Friday, June 23, 2006

Photo of the Week

This photo, courtesy of RidingSun, is hilarious. Don't forget to read the captions as well.

Courtesy of gaijinbiker.

Thoughts on Vista

Microsoft's that is. An interesting letter from a computer security expert in the United Kingdom was posted on Jerry Pournelle's site. To get to the original, simply click on the link and scroll down to the 'Subject: Microsoft Vista" section. I reproduce it in full as follows:

Subject: Microsoft Vista

I think they may have gone overboard on security. Their programmer productivity has reportedly dropped to a level that they won't be able to sell Vista at its price point. Mac OS X has been beating them on price for some time now, and this may make it worse.

-- Harry Erwin, PhD, Program Leader, MSc Information Systems Security, University of Sunderland.
Weblog at:

I have thought for some time that Microsoft is not doing a very good job on their new operating system. Vista is simply a repackaged and (probably) re-programmed version of the aptly-named 'Longhorn' (for the inordinately long time Microsoft has been promising it) and it is still not out. Longhorn itself was promised at least since 2003. Now I read that Microsoft has postponed the release of Vista yet again.

In the meantime, Apple Computer has managed to get OS X released, updated and made into a top-line OS. All for the price of US $129.00 on average for a single-user copy. On that thought, I agree with Dr. Erwin's analysis on the potential price point of Vista. Windows is already ridiculously expensive, and if the price goes up much more, I think more people will commence thinking of switching to a different operating system. The various flavors of UNIX/Linux are mostly free and OS X is not a budget-buster either at it's current pricing. Ergo, Microsoft had better get this new OS out and working in fairly short order, or they may find themselves in trouble, in my opinion. Even Windows users won't wait forever.

Courtesy of Jerry Pournelle.

An Ally For the Ages

Charles Krauthammer today has a column up on the United States' most loyal and trustworthy ally, and the results might surprise you. Quick, what is the only country to have fought side-by-side with the United States in every single conflict since 1914? Is it England? France? Canada? None of the above?

Over the years, the United States has had a strange group of bedfellows- from Communist Russia in World War II to the then-primitive Hmong tribespeople during the Vietnam conflict. However, the only ally who has been steadfast throughout is the republic of Australia. Though we have had our differences, (who can forget Australia's rather foolish insistence on no-nuclear weapons during the 1980s but in the main, the Aussies have stood together with us since the dark days of the 1915 trench wars. They are unique in being able to make that claim, and they are the only one of our allies who has been steadfast in the pursuit of the Muslim terrorists who constitute our current enemy.

Mr. Krauthammer presents a wonderful overview of this staunch ally. Read the whole thing, courtesy of

07/03/2006 CORRECTION: In my original post, I mistakenly identified Australia as a republic. As a reader corrected me, Australia is a constitutional monarchy- the Queen reigns though she does not rule. Thanks for the correction, mild colonial boy!

The Continuing Role of the Press in War

The Associated Press showed once again why the mainstream media is losing readers in droves and why they are rapidly gaining a reputation of being in league (either formally or informally) with the enemies of the free world. Amnesty International threw a protest in Budapest, Hungary against the Guantanamo Bay prison. A grand total of seven people showed up- all of them Amnesty International workers! Not ONE single supporter showed up. And yet the AP ran a big front-page story about the protest, not forgetting to mention the 'horrible conditions" faced by the prisoners at Guantanamo. I think that Amnesty International would have had MUCH more success if they had thrown their protest in Germany or France. Of course, as Glenn Reynolds already noted, we are still waiting for AI to protest the cruel and inhuman treatment meted out by Muslims to the American servicemen (and Iraqi civilians) murdered by Muslim terrorists in Iraq.

*SIGH* These ridiculous Guantanamo claims have been debunked SO many times. Apparently it isn't enough that all the prisoners in Gitmo have plenty of food, their own Korans and are even free to worship at the appropriate times, but the Press seemingly are convinced that the Muslims- the same people who really DO torture, murder and rape innocent civilians- are the good guys in this war. We shall see how they feel if the Muslims win and the Press finds themselves living under Sharia law. They might re-think their protestations and claims of religious intolerance. Of course, by then it will be too late.

