Torture Chamber Found in Mosque

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- "There are the bloodstains on the wall, and here it is dried on the floor," says Abu Muhanad as he walks through a torture chamber in a Baghdad mosque where more than two dozen bodies have been found.

The above is an excerpt from a CNN piece here. Evidently, the militant thugs known as the Mehdi Army, led by renegade thug-in-residence Muqtada al Sadr, terrorized Baghdad pretty severely during their stronger days, back before the surge.

But thuggery doesn't work, does it? Noooo. It doesn't. The world should have learned this by watching Nazi Germany crumble in the 1940s, Soviet Russia crumble in the 1990s, the Taliban fall apart in 2003 and 2004, and the outright collapse of totalitarian regimes all over the world.

Totalitarian oppression doesn't work.

What works is the rule of law, and the solid, consciencous application of self-rule. This is what the surge was all about: routing these lawless pieces of filth from their nasty little hidey-holes and sending them running, or killing them where they stand, or packing their sorry backsides - US Government-supplied Kor'an in hand - off to Gitmo Vacationland.

What works is ensuring that the people have a right to own the fruits of their labor. Ensuring that the people have the freedom to live peacably and prosperously.

The beginning of this prosperity, in the case of Iraq, is removing (destroying, when necessary) the forces that were so firmly in place in opposition to freedom. That means these people who were so clearly using this mosque as a place of torture and murder.

The surge put a stop to that, at least in this location. So what conclusions can we draw from all of this? Well, for one thing, there's the most obvious conclusion that those who opposed the surge were wrong. Because if Barack Obama and his ilk had had their way - if there had been no US troop surge in Iraq, the Mehdi Army would still be in control of this nBaghdad neighborhood, and this mosque would still be a factory of death.

You're Such a Racist

Well folks, it has finally happened. I was officially called a racist this morning, because of my failure to support Barack Obama.

Because of course, as we all know, if you're not buying into this whole "Hope and Change" smokescreen, you're an outright racist.


We were discussing the possibility of Bobby Jindal being named as McCain's running mate, when a colleague of mine (a white woman) somehow found the strength to pull her head out of Obama the Messiah's fourth point of contact long enough to say, "Except that he's brown, and the Republicans don't want anyone who isn't white."


Fucking Democrats. Seriously. Not that I'm surprised. But it's so perfectly typical of a Democrat to assume that they somehow have the market cornered on minority matters, and that everyone else is an automatic racist. Somewhere along the line, they've annointed themselves the sole gatekeepers to American morality - If you ain't one of them, you ain't moral.


So there you have it, folks. Vote for Obama or go put on a white bedsheet and start lighting crosses. You damn racist.

I swear I'm going to laugh if McCain chooses someone who isn't white. Just as has been the case with virtually every policy statement I've heard yet from the Obama camp, they won't be able to tap dance fast enough. "Um, uh, um...I meant someone who doesn't have a white shirt..."

Republicans for Obama

Is that anything like Jews for Hitler?

According to the Barack Obama campaign, John McCain's campaign is funded almost entirely by Washington lobbyists and other political insiders. According to Obama, McCain's goal is to stop "this movement for change".


Folks, this is why you get nonsense like this:

I ask you: How, exactly, does a Republican support Obama? What, Republicans for Forced Redistribution of Wealth? Look. It's not just a matter of liking McCain (I don't care all that much for him, either). There are severe ideological differences at work here.

I'm not a member of any political party. But I consider myself a staunch Conservative, with serious conservative values (on most issues). If you're a Republican who supports Barack Obama because you think John McCain is too old, then you're not a Republican. It's just that simple. Obama believes in forcing you to pay for the health insurance of people who don't work and don't contribute. He believes in imposing an artificial and arbitrary cap on a company's income, collecting the balance of that company's profits for the Government, and then redistributing said monies elsewhere.

If you would vote for that, regardless of the reason, then you should stop calling yourself Republican or Conservative, because that's not what we Conservatives believe in.

Do You See A Pattern Here?

We all know about the Reverend Lord Utmost Obama X's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe. We all understand how he decided it was inappropriate to stop by our military hospitals (twice) to visit wounded troops after being told he wouldn't be allowed to take the camera crews. We know all about his motivations there. But he denied all that, prefering instead to attempt a redirect of your attention to the time three years ago when he visited Walter Reed (to see if there was a talking point there about the poor maintenance conditions).

Well, here's another example of that kind of (simply astonishing) arrogance. In a World Net Daily piece written by Aaron Klein, we see that Lord Utmost Obama X had no problem visiting Jerusalem's Western Wall, one of the holiest sites in Judaism.

Of course, I have no problem with anyone visiting Jewish holy sites. But I wondered at first...Why could he visit the Western Wall but not the hospitals?

Then I got my answer, and here it is: BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO ADVERTISE AT THE WALL!!!!!!

