Monday, September 22, 2008

Global Warming strikes again

Parts of KwaZulu-Natal were transformed into a "winter wonderland" after snowfalls blanketed several areas of the province.

Temperatures plummeted into the low teens, with residents of Kokstad and Giants Castle waking up to 0C.

Durban experienced its coldest September night in recorded history on Friday night.



Where's Pope Algore when we need him?

Palin's speech

The following is the speech that Palin would have given at the anti-Iran rally had not the Hussein campaign scared off the sponsors by threatening them with the IRS.

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.

We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

There was a time when both parties would have had no problems with any of that.
Sadly, that time has gone.

Courtesy Urgent Agenda

Harrogate tries and fails again

Harrogate returns. This time he starts to reveal his inner self. They all do sooner or later.

What is most immoral about people like you is the unwillingness to own your choices.

What is your basis for writing that? I have been up front on my positions.

You speak of "when war comes." It's so sad, the thought that you believe what you are writing.

McCain is vowing to bring war against Iran. You might agree with McCain's wishes but then you don't get to support his candidacy and then turn around and speak of "when war comes" as though your vote had nothing to do with it. Not unless you like lying.

Are you daft? “When war comes” is a perfectly straight forward phrase indicating that I think that it will come. Otherwise I would have written “If war comes.” Was that too complex for you or did you just need something to attack?

Again I note that history shows that war can be prevented by being prepared for war. Even fighting “smaller” wars can prevent larger wars. See the Cold War and the various proxy wars.

Waiting for Iran to complete development of nuclear weapons is the height of folly and if we do hundreds of thousands of dead Jews and Americans will curse the memory of people who babble such nonsense as you write, just as do the dead of the Holocaust and the others who died in WWII curse the French and English who waited too late to take action.

BTW – I note you throw in the word “lying.” That’s a personal attack and if you do it again I will delete your comment.

Hopefully Americans have learned from the last eight years of Bush that the GOP needs War to be legitimate. Otherwise it's stuck with stuff like the Terri Shiavo spectacle. Really.

Probably, though, Americans haven't learned it. Sadly, we shall probably see just how many dead people a McCain victory will spell.

What an incoherent conclusion. Surely someone who calls themselves an academian can do better.

harrogate fails his chance

It will be interesting to see the apocalyptic justifications of people like you, when the GOP drags the country into war with Iran and Russia, too.

If we go to war with either country it will be because of their actions. Perhaps you have been in a cave for the past ten years and have heard nothing Iran has said. Putin is hell bent on regaining all of the territory the Soviets lost when he was a KGB man.

Lines have been long drawn in the sand (heh) on Iraq. You talk a lot about how wise Bush was. Probably most Americans don't see it that way anymore. Maybe war as a last resort. Maybe a President who would rather, if he had his druthers, not be at war. Seems attractive to most voters this time. But the milk is spilt, we are there, and our embassy and bases there are gaudy, enormous, and not going anywhere ever.

I never said Bush was wise. Read my post again. I noted that his actions were reasonable based on the information he had. I would hope any President would always fall in the direction of "protect the country first." Plenty of mistakes were made after the invasion started, some by the Military, some by State.

Perhaps the worst error in judgement was thinking that we could just bounce in and then bounce out. That didn't work in Vietnam and despite Rumsfeld's "new strategy" claim it was 35 years old.

As for new bouncing baby wars there is all sorts of opportunity for new Strains of Rah-Rah kill em all rhetoric. Certainly you will do your part.

When war comes I will be supporting the troops. If you consider this "rah rah" then I believe you were educated as described in my earlier post.

"I live a few miles from Santa Monica High School, in California. There, young men and women are taught that America is “a terrorist nation,” “one of the worst regimes in history,” that it’s twice-elected leader is “the son of the devil,” and dictator of this “fascist” country. Further, “patriotism” is taught by dragging an American flag across the classroom floor, because the nation’s truest patriots, as we should know by now, are those who are most able to despise it.

This is only high school, remember: in college things get much, much worse."

Still. Give McCain credit. McCain has lied his arse off this campaign, but one thing he has done a pretty good job of being honest about, is in communicating eagerness to go to war with Iran and ("we're all Georgians today") Russia. And he vows to keep us a permanent presence in Iraq, 100 years no big deal.