The US Press Corps (whom Rush Limbaugh has fittingly dubbed the 'Drive-By Media') will some day have to face up to their shameless and borderline treasonous behavior in this war. I hope that it comes sooner than later. The First Amendment does not protect treason, and the behavior of the Press is getting closer and closer to that as this war progresses. The New York Times's decision to publish yet another leaked story damaging our national security is just another example. Why doesn't the White House start putting these traitors in prison? Despite the Pentagon Papers decision, reporters are NOT exempt form national security laws. If necessary, we need to take this back to the Supreme Court and get the Pentagon Papers decision overturned. As the infamous Dred Scott decision showed, Supreme Court decisions get overturned all the time. Only liberals seem to think that THEIR favorite decisions should be exempt for reconsideration. We also need to start enforcing the treason and sedition laws against this arrogant and traitorous Press. Soon.

Hat tips to Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

War and Democrats

Well, THIS is no surprise. According to an article just published in Human Events Online by the veteran reporter Robert Novak, Democrats are being hurt, as opposed to being helped, but the war in Iraq.

According to Novak,
Once again at center stage is Democrats' timidity over Iraq, which one would expect to be as good an election issue as they could ever invent against the Republicans and President Bush. The Iraq War is apparently unpopular and Americans supposedly want the troops to come home -- yet Democrats feel so little confidence that this will translate into election victories that they cannot be persuaded to adopt a consistent anti-war position.

Well that comes as absolutely no surprise either. Democrats have long since become the Party of Retreat and they have not been truly supportive of their own country's efforts militarily since perhaps 1960, when John F Kennedy famously said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country." Today's Democrats are all about asking country to do for them and not making any sacrifices- unless occasionally having to talk to those Neanderthal Republicans and common folk who aren't liberal and who do not live in Washington DC counts as sacrifice. In addition, Democrats are afraid to come out and present their real views on the war and the US troops who are fighting it. Knowing that most Americans do NOT despise their troops and despite an unending line of mis-representations and outright lies by the MSM in an attempt to destroy President Bush and return Democrats to power, most Americans do not believe in the cut-and-run strategy.

This present Democrats with a problem. On the one hand, their core constituency is heavily anti-American, anti-military and above all, anti-George Bush. However, most Americans, despite the negative drumbeat of the Press do not agree with them on these issues. So the Democrats are forced to try to hide their real feelings while letting their moonbat supporters see them acting as they would wish. Which means that they are unable to present any real argument on the war., the few Democrats with honor include Joe Lieberman, who has consistently supported the war. However, he and the recently retired Senator Zell Miller are almost the only Democrats who have been consistent in their pro-US views.

On the other end of the spectrum, John Kerry has been at least consistent in his cut-and-run philosophy- one apparently shared by few other Democrats. This should provide us with some very entertaining mid-term elections, as I am beginning to doubt the Democrats are going to be able to re-take either branch of Congress. The American public may dislike the Iraq war (though if the MSM would actually publish the truth, I think their would be a much hgher approval rating both for the war and for President Bush), but based on the silliness emanating from the other side of the political spectrum, I do not see them entrusting the Democrats with the reins of power until and unless they either come clean about their dislike for American military power or they actually regain their lost patriotism.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

WMDs Update

The Democrats and their enablers in the Drive-By Media have made a mantra out of claims that George Bush lied to America about the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq since the war that overthrew Saddam Hussein and brought new hope to Iraq's terrorized citizens. The Press and their Democratic Party fellow-travelers in the United States Congress have been claiming with increasing hysteria that 'Bush lied, people died'. Never mind all those who died under Saddam Hussein's brutal rule, or all those who deals under the many other dictators that Democrats and MSM types have cuddled up to for so many years- Castro, Mao, Stalin, Che Guevara, etc.

