I came across this and it sent shivers down my spine:

http://www.zombietime.com/jewish_attack/

More Proof of Arab intentions

Ever since "the handshake", which precluded the Oslo war in 1993, we have heard from many, many Arab "leaders" explain that the sole purpose of signing the peace accord was to lull Israel into a false sense of security.

And yet, some Israelis and many Americans, who by far are the strongest supporters of Israel, continue to view the "Palestinians" through rose colored glasses.

In the 13 years since the "peace" agreement was signed, the "Palestinians" continue to ignore the first - and most important - pledge. Not only have the "Palestinians" not reigned in Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but Abbas - Arafat before him - continue to allow the Al-Aqsa brigade (which directly answers to them) to roam free.

Yet, Ariel Sharon and President Bush continue to believe that the current "Palestinian" leadership is a true partner for peace.

Maybe this will finally awaken them (though I doubt it):

Disengagement is Just the Beginning

"We say to the entire world: Today Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem. Today Gaza, and tomorrow the independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital."

-- Ahmed Qurei, known as Abu Ala, the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. He said this on Wednesday while visiting with PA forces in the Gaza Strip, less than three weeks before Israel's scheduled withdrawal from Gaza.

Just yesterday, Qurei told reporters that Israel's withdrawal must be followed by preparations for a further withdrawal from the rest of what he called the West Bank - Judea and Samaria - and eastern Jerusalem. "The step [withdrawal from Gaza] must also be followed by recognizing a Palestinian state," he said.

It's far easier to believe the best in people, but ignoring the worst is much too dangerous.

Another Reason to Quit Snorting

If doing coke wasn't dangerous enough, now comes this story from the New York Post:

Osama bin Laden tried to buy a massive amount of cocaine, spike it with poison and sell it in the United States, hoping to kill thousands of Americans one year after the 9/11 attacks, The Post has learned.

The evil plot failed when the Colombian drug lords bin Laden approached decided it would be bad for their business - and, possibly, for their own health, according to law-enforcement sources familiar with the Drug Enforcement Administration's probe of the aborted transaction. The feds were told of the scheme earlier this year, but its existence had never been made public. The Post has reviewed a document detailing the DEA's findings in the matter, in addition to interviewing sources familiar with the case.

Sources said the feds were told that bin Laden personally met with leaders of a Colombian drug cartel to in 2002 to negotiate the purchase of tons of cocaine, saying that he was willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to finance the deal.

It was not clear where the meeting took place.

Apparently, the drug lords in Columbia nixed the deal, not because of any care for American children, but because it would hurt their long-term business.

This plan happened right after 9/11, but surely Americans must realize that what we are doing in Iraq is keeping the war front in the Middle East - and not here.

Yes, Osama needs to be eliminated, but not at the expense of the larger war against the Islamofacists.

Michelle Malkin has more.

This may have been going around the World Wide Web previously, but I just found it...

How To Be A Good Democrat

1.You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2.You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3.You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

4.You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5.You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

6.You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7.You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

8.You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

9.You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who've never been outside of Seattle do.

10.You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11.You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

12.You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13.You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14.You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Edison.

15.You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't, because the right people haven't been in charge.

16.You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

17.You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18.You have to believe conservatives for seeking out and telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

19.You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20.You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

Courtesy of Uncommon Sense

The Gaza Disengagement:

Right? Or wrong?

I'm interested in everone's opinion and will use this data in an upcoming article.

I know that the death penalty is generally used to punish capital murderers, but maybe they should bend the rules for this a-hole.

Tip of the hat: Hooah Wife

Hey, I can accept an apology. Even one from Molly Ivins:

CROW EATEN HERE: This is a horror. In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.

The only problem is figuring out by how large a factor I was wrong. I had been keeping an eye on civilian deaths in Iraq for a couple of months, waiting for the most conservative estimates to creep over 20,000, which I had fixed in my mind as the number of Iraqi civilians Saddam had killed.

The high-end estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths in this war is 100,000, according to a Johns Hopkins University study published in the British medical journal The Lancet last October, but I was sticking to the low-end, most conservative estimates because I didn't want to be accused of exaggeration.

Ha! I could hardly have been more wrong, no matter how you count Saddam's killing of civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. The massacre of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 killed at least 8,000; the infamous gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja killed 5,000 in 1988; and seized documents from Iraqi security organizations show 182,000 were murdered during the Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, also in 1988.

