Dhimmis at the BBC

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), like many other so-called "mainstream media" outlets, has been one of the worst offenders in groveling to anything Muslims wish, while doing their utmost to assist in the defeat of the Western culture that they exploit and which pays their bloated salaries.

Today, the BBC made yet another step toward dhimmitude, as they cancelled a proposed fictional terror attack in order to avoid offending Muslims. According to the This is London entertainment guide at the Evening Standard,

The first show of the hospital drama's new series was to have featured a storyline about an explosion caused by Islamic extremists.

Now the bomb will be set off by animal rights campaigners instead.

It appears that the BBC caved due to fears of Muslim's reactions to the proposed show. One wonders if they would have had the same reaction if the proposed show had featured Christian extremists setting off a bomb?

The BBC is well on the way to full dhimmitude. It only remains for them to follow Dutch Bishop Tiny Muskins and call God "Allah" in their public pronouncements. Or maybe they can wear large crosses on their raiment as Muslims have traditionally required non-Muslims to do. Surely the fine progressives at the BBC would not protest- after all, they have already surrendered in the culture war between Islam and the West.

(Illegal) Immigration Issues

An example of all that is wrong with our immigration system was on display today as 32 year old illegal alien Elvira Arellano was arrested in Los Angeles and processed for deportation. All while Arellano's son, a legal US resident, watched. This is wrong on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin.

First, how did Arellano's son gain legal US residency, when his mother arrived illegally? Because anyone born in the U.S automatically is a citizen, regardless of how they got here. This needs to change, so as to eliminate the "anchor babies" so many illegals depend on to muddy the waters of their own illegal actions.

Second, Arellano herself is a multiple offender. She has already been deported once, and has returned anyway. She has been staying in a church in Chicago in defiance of a deportation order for the past seven months. Why did the government not obtain a search warrant and seize her from her illegal sanctuary? Churches have no legal basis to defy the federal government, especially in cases like this, where there is no question of the woman being mistreated.

But most of all, this is an example of how badly our immigration process is broken. Illegal aliens like this woman push themselves in front of those who have done the process legally, and that is a Bad Thing. Why should we lavish any pity on Arellanes and her illegal cohorts when far more qualified and law-abiding people wait on the Department of Homeland Security capricious and time-consuming process for legal admittance to this country?

It's time for this country to get serious. Remove the anchor baby process first. Anyone born here must be of at least one American citizen parent, and if the baby is born to a foreign parent, they must apply for citizenship- it should not be automatic. Second, we need to stop this invasion of illegals from our southern border, no matter how desperately the corrupt government in Mexico desires this state of affairs to continue. But most of all, we need to convince our representatives in Washington of our seriousness. And if they cannot or will not listen, maybe it's time to send a few of them home for good.

And the Answer is....

I'm a turkey sandwich!

You Are a Turkey Sandwich

Conservative and a bit shy, you tend to stick with what you know and trust. You are very introverted, and you prefer to blend in whenever possible. Though you may be hard to know well, anyone who does know you considers you a true friend. Your best friend: The Ham Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Tuna Fish Sandwich

Hmmm, I always thought I ought to be a ham sandwich, considering how much I like ham. But I agree that tuna fish and I are not particularly friendly, though I do love maguro and toro in a sushi place! Ah well. If you want to discover what kind of sandwich you are, please see the What Kind of Sandwich Are You Quiz.

Hat tip to The Anchoress.

Is Hillary a Socialist?

Not according to her! As reported by the Gateway Pundit, Hillary Clinton reacted angrily to a question on her universal healthcare ideas at the National Association of Black Journalists Convention. The questioner had the gall to actually ask her why she was trying to bring socialized medicine to the United States, and stated that it would hurt black communities the worst.

Hillary responded by flat lying, saying angrily (quote courtesy of Say Anything)“Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists hear that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years, and it is wrong.”

As Gateway Pundit, Say Anything and The Anchoress all correctly pointed out, this is a complete falsehood. In her husband's first term, Hillary was charged with and ultimately produced, what everyone agrees was a model of socialized medicine on the lines of Canada and Great Britain. This was so far out of line with American tradition, that even her own party, which controlled Congress at the time laughed at her and refused to pass it.

