It's Halloween!

At least it seems to be, at penraker.com. The Penraker's been handing out plenty of sweets...

on Democrats (particularly former President Clinton).
on education.
on British Press (for contrasting enlightenment, view this).
on American Press.
and on politics (and read this, which elaborates).


And via LGF, people who think straight:

• Canadian PM Stephen Harper
• British "left-wing" journalist David Aaronovitch

Charles Said, "Let it be Clear!" And it was.

I tell you, I give lotsa credit to Charles Johnson for doing the kind of investigative work he's been doing. He exemplified this quality with this discovery that CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper might have lied about CAIR-Saudi monetary relationships, and the evidence Charles presents is pretty damning. It's worth a look - even by CNN and the BBC.

I wonder if anyone else is gonna have a field day with this?

Tidbits in the Newsbytes

I, for one, would agree with John Hinderaker's assessment of Blowhole Kennedy.

But, let us remove ourselves from politics for a bit and focus on the real issues.

One being the fact that Ramadan's taken on a new meaning for Muslims:
"Youths threw stones at passing people and cars, windows of parked cars were smashed, bus shelters were demolished, cars were set ablaze, a youth club was arsoned and a shop was looted. Two molotov cocktails were thrown into St. Peter's hospital, one of the main hospitals of central Brussels. The fire brigade was able to extinguish the fires at the hospital, but youths managed to steal the keys of the fire engine."

But what really peeves me is the following:

"The immigrant youths claim that they are upset by the death of Fayçal Chaaban, a 25-year old criminal, in a Brussels prison last Sunday. Yesterday morning the authorities announced they would hold a meeting with the youths to hear their grievances about security in prison, but the meeting, which was due last night, could not take place because of the riots."

So, instead of cooperating with the willing authorities about their initial grievance, they decided to riot more. This must now be the typical Ramadan behavior in Europe.

I agree with Charles Johnson. Absolutely. The Religion of Peace.

Oh, and while we're on (or near) subject, compare and contrast.

Finally, somebody has to go and wake up former President Jimmy Carter.

Rose, Malkin, The Press

Forgive me for saying so, but after Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie, we should be paying much more to Flemming Rose, who, by the way, was quoted today saying that "Here we go again. It's like deja vu...This is exactly the kind of self-censorship I and my newspaper have been warning against...You play into the hands of the radicals. You are telling them: your tactics are working. This is a victory for the radicals. It's weakening the moderate Muslims who are our allies in this battle of ideas."

The very same al-Reuters article reminds us that "In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered after outraging Muslims with a film accusing Islam of promoting violence against women, and a British play featuring sexual abuse and murder in a Sikh temple was canceled after protests. Last year London's Tate Britain museum removed a sculpture by John Latham which it feared would offend Muslims and a British tour of "Jerry Springer - The Opera" was temporarily canceled when conservative Christian groups complained."

But I can tell you right now we're not doing enough.

And yet there are some people of note I wouldn't dare include in that "we."

One such person is Michelle Malkin. Citing a recent Yahoo! News article:

"'He was accused of aiding and abetting the insurgency, but he has yet to be charged with any crime,' Slaughter said. She noted that the AP has demanded that Hussein either be released or charged so that he can be turned over to the Iraqi court system for trial."

And Ms. Malkin points out that "Hussein, was discovered by American troops in a Ramadi apartment with an alleged al Qaeda leader and a weapons cache, and who tested positive for explosives."

Now, via Ms. Malkins factual information, let me point out to miss Slaughter (who is, quite astoundingly, one of our Representatives) that with such evidence the military merely has to detain him. That's what they've done. He has no more right's that Osama's cabbie (but we all know how that turned out). Furthermore, the practice of detainment is actually very effective, considering what happened to, for example, Yasser Arafat.

In the meantime, read this refreshing piece by Reuven Brenner.

I can't believe....

...that I had to do mounds of searching all day just for this.

Diversity In Space Day

In light of the recent first all accomplished in one piece - that is, Iranian-born woman Anousheh Ansari, the first female space tourist, is the first to write a blog in space - I christen September 22, the day Ansari published her first post on http://spaceblog.xprize.org, as Diversity In Space Day.


All hail the female Iranian-born blogging space tourist! All hail!! All hail!!!

Inspiration

Inspired by the likes of George Jonas, I've a new motto:

"Jihad is the new Kampf."

Oh, and please take the time to read these two articles that require your full attention.

More Perspectives from the Jewish Right

In a previous post I wrote about Albom's take that in criticizing or attempting to silence Chavez we are not only revoking freedom of speech (read: we have to be courteous hosts to a guest who takes pleasure in criticizing our home), but we're also refuting to ourselves the fact that we're in the right.

But I think we don't have to be fair and impartial in order to be right. Sometimes, trying to be balanced is not the right way to go and during these times, picking sides is only necessary. For his part, Paul Greenberg exemplifies this viewpoint in his article "Constructing reality: The news and you" when he says:

"We keep being told about news coverage that is Fair and Balanced, or Impartial and Objective. Unfortunately, we tend to use all those terms as synonyms. They aren't.
Just quoting both sides of a debate and leaving it at that may be balanced, but it's scarcely fair to the reader. And there's nothing commendable about being so impartial between truth and falsity that we split the difference between the two and call it objectivity. "

This is absolutely spot-on. He then goes on to say what I think is an awesome quote:

"If the press just recites what the politicians say, we run the risk of being reduced to a bullhorn for their version of reality. Call it the Joe McCarthy Problem. Merely to retail a demagogue's propaganda and stop there, without examining it, is to become an accomplice to it."

And when we're finally sniffing doublespeak? Well, Greenberg likens it to cognitive dissonance. How to define this? Greenberg doesn't know, so he uses examples, one from 1984 and one from his own life, and these are really important parts of his article, especially since his personal life experience relates to the Jim Crow South. It is truly a must-read anecdote.

