whose son was killed by a bomb in Iraq says she's proud of her son. The Army says 22-year-old Private Jonathan Pfender of Evansville, Indiana, was killed in Bayji, Iraq, during a patrol.

His Father expressed similar pride in an interview on WTVW(sorry no link).

Last night it was brought to my attention that radical group plans to protest this fine you manÂ’s funeral. See this link and make sure you view the entire clip.

WEHT : EVANSVILLE - As the family of a fallen soldier prepares for his funeral, our media partners at the Evansville Courier and Press report the funeral is being targeted by a Kansas based group called the Westboro Baptist Church.

For examples of this groups propaganda see this link and I quote..

Westboro Baptist Church : “God Hates Vets!”

These links do not indicate support, but you have to see it to believe it.

Is it not enough that these people have lost a son? Now these jerks have to “protest a funeral”. Sorry but the proper way to “protest a funeral” is to not go. The proper way to support Mr. Pfender’s family is to respectfully attend. Seems some people just don’t know what rude means any more. What ever happened to “Love your neighbor” or “Do unto others”. If you ask me it’s the members of this group that will be “burning in hell”. Show some respect. I hope Mr. Ellsworth puts you in the old jail about 15 to a cell!

Updated: It's raining like hell on these jerks outside the funeral. Hmm... God's will maybe?.

Update II: Hundreds of supporter stood in the rain in support of Private Pfender and his family, They included Rolling Thunder, Patriotic Guard Riders, VFW, Active Service people and just people. They braved the rain and formed a wall protecting the family from the small number of protestors who were kept to one corner across the street. Supporters also stood watch at the cemetery. In fact the protestors were so outclassed that they left early. Hundreds of bikes showed up to cheers and totally drown them out Apparently the determination of the supporters in the face of wind, Rain and falling temps was far greater than the Westboro Baptist Church's taste for foul weather. They left after a short time. Not one supporter left early. . Said one Patriotic Guard Rider, “It’s all about respect for a fallen comrade”.

WEHT : Pfender's Aunt Vicki Wolf said, "Jonathan would have loved all the veterans the support, forget the protestors this is glory."

Another Family member via Patriotic Guard Riders :

I promised the mother of Pvt. Pfender - she is Peggy Hammond that I would post a quote about her son on our site. I think it's revealing of this young man's character - a true Patriot - It is: "He wanted people to know President Bush didn't come to our door," Hammond said. "He went to his."

Illinois and Indiana are considering laws to make distrubing the peace at a funeral a felony. Indiana at less than 500 ft. ILL less than 300 ft.

Why they got run plumb off! Hell Yeah! Still we grieve for the family and only hope the support can help a bit on a difficut day.

Hat Tip: Dave and the rest of the readers and bloggers who helped fill us/me in on these nuts and those who work against them.

more...

Posted by: Howie at 10:00 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 5 kb.

Caption this photo of regular commenter Agent Smith:

Fatwas will be issued.

Someday.

***Fatwas Issued***

Stephen Macklin - "I just saved a ton of money on my car insurance."

lawhawk - "Do you hear that sound Ms. Sheehan. That is the sound of your 15 minutes in an endless feedback loop. It is the sound of your doom.

Goodbye Ms. Sheehan."

Brad - "There is Mr. Liberal, that shows up to work, pays their taxes, and is a productive member of the community. Then there is Donk, a revolutionary behind the computer screen, cheering on the goat-herders-with-a-cause.

Only one of you has a future.

Which one will it be?"

Honorable mention to Mr. Venom - "I can't keep my mouth open forever. Hopefully Vinnie dishes out some fatwas soon."

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:04 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

Patrick at Clarity and Resolve speculates that Iran is about to get bombed for its nuclear brinksmanship. Me? I'm thinking the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is looking especially hot today. Let's not forget, though, that Centcom also is over The Horn of Africa where the looming war between Eritrea and Ethiopia has forced U.S. diplomatic intervention. Something about speaking softly and carrying an F-16 suddently pops into my mind.

Fort-Wayne News Sentinel:

Members of the Fort Wayne-based 122nd Fighter Wing are scheduled to leave for Southwest Asia about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday from the unitÂ’s headquarters on Ferguson Road. It represents the wingÂ’s largest single deployment since it was called to Chambley, France, in 1961 during the Berlin Crisis. This deployment is in support of ongoing operations in the U.S. Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF) area of responsibility, which includes Southwest Asia. The unit will deploy fighter pilots, as well as maintenance and support personnel.