However, there is now news that might finally lay this tired falsehood to rest. According to Fox News, it appears that not only were the Democrats wrong, George Bush was right- a piece of news almost certainly destined to produce hair-tearing amongst the Democrats and most of the media. In a story published today, Fox reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction HAVE been found in Iraq.

The story says that the United States "has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, according to two Republican lawmakers." This is good news, at least to those of us who believe that the President was entirely justified in his actions since the September 11 attacks on the United States by Islamic elements. While the Press probably wouldn't recognize a WMD if it was placed under their seats in their Bush Derangement Syndrome feverpits, most responsible people recognize the chemical weapons are actually WMDs, and thus Bush's arguments leading up to the 2003 invasion were justified.

The Republicans in question are Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Both made the point that while the weapons found appear to have been manufacturered prior to 1991, they prove two important things- first that Saddam Hussein lied when he claimed all WMDs had been destroyed. Second, and more importantly, these weapons show that the 'weapons inspections' vaunted by the United Nations were in fact not working and were probably enabling Hussein to continue his little game of divide and conquer vis-a-vis the Western powers in order to circumvent the sanctions placed on Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. They also make fools of the dictator-loving Democrats who claimed so loudly that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. It also raises questions as to the competency of Democrats to run the United States, since they can't even tell the truth about clearly proven issues such as this.

Now we await the Mainstream Media to actually leave off their jihad against the Bush Administration and report that he was in fact correct when he went to war in 2003 against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Of course, I expect we will be waiting for a long, long time. After all, to actually report this would require the media to report good news for the Republicans and the Bush Administration. And we all know that they are completely unable to report honestly when Republicans in general and this President in particular are involved. It is too much easier to slavishly cover Cindy Sheehan's little circus, without delaying with the fact that they might be in the wrong.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

More Global Hot Air

It has long been known that the Drive-By Media has bought into the global warming hysteria. It has also been common knowledge for some time that the Drive-By Media has little interest in presenting any stories that show the skeptics of the global warming scare in a positive light. They seem to prefer to try to show the global warming proponents in as positive a light as possible- even when said defenders know less about science than do most reporters.

However, they have now reached what appears to be a new low- even for the Drive-By Media. According to ABC News' own web page, ABC News is begging for 'global warming' horror stories. In their own words, ABC News writes on their web site:
ABC News wants to hear from you. We're currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment, and are looking for interesting examples of people coping with the differences in their daily lives. Has your life been directly affected by global warming?

Not content with this clear pitch for unbalanced, probably hysterical and certainly unscientific 'reporting', ABC News continues by letting these amateur jounalists know exactly what they are looking for, writing: "Show us what you've seen. You can include video material of the environmental change, or simply tell your story via webcam." They even don't appear to care for any eveidence, writing in conclusion, "No video? Share your story in words here." Uh, what about evidence? What about verifiable facts? What about opposing points of view? What about *gasp* OBJECTIVITY?!

But wait! This is, after all, the same media who published massively false accounts of hurrican Katrina, who tried to sabotage a Presidency with fake memos, who has published countless other fake 'news' stories, and who would rather undermine the security of the United States (are you reading this, Pinch Sulzberger?) than actually recognize that they are the Islamic terrorists' only real allies. So they don't even care if they receive completely unsourced, unverifiable, made up accounts. ABC is determined to stop the United States from worrying about Islamic terrorists- who after all m ight only kill us all and then impose sharia law on any surviivors, and start us worrying about 'global warming'. which has yet to be proven! Note to ABC- If global warming were a real threat, you wouldn't have to beg for enviro-fanatics' home-made scare stories. BThere would be plenty of real eveidnce that was not arguable. But then, that would require actual honest reporting- something ABC News(along with the rest of the Drive-By Media) long ago abandoned.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Customer "Service"?

All of us probably have horror stories about bad customer service, particularly with the advent of these automated systems that force us to click through multiple options and which do their best to keep us from talking to an actual human being. However, it seems that at least some so-called 'customer service representatives' have even less understanding off what 'service' means than do the soulless machines they are supposed to be so much better than.