From the World Net Daily piece by Aaron Klein:

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall – the holiest site in Judaism – with official campaign posters, WND has learned.
Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed to WND posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential candidate's campaign.

"These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site.

Asked if it was traditional practice for politicians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No."

Obama campaign posters can be seen in media footage of the Illinois senator's early morning surprise visit to the Western Wall.

His visit reportedly was not on the official campaign schedule.

The posters display Obama's name in Hebrew. One poster erected on the main police barricade used by Obama to enter the holy site boasts the official red, white and blue campaign "O" symbol and advertises the candidate's campaign's website.

A second poster also displays Obama's name in Hebrew and contains an image of Israeli and American flags.

Reuters posted images of the Obama campaign posters showing a handful of people waiting behind the police barricades.

Reuters images had the following caption: "Supporters of U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) stand behind banners printed with his name in Hebrew as they wait for his arrival at the Western wall."

The caption implied supporters brought along the pro-Obama material. But an eyewitness speaking to WND tells a different story.

"The kids waiting for Obama may not even be Obama supporters. No one knew Obama was coming in advance. We saw the police barricades erected. We saw Obama's face on the posters, and some police said Obama was on his way. So a few people gathered by the barricades and waited for Obama," said the witness.

Obama's media relations department in the U.S. did not reply to a WND phone call request for comment.

Obama arrived at about 5 a.m. Jerusalem time. He wore a Jewish skullcap and placed a prayer in the wall he said he had written. He bowed his head while a rabbi read a psalm calling for peace in the holy city.

According to media accounts, one worshipper repeatedly heckled Obama, chanting: "Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale" and "Jerusalem is our land."

After his brief visit to the holy site, Obama headed for Berlin, where he met with German leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He also delivered a major policy speech in front of Tiergarten Park's Victory Column, a 19th century structure in Berlin capped by a gilded angel.

IT NEVER ENDS

Here’s an interesting article that I picked up from another blog. At the end, in blue as usual, is my commentary.

Civilization's last chance; The planet is nearing a tipping point on climate change, and it gets much worse, fast.

By Bill McKibben, May 11, 2008

Even for Americans -- who are constitutionally convinced that there will always be a second act, and a third, and a do-over after that, and, if necessary, a little public repentance and forgiveness and a Brand New Start -- even for us, the world looks a little terminal right now.

It's not just the economy: We've gone through swoons before. It's that gas at $4 a gallon means we're running out, at least of the cheap stuff that built our sprawling society. It's that when we try to turn corn into gas, it helps send the price of a loaf of bread shooting upward and helps ignite food riots on three continents. It's that everything is so tied together. It's that, all of a sudden, those grim Club of Rome types who, way back in the 1970s, went on and on about the "limits to growth" suddenly seem ... how best to put it, right.

All of a sudden it isn't morning in America, it's dusk on planet Earth.

There's a number -- a new number -- that makes this point most powerfully. It may now be the most important number on Earth: 350. As in parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A few weeks ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.

Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points -- massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.

So it's a tough diagnosis. It's like the doctor telling you that your cholesterol is way too high and, if you don't bring it down right away, you're going to have a stroke. So you take the pill, you swear off the cheese, and, if you're lucky, you get back into the safety zone before the coronary. It's like watching the tachometer edge into the red zone and knowing that you need to take your foot off the gas before you hear that clunk up front.

In this case, though, it's worse than that because we're not taking the pill and we are stomping on the gas -- hard. Instead of slowing down, we're pouring on the coal, quite literally. Two weeks ago came the news that atmospheric carbon dioxide had jumped 2.4 parts per million last year -- two decades ago, it was going up barely half that fast.

And suddenly the news arrives that the amount of methane, another potent greenhouse gas accumulating in the atmosphere, has unexpectedly begun to soar as well. It appears that we've managed to warm the far north enough to start melting huge patches of permafrost, and massive quantities of methane trapped beneath it have begun to bubble forth.

And don't forget: China is building more power plants; India is pioneering the $2,500 car; and Americans are buying TVs the size of windshields, which suck juice ever faster.

Here's the thing. Hansen didn't just say that if we didn't act, there was trouble coming. He didn't just say that if we didn't yet know what was best for us, we'd certainly be better off below 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

His phrase was: "if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." A planet with billions of people living near those oh-so-floodable coastlines. A planet with ever-more vulnerable forests. (A beetle, encouraged by warmer temperatures, has already managed to kill 10 times more trees than in any previous infestation across the northern reaches of Canada this year. This means far more carbon heading for the atmosphere and apparently dooms Canada's efforts to comply with the Kyoto protocol, which was already in doubt because of its decision to start producing oil for the U.S. from Alberta's tar sands.)