He ends by telling us that things are clear to us only if we are honest with ourselves.

And that, to me, is the truth of the matter.

The Penraker Dialogues

The author of penraker has always had lots to say. Usually I pay attention, but since this time I've time, I think there merits discussion on his recent entries.

In one of today's postings entitled "The Clinton Fisking Begins," Mr. Penraker decides that facts can completely debunk Clinton's claims during his Wallace interview. Penraker effectively calls Clinton a liar.

And he backs it up.

For example, how to disprove Clinton's claims that he'd "Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden?"

Easy. A couple of quick LexisNexis searches'll clear the GOP's name and expose this lie.

What else? Oh, how about a CNN report from 1998. And a quote from Trent Lott.

And let's not forget our allies at realclearpolitics.com.

Now, this is not to say that I disagree with Penraker or the former President. But I think it's a small effort that didn't go nearly as far as it should have. There should be a gigantic textbook about how everything Clinton said during that portion of the interview was pure bogus. This is not to mention Drudge's clip noting Clinton's slurring and touching of Wallace. He may be right about the weirdness of it all, but at the same time I think we should all take a step back and start ignoring the Clintons. It's about time we did. Of the ex-Presidents alive today, who's sticking their faces into public view the most? Not Ford, not Reagan, not Bush, but Clinton and Carter. Uh, yeah, the Democrats. Not to be prissy, but, am I detecting something here?

Update: I just noticed Penraker's post about Zahn's intro, namely her intro stating "Here is how he responded when he was grilled about his attempts to get Bin Laden."

Umm, grilled?

Did she, like, ever see the interview?

Yeah, because if you didn't notice, it was Clinton who was doing the drilling.

Perspectives from the Jewish Right: Albom vs. Jacoby

Preface: There's a reason I can't bear myself to watch MSNBC anymore.

Mitch Albom writes that our passivity is what separates us from them - that no matter how much Chavez and Ahmadinejad insult us on our own soil (read: U.N.), if we retaliate by silencing those who spread cruel hate and propaganda, then "[w]e'd lose the feeling that we are the good guys."

Really?

I do give him credit for taking a very difficult stance - that we shouldn't give him the cold shoulder and that freedom of speech is something we shouldn't deny anyone.

But wasn't that the same kind of free speech (read: New York Times) that blew Valerie's cover and revealed the wiretapping, Guantanamo and Haditha?

I think so.

And I also think that us, the American people, choosing silence, is akin to assistint the Press and Democrats in their effort to discredit the Iraq war and the Bush administration. And Albom thinks that we can only convince ourselves we are the good guys if we tell ourselves to shut up and let dictators get their say?

I wouldn't stand for that for one minute. Even in writing this blog post I am defying Albom's requisite to national self-confidence, because Albom, whom I respect and who I believe has the best of intentions has, this time, got it wrong.


Fortunately, Jeff Jacoby has a better, far more accurate perspective. First, though Pelosi's words don't pass Charles Johnson's test, Jacoby acknowledges that she's managed to "r[i]se above party politics" with her words in defense of the president.

Then he cuts straight to the chase.

"...his potential for troublemaking is no joke. He is a shrewd strategic thinker who hungers for glory and sees a showdown with the United States as his ticket into the history books. Accordingly, he denounces the American "empire" at every opportunity and goes out of his way to cultivate relationships with America's enemies."

Jacoby then lays down the gavel:

"He made a point, for example, of visiting Saddam Hussein when the Iraqi dictator was under international sanctions, and he has cozied up to Iran's theocrats and Moammar Qaddafi of Libya. He is an avid protégé of Fidel Castro, and has in turn served as mentor and patron to other anti-Yanqui Latin American presidents, such as Argentina's Néstor Kirchner and Bolivia's Evo Morales . According to Thor Halvorssen of the Human Rights Foundation, Chavez has armed, financed, and provided safe haven to members of FARC, the Colombian narcoterrorists. He has even lavished praise on Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the Venezuelan-born terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal."

And...

"But Chavez, who went to prison in 1992 after trying to overthrow Venezuela's democratic government, has more in mind than striking obnoxious poses. As Franklin Foer noted in The Atlantic last spring, Chavez "speaks incessantly about the coming military confrontation with the gringos." He has ordered his armed forces to study the Iraqi insurgency and prepare to mount a similar resistance if Venezuela is invaded. "He has begun organizing citizen militias, purchased 100,000 new Kalashnikovs, and assigned books on asymmetric warfare to his top brass." When Foer asked Nicolas Maduro, now Venezuela's foreign minister, what Chavez foresees in US-Venezuelan relations, he answered: "Conflict, in all likelihood war, is the future."

Oh, yes...incriminating evidence. Or it should be (and I mean it when I say it).
And that details Chavez before his election.

The new charge: Chavez "in just eight years has managed to transform Venezuela from a stable social democracy into an increasingly authoritarian state in which he controls every lever of state power."

Yes. How?

"In 1999, for example, Chavez engineered a new constitution that eliminated the Venezuelan Senate and made it easier to pass legislation in the remaining one-chamber National Assembly. Congressional oversight of the military was ended, along with the rule requiring presidents to step down after one term.
He has taken control of the agency that certifies election results and of the huge state-owned oil company, the source of most government revenue. He secured a new law empowering the government to supervise the media, and another authorizing the arrest of any citizen showing "disrespect" to government officials. He got the Supreme Court enlarged from 20 to 32 justices, then packed the new slots with loyal supporters."

Now, don't get me wrong...I think Albom's a well-meaning guy. But even well-meaners can make bad assertions. I think most American's would have something to say about Chavez' "presidency."

And I think they have every right to say it.