SEE-DUBYA notes: At first I thought, fighters? Why fighters? But F-16s armed with Mk-84 2000-lb. bombs were used by the IAF in the 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor.

UPDATED NOTE by Vinnie:

We have no compelling national interest in either Ethiopia or Eritrea

The Pakistanis have their own F-16s to bomb with.

Just about every "fighter" in our arsenal is capable of converting to a bombing role. Only the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are strictly bombers.

If this were 1942, the Fort Wayne newspaper staff would have been jailed for telegraphing troop movements.

I (Vinnie) am blinded by my burning desire for revenge in the face of 25 years of Mullahcratic hostility.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:10 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I can't believe this. Just this morning I bet a friend at work $20 that we would be bombing Iran before the end of February. Looks like Andy Jackson is gonna be buying me briefs any day now! You can always count on U.S. foreign policy to keep you in fresh underwear.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 10, 2006 06:22 PM (dT1MB)

2 Let's hope this isn't a strike heading for Iran.

Posted by: dave at January 10, 2006 06:36 PM (CcXvt)

3 Why not dave? Would you rather we wait until an American city lies in smoking ruin? Maybe we should appease them some huh?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 10, 2006 06:45 PM (0yYS2)

4 It's still early for this. I would expect a bit more saber rattling from the involved parties, and a few more "strongly worded protests" from the U.N. before any real bombing started. Bush will first seek the U.N.'s blessing, and only then will he act (regardless of any U.N. blessing, of course).

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 10, 2006 06:45 PM (8e/V4)

5 So.... Will you blogroll the poor lad now?

Posted by: Vinnie at January 10, 2006 06:46 PM (Kr6/f)

6 I don't know Carlos, they didn't seem to mind our protests in 1979, and things haven't gotten any better. I'd like to see Teheran go up in one big mushroom cloud, just to make a point.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 10, 2006 06:48 PM (0yYS2)

7 No time like the present, JC. Why should we let them hide, harden, or speed up their program based on the UN's timetable? We should take the initiative and not surrender it to them.

Posted by: See-Dubya at January 10, 2006 06:50 PM (Twe7B)

8 What has that statement got to do with appeasement? We would need some serious force build up again in Iraq in case Iran decided to retaliate against our troops stations there? I don't think they would just pull out the bulldozers and a white flag if the U.S hit them with an air strike.

Posted by: dave at January 10, 2006 06:57 PM (CcXvt)

9 But when it happens, expect boots on the ground. This won't be a mere Clintonesque lobbing of cruise missiles. F-22 Raptors will cover the skies, then commandos and Army Rangers will establish a perimeter on the ground, while Army corp of engineers demolishes the place. Should be over in 2-3 days. That's my dream op ;-)

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 10, 2006 07:06 PM (8e/V4)

10 I'm with you on this one, Dave. Iran and its allies in Iraq are sure to hit us from inside Iraq. Shia militia aligned with Iran are well armed and fully capable of a pretty intensive insurgency. I say wait a little bit longer. I sympathize with others on the danger posed by Iran, but I think we have more time rather than less.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 10, 2006 07:09 PM (rUyw4)

11 I don't think the response to Iran will be an invasion, I should imagine it would be a carpet bombing operation on their industrial/military complexes only. The U.S would most likely have to defend our interests in the region because all the gloves will be off.

Posted by: dave at January 10, 2006 07:09 PM (CcXvt)

12 Just to make sure I'm understood, I'm not pushing the Left talking point that Iran would be a "Quagmire" and Iran is undefeatable I'm saying when Iran gets rocked we will need to have a lot of protection for our forces in the region.

Posted by: dave at January 10, 2006 07:31 PM (CcXvt)

13 If it must be war, then there's no time like the present. If we strike Iran, we could invade with considerable force from east and west, since we control the territory on either side of them. We could occupy Teheran within three to four weeks. Iraq is pretty much self-governing at this point, and the various parties have too much at stake politically to risk running afoul of the US military, which has well demonstrated what it can do. Our military is all-weather, all-terrain, day or night capable, and can roll over any defense the Iranians can put up. There is also the fact that most Iranians would probably welcome an invasion, as has been mentioned on many blogs. Time is running out for us to take action while we have the forces in place, so they'd better invade soon, before it's too late.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 10, 2006 08:08 PM (0yYS2)

14 There is also the fact that most Iranians would probably welcome an invasion With flowers right? where have I heard that one before.