We're the ones who kicked the warming off; now the planet is starting to take over the job. Melt all that Arctic ice, for instance, and suddenly the nice white shield that reflected 80% of incoming solar radiation back into space has turned to blue water that absorbs 80% of the sun's heat. Such feedbacks are beyond history, though not in the sense that Francis Fukuyama had in mind.
And we have, at best, a few years to short-circuit them -- to reverse course. Here's the Indian scientist and economist Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year (and, by the way, got his job when the Bush administration, at the behest of Exxon Mobil, forced out his predecessor): "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

In the next two or three years, the nations of the world are supposed to be negotiating a successor treaty to the Kyoto accord (which, for the record, has never been approved by the United States -- the only industrial nation that has failed to do so). When December 2009 rolls around, heads of state are supposed to converge on Copenhagen to sign a treaty -- a treaty that would go into effect at the last plausible moment to heed the most basic and crucial of limits on atmospheric CO2.

If we did everything right, Hansen says, we could see carbon emissions start to fall fairly rapidly and the oceans begin to pull some of that CO2 out of the atmosphere. Before the century was out, we might even be on track back to 350. We might stop just short of some of those tipping points, like the Road Runner screeching to a halt at the very edge of the cliff.

More likely, though, we're the coyote -- because "doing everything right" means that political systems around the world would have to take enormous and painful steps right away. It means no more new coal-fired power plants anywhere, and plans to quickly close the ones already in operation. (Coal-fired power plants operating the way they're supposed to are, in global warming terms, as dangerous as nuclear plants melting down.) It means making car factories turn out efficient hybrids next year, just the way U.S. automakers made them turn out tanks in six months at the start of World War II. It means making trains an absolute priority and planes a taboo.

It means making every decision wisely because we have so little time and so little money, at least relative to the task at hand. And hardest of all, it means the rich countries of the world sharing resources and technology freely with the poorest ones so that they can develop dignified lives without burning their cheap coal.

It's possible. The United States launched a Marshall Plan once, and could do it again, this time in relation to carbon. But at a time when the president has, once more, urged drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it seems unlikely. At a time when the alluring phrase "gas tax holiday" -- which would actually encourage more driving and more energy consumption -- has danced into our vocabulary, it's hard to see. And if it's hard to imagine sacrifice here, imagine China, where people produce a quarter as much carbon apiece as Americans do.

Still, as long as it's not impossible, we've got a duty to try to push those post-Kyoto negotiations in the direction of reality. In fact, it's about the most obvious duty humans have ever faced.
After all, those talks are our last chance; you just can't do this one lightbulb at a time.

We do have one thing going for us -- the Web -- which at least allows you to imagine something like a grass-roots global effort. If the Internet was built for anything, it was built for sharing this number, for making people understand that "350" stands for a kind of safety, a kind of possibility, a kind of future.

Hansen's words were well-chosen: "a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." People will doubtless survive on a non-350 planet, but those who do will be so preoccupied, coping with the endless unintended consequences of an overheated planet, that civilization may not.

Civilization is what grows up in the margins of leisure and security provided by a workable relationship with the natural world. That margin won't exist, at least not for long, as long as we remain on the wrong side of 350. That's the limit we face.

___________________________________

I love these people who devote themselves to “making people understand” their point of view. All of this reminds me of the time in 1992, when Al Gore said that if we didn't get rid of SUVs within ten years, there would be no world for our children to grow up in.

Now that those ten years – and then some – have come and gone, and there are more SUVs on the road than ever, and our children are still growing up in this world, nothing has changed. Al Gore is still seen as the hero champion of the environment (an Oscar? Are you fucking kidding me?), and we’re still predicting dire consequences if the stupid masses aren’t properly indoctrinated.

Made to understand.

It doesn’t matter how many times this nonsense is proven wrong. Now we’re all supposed to be terrified about the end of our civilization within a “few short years” if we're not "made to understand" that flying somewhere in a plane is "taboo," while taking the train (whi the hell takes a train anywhere in this country?) is an "absolute priority".

Is this what you think is going to happen? The collapse of civilization? Are you fucking serious?

Do you people actually believe that a big-screen TV "sucks juice" faster than a regular TV? And if so, that it contributes to the thawing of the permafrost?

Or that Al Gore has ever used public transportation in his life?

I'm all for reducing the amount of waste (garbage) each of us generates, and I recognize the need for reducing our dependency on petroleum. But I'm so sick of people acting as if my car is the reason for global climate change.

Get a grip, people. The reason people are against the "combating climate change" bill is because it would enable the government to levy what amounts to an additional tax on businesses of all sizes, payable to a new world court headquartered in Europe. That's a pretty crazy idea, in my opinion - especially since it wouldn't do anything to actually combat global climate change.

Here’s the real problem. Americans (and some others) have become so incredibly narcissistic that we just can’t stand to believe that there could be changes going on within our own world that have absolutely nothing to do with us; changes that were not caused by us, and will not be “solved” by us.