In a case posted online, an actual, human representative at AOL actually refused to let a customer cancel his account, even asking as a last resort to speak to the 30-year-old man's father! The customer, who fortuitously was recording the call, then posted it online and received an actual apology from AOL, along with the statement that the representative in question "was no longer with the company".

I should hope not. If that rep WAS still with the company, it would call into question just exactly what AOL was trying to pas off as 'service'. Though I have not been with AOL in a very long time, my wife is still an AOL Japan user and I dread the moment when we actually cancel her account if this is the kind of service we can expect from AOL.

The moral of the story seems to be that many companies (and not a few politicians and members of the Press) have forgotten what 'service' actually means. It would be refreshing if this incident reminded a few of them that they serve at the pleasure of the people and if they cannot provide the kinds of service their constituents expect and deserve, then maybe it is time to send a few of them home. The same is true of the Press, who have clearly forgotten that their role is not to make policy, but rather report it in a clear, unbiased manner. Or if they are biased (which I believe all humans are) then they should at least let their biases show clearly, instead of pretending that they are without bias.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

And about time too...

According to a story posted today via yahoo! News, small towns around the United States are finally taking on the problem that so far the federal government refuses to address- illegal immigration and the horrible effects it has on townships and states who are affected.

According to the story, the town of Hazelton, Pennsylvania is cracking down on illegal immigrants, introducing fines and revoking the business licenses of any businesses that are caught employing illegal aliens. A side effect of the new laws is that English is now the city's official language, thus making it harder on illegal aliens who usually cannot speak English well if at all. Other cities across the nation are doing similar things. Even in San Bernardino, in heavily leftist, open-borders-spouting California, there is apparently similar legislation on the ballot.

The usual suspects are of course outraged and the news story presents them in the most positive light possible, though even the reporters have to admit that illegals are a blight to the city. The National Council of La Raza, a racist, Ku Klux Klan-like Latino supremacist group (La Raza means 'The Race') is threatening a lawsuit and the ACLU is probably also considering one, though that is not mentioned in the article. For more info on La Raza and their fellow racist organization MEChA, see this page.

I say that this is about time. Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL! Why should law-abiding American citizens be forced to pay for what Mexico cannot or will not do for their own people? The article claims that according to one 'resident who immigrated from Mexico eight years ago" (can you say illegal who got an amnesty? I can!) "most illegal immigrants obey the law and only want to work". Sure. If they are law-abiding, they WOULDN'T BE HERE! Illegal aliens are by definition NOT law-abiding- they are here illegally! Good for Hazelton. Hopefully more American cities will follow suit and eventually force our resident pork-masters in Washington to as well.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Go Ahead- Make Our Day

Kim Jong Il, the mad dictator of the starving 'People's Republic" of North Korea, has finally gone one step too far. It seems that his threats to launch missiles that can reach the United States has caused us to finally activate our missile shield. This is the missile shield which we pulled out of the 1972 ABM Treaty to build and which is just in time. For more details on the shield itself, see this informative article on the missile shield courtesy of the Washington Times newspaper.

If North Korea decides to launch said missile, I trust we will simply shoot that missile down and that ought to leave a major impression on China, which now no longer can use their own nuclear weapons to threaten the United States. And on certain other countries as well. Russia and Iran definitely come to mind.

It is a wonderful thought that we can be safe and everyone else is not. Our nuclear weapons are largely dispersed in submarines stationed around the world- and the United States Navy has no peer. Even the Russians couldn't find our 'boomers' (the great missile submarines) and certainly North Korea and Iran have no hope of finding them. All of which means that we can hit them and they can't strike at us- unless they wish to face instant obliteration.

So if Russia and China cannot or will not stand with us against Iran, let Iran get nuclear weapons, I say. Let North Korea fire off their pitiful little nukes at us. We can turn the Korean Peninsula into a wasteland. How do you like that idea, Beijing?