Posted by: dave at January 10, 2006 08:21 PM (CcXvt)

15 Don't forget the continue turmoil in other island nations in the Pacific with regards to Jemaah Islamiya and the increased terror warnings coming out of one of those nations. An embassy of a close ally just closed down in one of those. In other words, there are far too many scenarios to be betting this is an impending bombing run on Iran. Hell, it could be to have something to back up the threats probably needed to push Iran back to the table and Ahmadinejad from going down the well to find the 12th Imam.

Posted by: Chad Evans at January 10, 2006 08:30 PM (+DXHJ)

16 In some respects, I have to agree with Chad. I think that this is the step by step process where we ramp up the pressure and say "look, this is what we can do". Although, i would also point out that this report does not talk about what forces are rotating back. This COULD be simply a change of guard.

Posted by: kat-missouri at January 10, 2006 08:38 PM (Rdcm7)

17 Dave, don't be stupid, if at all possible. Go read the Iranian blogs, which number over 100,000 currently, and while you'll see that many don't trust us, they hate the mullahs, who have made their lives a living hell.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 10, 2006 08:49 PM (0yYS2)

18 Yes, substitute Mullah's with Saddam Hussein and we'd be hearing the Iraq war plan all over again. Seriously. I'm with you on the Iran thing, however I don't think we should count on any Iranian participation, it was a mistake we corrected much later in the Iraq war. American overwhelming force is the only solution to the Iran nuclear threat.

Posted by: dave at January 10, 2006 08:52 PM (CcXvt)

19 airforces exercises

Posted by: phuong at January 10, 2006 09:07 PM (4IwOD)

20 military exercises

Posted by: phuong at January 10, 2006 09:09 PM (4IwOD)

21 Military exercises

Posted by: phuong at January 10, 2006 09:11 PM (4IwOD)

22 (AP) Fort Wayne's 122nd Fighter Wing headed to Iraq mission December 30, 2005, 4:59 PM EST FORT WAYNE, Ind. -- Members of the Fort Wayne-based 122nd Fighter Wing will participate in its largest overseas deployment in more than four decades as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom within three weeks. The exact number of members being deployed or where they will be going in Iraq will remain classified until the unit has arrived, the wing's commander, Col. Jeffrey Soldner, said Friday. The Indiana Air National Guard unit based at the Fort Wayne International Airport and nicknamed "the Blacksnakes" is being deployed on a rotation with two other National Guard units from Atlantic City, N.J., and Burlington, Vt. A typical rotation lasts about 120 days, Soldner said. The deployment will be the largest for the 122nd since October 1961, when the entire unit was sent to Chambley Air Base in France, unit leaders said. It wasn't clear how large the unit was then. Today it has 989 members. Previously, the unit deployed 275 men and women to Qatar in August 2004 to serve for a month, and it took part in an 18-month mission at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, to patrol Iraq's no-fly zone in the summer of 2001. " http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--guarddeployment1230dec30,0,6680245.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey

Posted by: reliapundit at January 10, 2006 09:20 PM (cZY6q)

23 When we finish with Iran, could we please incinerate Mecca's black box? Thank you.

Posted by: arturo at January 10, 2006 09:29 PM (NbjYa)

24 Lots of hype and wishful thinking - not going to happen!

Posted by: hondo at January 10, 2006 10:06 PM (3aakz)