I not a rabid supporter of McCain but I will vote for him and he is right on Iran. It is better to kill a snake when it is young. You should study some history of the run up to WWII and understand that it could have been easily stopped by France and England showing resolve. Indeed, when Hitler sent his troops to occupy the Rhineland his Generals were instructed to withdraw at the first sign of resistance by France.

But, sigh. Many who vote McCain won't be doing it because they want any part of these wars. Or because they hold the lives of their loved ones so cheaply that they would sign off on, say, their only son being KIA in Georgia. Nor will they be voting for him to reward the GOP for its record on the economy, after eight years in the White House and only recently removed from 6 years of controlling the entire Federal Government. Which has worked out so well.

The above paragraph makes little sense. As for the economy, I note that the price of gasoline was $2.25 when the Democrats took control of the economy. Seventeen short months later it was $4.00. Why? Because OPEC and the speculators knew that if they ran the price up while the Repubs were in charge action for drilling in the US would be forth coming. With the Demos in charge they had an open check book.

Yet even after all the pain and the collapsed economy because of oil prices Nancy Pelosi would not introduce a bill... and even now has shepherded a useless piece of legislation through Congress.

BTW - You do understand, don't you, that Pelosi purchased stock in one of Picken's companies CNLE that is pushing alternative energy sources. Thus high gasoline prices makes her money. That is called "conflict of interst" and a Special Prosecutor" is clearly needed.

While there is a lot that will help McCain, so much so that it looks like he will win. None of his electoral advantages appear related to issues. Hmmmmm.

And so the people of this country will have a hard time pleading "we didn't know" if this time next year McCain is doing what he's said he will do. Fortunately they will have the likes of you to remind them of their duties to accept it all.

The duties of a citizen of this constitutional republic is to study the issues and vote for the person they believe will do the right thing. After that there is a thin line between protesting in such a manner that does not send the wrong message to our enemies and demonstrating to them that if they just hang on, if they just kill a few more Americans they can, as they did in Vietnam, win a political victory.

The worst thing that came out of Vietnam was the empowerment of the Left and the establishment of a cadre of America haters in our universities and high schools. If we lose in Iraq the worst thing that will come out of it will be the belief by the radical Muslims that they can do what they please.

You should remember what bin Ladin told Peter Arnett on 3/97.

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

BIN LADIN:... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.


harrogate's education

Someone calling themselves "harrogate" made the following comment in response to my post, "Why Democrats would not allow a vote on honoring our troops."

Starting the war with Iraq, by contrast, didn't "cause Americans to be killed."

Starting wars with Russia and with Iran, by contrast, won't "cause Americans to be killed."

Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

His comment so vividly demonstrates what's wrong with the Left today that I thought I would feature it in a post for everyone to see.

Of course the Left claims that there were no WMD's and that Bush lied. Leaving such juvenile claims aside, we know that all of the world's intelligence agencies thought Saddam's Iraq had WMD's, and indeed even Clinton's DOJ indicted him and Joe Wilson told the CIA in 2/02 that Iraq had met with officals in Niger and had tried to purchase yellowcake. And even Fitzgerald told the 9/11 Commission that Iraq and al Qaida had agreed to work together on a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" basis.

So the question then became, should Bush ignore all of this or should he push Saddam?
He pushed Saddam and Saddam was less than forthcoming, even when it was evident that the US would invade. Why? Read what Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union speech.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

So based on what he knew and believed, Bush invaded.

And once the invasion was started we could not afford to lose. If we had withdrawn after destroying Iraq's infrastructure and political class Iran would have seized the country and it would have been in a political position to control, even more so than now, the flow of oil to Europe and sponsor terrorist attacks against the US with no fear of retaliation from Europe.

War is a terrible thing, dear harrogate. But the only thing worse than war is losing a war.

So the ideal is to win And to win as quickly as possible with as few loss of American lives as possible. Yes. American lives.

Now let's revisit the post:

On February 9th, 1933, the ruling elite of the world’s great Civilization held a debate in the Oxford Union. With thunderclouds growing dark across the English Channel, at a time when resolute action could still have averted the worst catastrophe the world has ever known, these elites resolved that “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.”

The Resolution passed by a vote of 275 to 153. Needless to say, this vote did not avert the fight. It guaranteed it.

When you tell your enemy you won't fight you leave the time and place of the attack up to the enemy. By our careless actions since December of 1979 and the creation of the modern Islamic radical movement by Carter's failure to act until 9/11/2001 we told them that we were weak, could be bullied and would not fight back.