We are safe behind our shield and if our so-called 'allies' (like the French) do not wish to support us, then we do not need to share this technology with them, do we? Friends will be protected. Fair-weather friends? You might be left on the outside. Japan, I may safely say, is probably sure of protection, as Prime Minister Koizumi has been one of our staunchest allies throughout, even in the face of unpopularity at home. But South Korea? With their anti-American rhetoric and their anti-American population, I am heartily tempted to say pull out the troops and let them suffer. Let those ingrates discover the misery under Kim Jong Il that the North has known for years- and that only US military power has spared them thus far.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Mothers, Watch Your Daughters

And don't let said daughters grow up to marry Muslims. As a story posted today on Yahoo! News shows, if parents do not keep a close eye on their children, they may do things they will later regret. George Bernard Shaw once said, "Youth is wasted on the young". Well, yes. Young people do not have the experience or knowledge to make rational decisions, which is why anyone under 18 is not considered able to make legally binding decisions. And young people tend to do incredibly stupid things under the guise of 'rebellion'.

In this case, a sixteen-year-old girl from Michigan apparently decided to marry an impoverished, 20-year-old Palestinian, who intended to make her convert to Islam. Considering the liberal-controlled educational system in the United States, I doubt whether the teenager in question, one Katherine Lester, knows anything valid about Islam and the sharia religious law it contains. I certainly doubt that a 16-year-old American girl would be willing to put up with the restrictions and lack of rights 'enjoyed' by Muslim women. In fact, according to her sister, the girl denies that she agreed to convert to Islam. Not that she would be given a choice once she reached the Palestinian's home, of course. TThe sister wondered why the young man couldn't come to the U.S. if he really loved her. Why did hee ask her to go there? she wondered. Well, Islam and sharia law are the real reasons that they wanted her to come there- she would be helpless to resist the forced 'marriage' and Islamic conversion that would undoubtedly be required of her. And once married, she would find it almost impossible to get away from her new husband and his family.

In addition, I am appalled that this American girl was even able to spend all these hours online meeting unknown aadult Muslim men. What were her so-called 'loving parents' doing all this time? Where was the supervision? A sixteen-year-old high-school girl certainly should not be unsupervised when she spends hours in online chat rooms meeting God-knows-who. This is yet another reason for parents to keep a close eye on their offspring. I am aware that this is a trying and un-appealing task, especially for liberals who are too lazy to carry our the real tasks of parenthood and who believe that children are capable of making their own decisions. However, this shows once again that parents who do not keep watch over their children meet with disaster. The only redeeming value in this case is that the girl was successfully intercepted before she could be taken by the Palestinians.

The MSM, of course, present the Palestinian in question as a "music-loving computer buff who says he loves the teen and is heartbroken she was sent home". Sure. According to friends quoted in the article, although he claims he has no interest in coming to the United States, he "wanted to take the SAT exam and study computer engineering in the U.S. That is his dream." Uh-huh. So he arranges for an American 16-year-old from the heart of Blue America to come to Gaza? And he says she would convert to Islam? A religion where women are completely controlled by their husbands? And he "has no desire to come to the U.S.?" All of this rings incredibly phony. I expect the Drive-By Media to miss this. However, I also expect others to concentrate on this .

And we definitely need to monitor things like MySpace a little more closely. If Muslim Palestinians are using it to try to acquire ready-made access to America via underage son-to-be slave brides, then what are others using it for?

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Then Hastert Steps Up...

...on immigration at least. According to a story today posted on, the Republican Speaker of the House is not too kindly inclined towards the Senate's rush to amnesty. Speaking on the recently-passed Senate bill that allows virtually any illegal alien to blithely ignore American laws and still be rewarded by citizenship,

"We're going to take a long look at it," Hastert said late Tuesday.

House Majority Leader John Boehner agreed. "I think we should know clearly what's in the Senate bill," Boehner said. But he added there are lots of ways to understand its contents.