Not by the “350 Project”, and not by you or me. The bottom line is that the “global climate” has been changing since the creation of the planet – every second, every minute, every hour, since the very beginning of the Earth. It was not caused by SUVs or by big-screen TVs, and going back to the Stone Age isn’t going to reverse it.

Hats Off to Texas

Now, I want you to imagine this, if you will. You're a fourteen-year-old girl, walking home from the library with your best friend, who's only two years older than you. You walk through the park, as you've probably done many times before - only this time something's different.

This time, you stumble upon a gang initiaiton. Enraged by the intrusion, six teenaged gangbangers descend upon you, leaving you to wonder if you'll ever see your family again.

This actually happened, right here in Texas, in 1993. And the two girls didn't live to see their families again. They were raped and beaten by all five of the boys, and then murdered.

.

Their bodies were left to rot in a bayou.

.

Here's a much better explanation of what's going on here than I can write:

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/03/25/refried-beans-supreme-court-overrules-bush-oks-mexican-illegal-aliens-execution/

The killers are arrested, convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to die in the state's death chamber. Off to Death Row with them. But what happens next is even more bizarre.

As (at least) one of them was born in Mexico and is here in the US illegally, Mexican lawyers accuse the United States of a number of breaches of international law, sparking a flurry of appeals and hearings that continues for more than a decade.

At issue is a treaty agreement from the 1960s that allows foreign travelers the right to seek legal assistance from their home country. One of the indivduals (read: murdering, raping, butchering animals) who committed this crime declared after his own conviction that he is a Mexican national and should therefore have been allowed by the terms of this treaty agreement to seek legal assistance from Mexico - which he didn't do.

Mexican officials, I presume, got the International Court of Justice involved, and the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States must stop the State of Texas from carrying out its sentence of death until the case can be further reviewed.

President Bush issued a statement requesting that the State of Texas stay the animal's exocution, pending further review. In his statement, the President also said that he disagrees with the ICJ's decision, but would abide by it.

The State of Texas paused for about two hours, and then exocuted the animal.

So, I have a few questions here:

First, what kind of jurisdiction should an "international court" hold over matters of justice within the United States?

Second, should the President have sided with that international court, in a case wherein a foreign national raped and murdered two children in the President's own home state? Is it appropriate for an elected official to turn his back on the intentions of his own people like that? Just who, exactly, is the President elected to represent on an international stage? As a side question, what do you figure Ronald Reagan would have told that International Court of Justice to do with its decision?

Third - and this is the BIG one - What do you think that International Court told the families of those two young girls? Those two beautiful, bright, vibrant teenagers who just happened to be there by accident on that night, and died in the most horrific way imaginable - How much consideration do you figure this International Court has given to them?

And here's a bonus question: How long does it take for such a case to be reviewed? This animal has been on Death Row for years. Again, he committed the crime - he and his friends killed these little girls - in 1993, fifteen years ago. But he didn't claim to be a Mexican national then - that only happened after Mexican lawyers got ahold of the case.

Got another one for ya: In the wording of the original treaty, according to CNN (I have not read the treaty myself, thank you very much), the agreement covers foreign travelers. Not foreign rapists and murderers. Not illegal aliens who've lived in the US longer than they lived in whatever shithole they escaped from. Not gangbangers who rape and murder little girls for fun.

Yes, the State of Texas, against what must have been virtually overwhelming pressure from international courts, Mexican lawyers and the leader of the free world, stood up for their principles and carried out their laws. They did the right thing. I don't like the death penalty - in fact I hate it. But do recognize its necessity. And what's more, I recognize the right of the State of Texas (or any other state) to carry out its own laws, no matter who says what.

So hats off to Texas, and may she continue to take no shit from anyone.

Silly me...

Now here I was, thinking there was an FAA requirement to display the US flag on all aircraft registered in the United States. If not, then at least I figured it was the right thing to do.

And then I saw this. I guess I was wrong, huh?

What, the flag isn't patriotic? Is that it?

Now, I know two supporters of the Lord Utmost Obama X. One of them, upon seeing this post, will giggle. "Oh, you're just being radical," she'll say. The other will bring up the next pic, which shows McCain's campaign plane, sans flags on the tail:

But here's the difference: Any pop star can refuse to wear a flag until cornered by the press, and any malcontent can refuse to include his country's flag on his plane. But here's another picture of McCain's plane, which I found only moments ago:

This is said to be John McCain's A4 Skyhawk, shot down by the North Vietnamese in 1967. I don't know if it really is his plane or not, but that's the claim. Now, I'd like to see any supporter of Lord Utmost Obama X draw comparisons with that.

Because I'm pretty sure "McCain's plane" had the appropriate US insignia on it.