Well, 9/ll proved them wrong but the hard core Left, raised on the hate America radicalism of the 60's almost immediately started attacking the country. As the war started demonstrators in Oakland tried to block the loading of ammunition on ships. Idiots went to Baghdad as "human shields" to save and protect our enemies.

And al-Qaida and the other terrorists watched and remembered Vietnam.

As the General of North Vietnam, Bui Tin, who received the surrender of South Vietnam said:

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

And that has continued in this battle of WWIV and the Left's actions have caused the war to be longer because it has improved the morale of the enemy and has given them cause to believe if they can wait a bit longer Hussein and the Democrats will give them a political victory.

Now you know, harrogate. You can't plead ignorance again.

Why the Democrats would not allow a vote on honoring the troops

The following is from National Review by way of Urgent Agenda.

It was written by Bill Whittle who runs Eject!Eject!Eject! and if you don't have both blogs bookmarked then you should do so immediately. Urgent Agenda for William Katz's accurate comments on things political and Eject!Eject!Eject! for Whittle's on target comments about our culture.

On February 9th, 1933, the ruling elite of the world’s great Civilization held a debate in the Oxford Union. With thunderclouds growing dark across the English Channel, at a time when resolute action could still have averted the worst catastrophe the world has ever known, these elites resolved that “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.”

The Resolution passed by a vote of 275 to 153. Needless to say, this vote did not avert the fight. It guaranteed it.


I live a few miles from Santa Monica High School, in California. There, young men and women are taught that America is “a terrorist nation,” “one of the worst regimes in history,” that it’s twice-elected leader is “the son of the devil,” and dictator of this “fascist” country. Further, “patriotism” is taught by dragging an American flag across the classroom floor, because the nation’s truest patriots, as we should know by now, are those who are most able to despise it.

This is only high school, remember: in college things get much, much worse.

I hope the above whets your appetite and you go to the National Review article. It is worth reading if for no other reason than it explains to the uber Lefties why their actions give aid and comfort to our enemies and cause Americans to be killed.

Democrats use IRS to shut down free speech

Hot on the heels of trying to shut down radio stations that dared broadcast infomaation concerning the relationship between Hussein and the self-identified terroist William Ayers, we have this:

News has emerged that the organizers of that anti-Iran rally that famously got snarled up in Senator Hillary Clinton's ire at Governor Sarah Palin last week were threatened by New York Democrats with IRS action against their tax-exempt status if they allowed Palin to speak. CBS local NY news reported this little fact and so did NBC but most of the national news has ignored this outrageous threat to use the IRS to silence Governor Palin.

Accusing New York Democrats of using "McCarthyism" to shut Palin down, Democrat Assemblyman Dov Hikind was flabbergasted by the behind the scenes threats against the rally organizers. "It's an absolute shame that this has happened," CBS quoted Hikind as saying. "To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status … that's McCarthyism."

The charge was that inviting only Palin and not also Democrat VP candidate Joe Biden is somehow a violation of "equal representation of candidates" (As NBC claimed in its report). But, this is not a certainty. After all, the appearance wasn't a campaign stop nor was it a venue to advertise Palin or engage in presidential politics. Besides, as HotAir notes, of the political speakers that were invited to speak last year, few were Republicans.

The real story here, though, is that Democrats immediately leapt to using the IRS as a weapon against the rally organizers. Along with the attacks on talk radio host Milt Rosenberg (here and here) it is becoming clear that Democrats are not interested in free speech, but will turn to threats and attacks to get their way to silence dissenting views or opposing party representatives.

It should be remembered that this rally was a pro-Israel rally meant to highlight the oppression and evil of Iran and its president Ahmadinejad. This was NOT a forum for American politics, but a show of support for Israel. Additionally, how is it this organization's fault that Hillary canceled her appearance? After all, the rally folks did invite Hillary and Palin. It isn't their fault that Hillary didn't have the guts to show!

It would seem to me that the news of a political party trying to use the IRS to shut down their opponents would be somewhat newsworthy? Yet, we haven't heard this story on the national scene at all. Would we have heard about it if it were Republicans trying to use threats of the IRS in such a manner?


That is outrageous. What is more outrageous is that the press is ignoring it.

Why do Hussein supporters hate free speech? Why did the Hussein camp want to stop support of demonstartions against a Muslim country??