This is wonderful news, if only the House leadership can continue to stand fast. The Senate bill is a complete disaster, and should definitely not be passed in its current form. The House at least is concentrating on enforcement (and a REAL FENCE) first, which is definitely the way to go. As I have posted before, what is it about ILLEGAL that our Senators cannot understand. For bloviating drunkards like Teddy Kennedy, at least one can understand his eagerness to employ illegals so he doesn't have to pay American wages. But for a Arizonian such as John McCain, what the heck is he thinking?

If the House can stand firm, perhaps we can get our borders secured and then start figuring out how to handle the illegals. And we should definitely make LEGAL immigrants' paths easier to citizenship, as opposed to spending time on our illegal immigrants. LEGAL versus ILLEGAL, Congresspeople. What is it about ILLEGAL that is so hard for you to understand? Personally, I as I wrote in a previous post, I want to see the US government fix the USCIS, not waste time on illegal aliens who do not respect us and are trying to subvert our standards for their own selfish reasons.

So congratulations to the House for at least standing up for CITIZENS' RIGHTS for a change instead of worrying about those who under US law, are here illegally and are deserving of nothing except a quick boot out of the country. Give your Senators and Representatives a call to urge them to support the House's stance- not the amnesty proposed by the Senate. We already had that once and it didn't work out too well, if we recall Simpson-Mazzoli.

Hta tip to Matt Drudge.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

The States Are Stepping Up.. the plate on immigration. If the federal government will not execute its constitutionally mandated duty to protect the border, then the states are using novel ways to step into the breach. In a story today, reports that an Arizona judge has upheld a law used to target illegal immigrants and their smugglers.

According to the report, Judge Thomas O'Toole upheld the law despite arguments that it was never intended to target illegals- only their smugglers. Displaying a rare attack of common sense from a member of the legal profession, the judge said that their was no evidence the law "intended to exclude any prosecution for conspiracy to commit human smuggling." This allows the Maricopa County Attorney to continue to use the law to target illegal aliens and put them into prison or fine them if they are caught crossing the border.

This is very good news. Arizona and the other border states have suffered immensely from the illegal invasion, and since the US government seems more intent on protecting those who have no right to protection (the illegal aliens) than those whom they are legally sworn to protect (their constituents), the states are stepping up to the plate.

Hopefully, this will shame some Senators and Congresspeople into acting in Washington as well. It is time to stop pandering to people who have no right to be here and start thinking of the people who DO have a right to be here- the citizens and LEGAL residents of the United States. Are the Congress and the President listening?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Regarding LEGAL Immigration...

The service formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS (now renamed to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services- USCIS) is famous for capriciousness, arrogance, laziness and sheer incompetence. Having dealt myself with this agency on two separate occasions, I am intimately familiar with their complete lack of anything remotely resembling service. They rank on the same level as the IRS, without the latter's charm.

And apparently I am not the only person who so considers this agency to be in desperate need of a complete and total overhaul. A recent post on the near-miss of citizenship by a wounded LEGAL resident of the United States who was serving in the United States Armed Services by the estimable Japanese-born wife of Dayfdd ab Hugh is painfully true. Anyone who has ever had to deal with the capricious and arrogant inhabitants of this agency is well aware that they take great pleasure in treating anyone who is so unfortunate enough to deal with them in a manner calculated to provoke.

This agency needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom and it's leadership (if such incompetence can even be called leadership) needs thorough training in service. The supplicants of the USCIS are LEGALLY here, they did not swim the Rio Grande like the ILLEGAL ALIENS the Senate so badly wants to give amnesty to. On a slight tangent, I would like to make a note to our esteemed Senators- there is an enormous difference between people who came here LEGALLY and are trying to follow the Byzantine rules and regulations laid down by the USCIS and people who don't even respect us enough to follow the most basic of our laws- in short who break those laws in their illicit border crossings. I would think that the people who are trying their best to FOLLOW our laws and who are here LEGALLY (again, note the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL) are the people we should be trying to make welcome, not give them a bad impression of the US Government right off the bat. Again, having intimate experience with this agency gives me the knowledge that it is one that richly deserves all the contempt and disapprobriation that can be heaped upon it.