25 U.S. Warplanes Deployed For Possible Air Strikes On Iran Posted by Spirit Of Truth on Wednesday January 11, 2006 at 12:10 am MST Link to story: http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=988&view=findpost&p=10889 Following a trip by CIA Director Porter Goss to Turkey reportedly to warn "Ankara to be ready for a possible U.S. air operation against Iran and Syria" (see http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=29658 ), U.S. warplanes are being deployed to Southwest Asia. Also, the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier battle group is reportedly headed to the Western Pacific. From - http://www.f-16.net/news_article1586.html Indiana Air National Guard set to deploy to SW Asia By Lieven January 9, 2006 - The Indian ANG 122nd wing will be deployed in upcoming days to Southwest Asia, officials announced. Col. Jeffery A. Soldner, 122nd commander, did not give specific numbers, but said it is the largest single deployment for the wing since it was called to Chambley, France, in 1961 during the Berlin Crisis... From - http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060110/NEWS01/601100389&SearchID=73232136212561 Air Guard: 122nd Fighter Wing to deploy The Indiana Air National Guard's 122nd Fighter Wing is sending troops to Southwest Asia today in the outfit's biggest deployment since the 1960s. Based in Fort Wayne, the outfit flew P-51 Mustangs during the Korean War and also deployed to Europe during the Berlin Crisis in 1961 and 1962, according to the unit's Web site. In Europe, pilots flew the Republic F-84F "Thunderstreak." The 122nd also sent some personnel overseas during Desert Storm. This time, the wing is expected to ship out fighter pilots, who now fly a variant of the F-16, along with maintenance and support personnel. The exact numbers involved, along with their precise destination, is not being released by the Pentagon. They were scheduled to leave from Fort Wayne about 2:30 a.m. today. -- Keith Manring From - http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060107/NEWS/601070311/1003 Send-off for Guard today (from Vermont) January 7, 2006 Associated Press COLCHESTER — Approximately 115 members of Vermont's Air National Guard will leave for Iraq next week for missions of up to four months. A send-off ceremony will take place Saturday at 3 p.m. at the Tarrant Field House at Saint Michael's College. The group is part of the nearly half of the Vermont Air National Guard's force – nearly 400 members of the 158th Fighter Wing – who will be deployed to an undisclosed location in Iraq this spring. The remaining 250 airmen are expected to leave Vermont in March.They will take some of the Vermont Guard's fleet of F-16 fighter jets with them and serve for 15 to 120 days, alongside Air Guard members from New Jersey and Indiana. The U.S. Air Force has divided Guard and Reserve units into 10 forces in an effort to deploy anywhere in the world quickly. Vermont's Air National Guard is one of the forces and is expected to be on-call or deploy for up to 120 days every 18 months, Guard officials said. The entire deployment will be the largest of the Air Guard's in 10 years, officials said. From - http://www.f-16.net/news_article1569.html Singapore F-16s deploy to India for air exercise SINDEX 06 By Lieven January 3, 2006 - The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) is holding a bilateral air exercise with the Indian Air Force from 03 to 20 January. Eight RSAF F-16s flew into Kalaikunda Air Force Station in Eastern India for the exercise. RSAF F-16D Block 52 #672 of the 145th sqn pictured against the morning sun at Paya Lebar AB on June 15th, 2005. The Singapore F-16s were supported by an RSAF KC-135 tanker, which conducted air-to-air refuelling during the four-hour journey. From - http://www.alamogordonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060106/NEWS01/601060307 Holloman deploying airmen (from New Mexico) BY ELLIS NEEL STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER/WRITER Jan 6, 2006, 06:00 pm Approximately 200 airmen from Holloman Air Force Base are readying themselves for a trip overseas. The airmen soon will deploy as part of the Air and Space Expeditionary Force cycle 9 and 10 to various locations in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. From - http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,84486,00.html USS Ronald Reagan Departs on Maiden Deployment Navy News | January 04, 2006 SAN DIEGO - USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) departed San Diego Jan. 4 on a deployment to conduct naval operations in support of the global war on terrorism, as well as national and theater cooperative security commitments in the western Pacific.

Posted by: J. Adams at January 11, 2006 01:23 AM (F7SQ6)

26 Whats with all the info? Fundamentally, it's meaningless. There seems to be an obsessive desire on the part of elements of both the left and right to see war with Iran. All the (strange) wishful thinking ain't gonna make it happen.

Posted by: hondo at January 11, 2006 09:42 AM (3aakz)

27 Oh well, I'm not giving up hope yet. Before W leaves office, he should have sorted out Iran and Syria if he wants his legacy to really mean something.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 10:47 AM (0yYS2)

28 Iran's not Iraq or NK - one size or method doesn't fit all. Iran is going to have to play itself out internally - how long? - I don't know. Another revolution or internal civil war is in the cards - but we are not going to be participants.