In 1991, following the first Gulf War, both the Kurds and the Shiites rebelled. The allied forces did not intervene, and Saddam brutally suppressed both uprisings and drained the southern marshes that had been home to a local population for more than 5,000 years.

Saddam's regime left 271 mass graves, with more still being discovered. That figure alone was the source for my original mistaken estimate of 20,000. Saddam's widespread use of systematic torture, including rape, has been verified by the U.N. Committee on Human Rights and other human rights groups over the years.

There are wildly varying estimates of the number of civilians, especially babies and young children, who died as a result of the sanctions that followed the Gulf War. While it is true that the ill-advised sanctions were put in place by the United Nations, I do not see that that lessens Hussein's moral culpability, whatever blame attaches to the sanctions themselves -- particularly since Saddam promptly corrupted the Oil for Food Program put in place to mitigate the effects of the sanctions, and used the proceeds to build more palaces, etc.

There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.

I was certainly under no illusions regarding Saddam Hussein, whom I have opposed through human rights work for decades. My sincere apologies. It is unforgivable of me not have checked. I am so sorry.

This may well be the first time a left-wing writer has demonstrated the ability to rise above partisanship and acknowledged who has been the true enemy in Iraq.

I never, ever thought I'd say this, but - Way to go Molly!

Tip of the hat: Michelle Malkin

There was a discussion today about why Al-Qaeda targeted England today.

The easy answer is because the British are integral part of the war effort in Iraq. After all, Tony Blair is President Bush's closest ally.

Another reason considered was that Al-Qaeda attempted to further sway public support against the Blair government (as they accomplished in Spain).

On his radio program today, Dennis Prager interviewed an Israeli terrorism and intelligence expert who said that the London subways and busses were poorly secured allowing for a easy target. Furthermore, Al-Qaeda has not mounted another attack on U.S. soil because it wants this war to be an international affair. He explained that Osama Bin Laden's enemy is not necessarily the U.S., but rather the Saudi Arabian leadership. His goal, again according to this expert, is the overthrow of the Saudi government and the placement of Bin Laden (as well as his followers) as the "true descendants of Muhammed."

I don't know if I buy that. Perhaps Osama has his eyes on Arabia, but I tend to believe that the reason Al-Qaeda has not struck here again is because America didn't fold in the face of terror. Bin Laden obviously felt that the Americans had no stomach for war, considering our responses since 1979.

Considering the effect that the 3/11 bombing in Madrid accomplished, Bin Laden's attack on 9/11 was a colossal failure. Just as in 1941, the U.S. woke up. While Americans hate the thought of war, we understand it's costs and needs.

Another great line from Prager was this, "Why do British consider this "terrorism"? But when a busload of Israelis are blown up, it's "freedom fighting?"

I don't care whether you are a leftist, rightist or "inbetweenist", the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel are all part of the overall war on terror. The fact that there were no WMDs found in Iraq is not important. Bush went to war in Iraq in order to combat terrorism the best way possible - by spreading democracy.

The fact that the left side of the American government continues to fixate on Iraq as a separate entity just mirrors President Clinton's lunacy of treating the 1993 Twin Towers attack as a "police matter."

For a party that considers themselves to be the "intellectuals", they sure are clueless.

From the New York Sun...

The New War Against The Jews
BY HILLEL HALKIN
June 28, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/16192

A man wakes up one morning and thinks he's back in the Middle Ages. Russian State Prosecutor Vladimir Ustinov, the front page of the Russian newspaper Izvestia reports, has decided to launch an official investigation of the Shulhan Arukh, the definitive compendium of Jewish law written in the 16th century by Rabbi Joseph Caro and used to this day - generally in an abbreviated version - as a standard reference book by Orthodox Jews.

Prosecutor Ustinov has already summoned Moscow rabbi Zinovy Kogan, chairman of the Congress of Jewish Organizations, for questioning in order to determine whether the Shulhan Arukh should be banned for "racist incitement." He took this action after receiving a letter last January, signed by 500 patriotic Russians, calling the Jewish religion "anti-Christian and inhumane" and demanding that the Shulhan Arukh be banned.

You read and rub your eyes and read again. And still it's hard to believe.