We need a replacement. Soon.

Hat tip to Sachi at Big Lizards.

Democrats React To al-Zarqawi's Death

Scott Ott of Scrappleface blog posts a satire on the Democratic Party response to Zarquawi's death that is sadly not too far different from what the Drive-By Media and the Democrats on the Loony Left would really say if they thought they could get away with it. In this case, art imitates life a little TOO closely. However, it is still hilarious. Read the whole thing.

In the same Power Line post that brought this to my attention, there is also a link to a sober article by the esteemed Richard Miniter of the Human Events Online magazine on Zarqawi's atrocities (which interestingly the MSM are never eager to report on- much easier to excoriate the U.S. for holding terrorists in Guantanamo Bay) and a piece from the good folks at MEMRI on the reaction to Zarqwi's death in the Islamic media

(Note: the Iraqi paper Al-Rafadin called on al-Zarqawi and Hamas to go to hell after Hamas declared al-Zarqawi a martyr to the Arab nation. The Minneapolis Star-Tribue- yes, the same paper that illegally broke the news of the US breaking Japanese codes in WWII- fell far short of this standard in its own coverage iof the same event.) Read these as well. Interesting stuff. And the Drive-By Media will report on this, when.....?

Hat tip to the guys at Power Line.

One Down- How Many Left?

I have been unable to post due to personal and professional commitments for the past few days, but the news from yesterday is simply too good to pass up. One of the biggest enemies to Western society and our way of life perished when the United States military, in conjunction with the Iraqi forces killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi yesterday.

This news cannot be overstated, despite the near-gloom on the Left side of the blogosphere and the attempts of the Drive-By Media to downplay this. One commentator I heard made the very good point that the MSM seems highly pout out that the US is able to score a victory of this magnitude despite their determination that we have lost the war. Perhaps if they would spend a little more time actually reporting honestly on what is happening over in Iraq, fewer people would be against the war? The media has been trying since 2000 to destroy the Bush Presidency and they are determined to cause another Vietnam in Iraq, Interestingly enough, when I GOOGLE for al-Zarqawi's death, I cannot find any of the stories that ran yesterday on it. Could it be that the MSM do not want this story to be read? It is a thought....

I do not know the source of the media dislike for the United States, but I wish that they would either admit it or report objectively. The First Amendment is all well and good, but the Press needs to have some kind of oversight, since they are clearly walking very close to treason and in some cases (The New York Times comes to mind) they have already crossed that line, in my opinion.

However, this does not obscure the fact that AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!! We got the son-of-a gun, and hopefully the charred carcass of Bin Laden himself will not be far behind.

This also brings up an interesting point as to al-Quaeda's organization. With al-Zarqawi dead, the organization in Iraq lacks a leader. Bin Laden has been steadily more isolated and is running out of cohorts, as the US and its allies move ever closer to whatever cave he hides in. In Iraq, the al-Quaeda leadership has been decimated in recent months, according to documents and communications that have been intercepted. Now, with one stroke the US has wiped out the leader and several of his closest deputies, making it even harder for al-Quaeda to function. They may want to make a big splash, but they are finding it ever harder to move around and operate as the Iraqi forces become ever more efficient and the US troops move closer to their boltholes. This has already happened to the main al-Quaeda leadership- they are trapped in case and are not able to move freely anymore.

It will be very interesting to observe what happens now with al-Quaeda. I for one think their days are numbered. We are clearly winning on the battlefields. And if our media would display even a l;little patriotism, we would be winning here at home as well. Only the media's determination to destroy the United States and George Bush have given the Islamists the hope that they can win. Isn't it time to deploy the treason laws against the media, since it is easily provable that they are doing their best to help the enemies of the United States? It is proven from the terrorists' own mouths...