Posted by: hondo at January 11, 2006 11:22 AM (3aakz)

29 If we count Israel as part of Asia, then we can go ahead and bomb every country in all of Asia except Israel, Thailand, Singapore, and Taiwan. No problem with target practice on the other countries.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 11, 2006 12:12 PM (e/IFH)

30 I think an invasion would set off a revolution hondo. We could sweep in from east and west, surround Tehran, and let the people deal with the mullahs while we get video of them all hanging from lamp posts and balconies.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 11, 2006 05:41 PM (0yYS2)

31 It seems some would like us not to be involved(hondo). Unfortunately, it looks more and more like the Iranian's are pushing it to the limit. The way this may work out is a Israel and Turkey coalition taking on the Iranians. The Turks will just be the flyover country and possible safe spot to put down after if need be, providing them with a little plausible cover that they didn't know what was going on. Israel needs a shorter route to Iran and it won't be through Iraq, going through Turkey allows them to come out of the mountains of north west giving good cover. We(US)have to play the diplomatic cover until the very last, unfortunately the current situation here at home and abroad, especially in Iraq means we cannot be the ones to attack first. Remember we have a new government in Iraq and I don't think it would look to kindly of us to say we allowed Israel to over fly them because it was in our best intersest. This way if the Iranians decide to strike back at Turkey for cooperating a little bit then they have NATO backup. If they try to strike US anywhere else in the gulf we can say we did not have anything to do with this and we can hammer them. The best way is to let Israel strike first, see if they succeed, if the Iranians decide they are going to strike back they have to go through Iraq. Syria won't say anything, Assad would lose his country in a heartbeat. The Palistinens will rise up, but will be put down just as quick. Let Israel take care of the problem to begin with and have a big hammer ready to finish the job if need be.

Posted by: patrick at January 11, 2006 05:51 PM (7KYmz)

32 Go play Stratego on your own - if eveything was that easy you'd be head of the JCS.

Posted by: hondo at January 11, 2006 10:47 PM (3aakz)

33 This deployment is just saber-rattling, to synergize with a step-up of the EU harsh-word offensive. I think there's still lots of time before we need to actually resort to bashing with a big stick. I don't think that most of these facilities are easily portable, and I'll bet we can bust any bunker the mullahs can come up with.

Posted by: Mark at January 12, 2006 01:12 PM (G6key)

34 The deployment was planned as a standard rotation per the December newsarticle cited above. This is an Air National Guard unit with older equipment, FWIW.

Posted by: Robin Burk at January 12, 2006 01:30 PM (oogdQ)

35 As Robin mentioned, this the standard AEF (Air Expeditionary Force) rotation, not a new contingency deployment. Obviously the assets in theater can be used for the purposes speculated in prior posts, but that was as true last month as it will be next.

Posted by: Phat at January 12, 2006 01:38 PM (7Dt96)

36 Any American operation against Iran would probably require insuring air superiority, at least over specified air corridors.

Bombing nuclear facilities can sometimes create more problems than it solves.

I could foresee a scenario where after achieving air superiority, the Americans would launch a massive helicopter air assault against the nuke facilities, with close air support keeping Iranian ground reinforcements from arriving on the scene.

Once the facilities were secured, nuclear technicians could then begin dismantelling the facilities and confiscating any critical materials.

Then everyone would leave. The Americans do not have the stomach for anymore nation building.

Posted by: Neonknight at January 12, 2006 03:27 PM (fe4z0)

37 Actually, it is that easy, but it just takes balls to do it; a quality that seems to be in short supply these days. One day soon, when an American city lies in smoking, radioactive ruin, you will try hard to forget my words.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 04:42 PM (0yYS2)

38 Oy Vey, You guys just do not know truth from fiction. The truth is; the US is run by Puerto Rican Jews who own everything and will soon invade with their brut pelican airforce whose pelican fecal mater will spread the bird flu as well as aerial death style invasion from the new killer vaccine Tami flu. Certain strategic combat factions from Joe's Bar and Grill will infiltrate the publishing rooms where they publish korans and fill the pages with new subject matter describing how mohammed was actually gay and had a fetish for fried pork rinds. This will be the demise for all of islam and bare mute testimony for a muslim conversion to Sagittarians leaving them totally mindless. This is how to win a war!!

Posted by: DrLawrence at January 12, 2006 10:42 PM (6mUkl)

39 Just a couple points to throw out: 1. The arab shia in Iran have been rioting on and off for the last year and a half. I don't think that the Iraqi shia are going to care much what happens to the Persian Shia. 2. I suspect that most every Sunni country would like to see Iran get nailed on this nuclear thing. I don't see the Arab street caring much for what happens with the Persian Shia. 3. We are in the middle of two major rotations (One in Iraq and One in Afganistan where much of the 10th Mountain is going). For about 60 days we will have a troop spike in Southwest Asia. On a personal note, if I am correct about 1 and 2, I would love to see a raid.