When did something like this happen before? Well, the first time was in 1240, when Pope Gregory IX, after receiving a formal denunciation of the Talmud as "blasphemous" and "pernicious" from a French Jewish apostate, ordered all copies of it seized and an investigation of it undertaken. At a public inquiry held in Paris in the presence of King Louis IX, the Talmud was found guilty. On June 17, 1242, all confiscated copies of it were burned, as part of 24 cartloads of Jewish books, in a large bonfire.

State Prosecutor Ustinov - indeed, the government of Russia that has not immediately acted to remove him from office - can be proud to belong to a time-honored tradition. Perhaps we can look forward to bonfires in Moscow sometime soon. You rub your eyes and read again.

Not, of course, that the Talmud - or the Shulhan Arukh, for that matter - is entirely free of anti-Gentile remarks. Given the world's treatment of the Jews over the past 1,500 years, it's surprising that there aren't more of these. Yet if we're going to start eliminating religious books for their hateful passages, why start with the minor case of Jewish ones? Let's first burn the New Testament and the Koran for viciously consigning all nonbelievers, Jews included, to the eternal torments of hell. (Which is a punishment, incidentally, that Jewish tradition never invoked on Christians and Muslims.)

But, of course, even to make this kind of argument is to stoop to taking the intellects of State Prosecutor Ustinov and the 500 letter writers - among which were Russian authors, mathematicians, and former international chess champion Boris Spassky - too seriously. One doesn't argue logically with rabid idiots. One fights them as dangerous enemies must be fought, with no holds barred.

The scary thing is that once again, 50 years after the Holocaust, the Jews have so many enemies. And make no mistake about it: They are dangerous.

Nor are all of them primitives out of the Middle Ages. Some are very suave, very cultivated gentlemen. They wear three-piece suits and they speak with Oxonian accents and they say things like "bloody nuisance" and "spot on." Some are even leaders of the Anglican Church.

You may have noticed it. The international advisory body of that church voted last Friday in London to urge its congregations, which have 75 million members worldwide, to disinvest in Israel because of its "oppression" of the Palestinians.

These are not benighted Slavophiles. They are sophisticated High Churchmen. With them one can argue. One can say: "Of all the world's 'oppressing' countries - China, which oppresses Tibet; India, which oppresses Kashmir; Russia, which oppresses Chechnya, et cetera, et cetera - the one you've decided to boycott as good Christians is the country of the Jewish people? The country of the same Jews whom you Christians have hounded throughout your history and whom you Anglicans and Englishmen watched as they were slaughtered by the millions in Europe while you did nothing to rescue them and barred the gates of Palestine and England to those of them who might have fled? Have you no shame? No honor? No awareness of your own appalling hypocrisy?"

No, they have no shame, no honor, no awareness of their own appalling hypocrisy. And they are anti-Semites no less than State Prosecutor Ustinov and his 500 imbeciles. In fact, they are State Prosecutor Ustinov's allies.

This cannot be said too often. In an age in which a Jewish state's right to exist is still not recognized by much of the world - in which tens of millions of Arabs and hundreds of millions of Muslims regularly clamor for its destruction - in which a Muslim country now in the process of arming itself with nuclear weapons openly refers to it as an outlaw creation that must be wiped from the face of the earth - anyone deliberately undermining this state's legitimacy, even if he wears a respectable English clergyman's collar, is contributing to another possible genocide of the Jews.

Criticism of Israel? By all means. This is perfectly legitimate. So is concern for the Palestinians. But disinvestment is not criticism. It is an attempt to turn Israel into a pariah state. And Jews, having been treated as pariahs by Christian civilization since the age of Constantine, know exactly what this means.

Half a century after the Holocaust, a new war against the Jews has been declared. We are only now - innocents that we have been, lulled by the world and our own wishful thinking into believing that widespread Jew-hatred is a thing of the past - waking up to its true dimensions.

It is not a war that we Jews will necessarily win, although it is not one that we can afford to lose. But we, too, have our allies and we are fortunate that they are more intelligent than our enemies. We have to impress on them that the fight is not only for us but for a sane world that has not completely lost its moral and intellectual bearings.

Hat Tip Uncle Doc!

Photo of the Millenium:

The Eye of G-d

On the opposite side of the coin....

Once Again, Nancy Pelosi, Brian Williams and Molly Ivins prove just what useless idiots they are.

Nancy Pelosi
Brian Williams
Molly Ivins

On the other hand (again)....

Happy birthday, Thomas Sowell