Posted by: David at January 14, 2006 12:57 PM (mmb0B)

40 The 122nd is on a regular scheduled rotation. The mission has been scheduled for months. My son-in-laws brother is a deploying member. Someone mentioned that Guard aircraft are older FWIW. That may be true but the Guard equipment is well maintained by people who have years more experience then their active duty counterparts. The airframe may be older but the engines and electronics are current, state of the art, better maintained and very capable.

Posted by: Ron On The Rio Grande at January 14, 2006 10:55 PM (oEelD)

41 This seems to be a well-informed blog, with some great tech experts. May I present the following scenario for consideration: 1.Israel for existential reasons (i.e. their existence) elects to launch a preemptive conventional strike on nascent Iranian nuclear capability, including but by no means limited to the Bushehr site. 2. US not involved in strike EXCEPT possibly furnishing tanker support (deniable) to multiply sorties and intel. The IAF does not have much tanker capability. 3. IAF plans figure 500 or so sorties. Less if conventional Jericho missiles are used in tandem. Question: what deployments would be necessary, i.e. USN units to the Indian Ocean/Arabian Sea and USAF units to any -Stan countries that might serve as leading indicators. Especially tankers. My thinking is that if Iran tosses inspectors, and/or begins producing weapons-grade uranium, or Iran begins upgrading its AAA capability as per recent deals with Russia, the scenario would develop rapidly. Thanks for your thoughts.

Posted by: ross hugo-vidal at February 04, 2006 12:48 PM (Awrxw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Patrick at Clarity and Resolve speculates that Iran is about to get bombed for its nuclear brinksmanship. Me? I'm thinking the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is looking especially hot today. Let's not forget, though, that Centcom also is over The Horn of Africa where the looming war between Eritrea and Ethiopia has forced U.S. diplomatic intervention. Something about speaking softly and carrying an F-16 suddently pops into my mind.

Fort-Wayne News Sentinel:

Members of the Fort Wayne-based 122nd Fighter Wing are scheduled to leave for Southwest Asia about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday from the unitÂ’s headquarters on Ferguson Road. It represents the wingÂ’s largest single deployment since it was called to Chambley, France, in 1961 during the Berlin Crisis. This deployment is in support of ongoing operations in the U.S. Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF) area of responsibility, which includes Southwest Asia. The unit will deploy fighter pilots, as well as maintenance and support personnel.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 2 kb.

Good on you Traderrob of Exposing the Left and The Jawa Report for making the NY Times. I guess you've finally made it.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Another traitor found teaching at another Florida institution of higher learning. Sami Al-Arian must be happy to know that he's not the only traitor running loose in South Florida's academy. I'm thinking they could get their buddies together for an annual conference of the University Association of Spies, Traitors, Jew Haters, and Terror Supporters of South Florida.

UPDATE: Here is what FIU's webpage says about Carlos M. Alvaraz.

Carlos M. Álvarez is associate professor in the department of educational leadership and policy studies and a member of the faculty coordinating committee of the graduate certificate program in conflict resolution. He holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Florida. Dr. Álvarez teaches graduate level courses and conducts research on topics related to conflict resolution and the construction of ethnonational identities. He recently published a book entitled Ethnic Identity: Understanding Contemporary Perspectives. He has also published essays on the issue of Cuban American identity from a social psychological perspective. Dr. Álvarez has worked for more than 25 years as a consultant, visiting professor, lecturer, and trainer at different educational institutions in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Spain.

Carlos M. Alvarez is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations and Professional Studies in the College of Education at FIU. He received a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Florida in 1972, and is a specialist in the psychology of ethnic identities, interactive conflict resolution,and higher education in Latin American and the Caribbean. Dr. Alvarez has chaired discussion groups and presented papers relating to Cuban-American ethnic identity, education and society in Cuba, and the political psychology of U.S.-Cuban relations at several international conferences. He has been a consultant for a number of educational institutions and organizations, including the Department of Educational Planning and Research for the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C. Published works include "Ethnicity: A review of related concepts" in Cultural and Social Foundations of Education: An Interdisciplinary Approach (1996) and "La identidad Cubano-Americana en el sur de la Florida: Un analisis contextual" in Razon y pasión: Veinticinco años de estudios cubanos (1996).

Posted by: Rusty at 03:50 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.