Now as a Presidential candidate, she is still advocating socialized medicine, in that she expects to take from the top 50 percent of tax-payers in order to transfer wealth in the form of health care to the bottom fifty percent. (And on a side note, many of the uninsured in America are in this country illegally and who definitely should not have their health care paid for by us in any case). In any event, this is wealth redistribution, and definitely qualifies as socialism.

Hillary may not like her socialistic tendencies to be brought into daylight, but there can be no doubt, based on her public utterances, that she is a committed socialist, who longs for the days when she can further socialism in the United States. And if that day ever comes, we will all be much worse off- socialism has a nasty way of first removing rights, then replacing them with strictures and punishments. Except for the rulers, who Mrs. Clinton so badly wants to join.

On a side note, best wishes for a speedy recovery go out to The Anchoress, who is currently experiencing some health issues of her own. We send our prayers for a quick recovery.

Hat tip to The Anchoress.

Dhimmitude Creep

I have never understood why Christians should be expected to be submissive to Muslims. It was not Christianity that has spent over a thousand years murdering its way across two continents. It is not Christianity that has tried time and again to conquer ancestral homelands of Muslims. On the contrary, Islam has a bloodier record and a longer history of imperialism than any single other organized group of belief.

However, this appears to be unknown to at least one Christian official. Bishop Tiny Muskins of Breda in the Netherlands has suggested that Christians should call God 'Allah' to "foster understanding".

This has to be the most ridiculous suggestion I have heard yet. Why don't you renounce your diocese, Bishop Muskins, give up your raiment and become a practicing Muslim? This is what you are suggesting, that Christians should basically convert to Islam. I think the response by one of the Bishop's potential parishioners is the best.

"Sure. Lets call God Allah. Lets then call a church a mosque and pray five times a day. Ramadan sounds like fun," Welmoet Koppenhol wrote in a letter to the newspaper."

I couldn't have said it better myself. If you are determined to become a dhimmi, then I would be the last to stop you. But if you, like me, believe that Western culture and history contains far more shining examples of goodness than does Islam, then we need to stand up and defend our own civilization. Islam, save for a short period in the Middle Ages, has always been a barbarous religion, displaying neither mercy nor equality to anyone other than its own. Christianity, on the other hand, has a long history of tolerance, though like most other religions, it also has its dark stains- the Inquisition come to mind relatively quickly.

Islam is determined to conquer the world. It has tried many, many times before and the current popularity of al-Quaeda and other similar organizations indicate that jihad and imperialism once again are popular with many Muslims. Only a strong defense , both verbally and militarily will overcome this jihadist fervor. We have a culture and history to be proud of. Our nations are responsible for many gifts to the world, including the ideas of equality and freedom- something Islam cannot claim. We do not live under Sharia, and the only way to ensure we never do is to promote our own culture- not denigrate it to "reduce tensions". We did not start this- Islam did. It is their responsibility to "reduce tensions", not ours.

Hat tip to SFB.

On Joining the Military

Liberals love to tell those who support the war against Islamic extremism that if they support the war they must join the military, otherwise they are a "chickenhawk". Leaving aside the fact that most liberals and leftists were wildly in favor of Bill Clinton's non-UN-approved excursions into Kosovo but were unwilling to join a that time, there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in their current demands that supporters of the military campaign join the Armed Forces.

Mark Noonan over at Battle Born Politics has a wonderful essay on why this question is both disingenuous and impractical. Among other things, Noonan writes,

Leaving aside the fact that even if support for the war is at 33% then there are 10 million military-aged males in the United States who support the war (and, thus, no room for even 20% of them in the military), what the left is doing is revealing its own, totalitarian mindset - that liberal concept, first thought up in the French Revolution, that the State has absolute claim on our lives and property in a time of national emergency. No conservative can actually support such a view - even at times of national emergency, people have right to not participate - that isn't a libertarian position (though libertarians hold to it, as well), but an understanding that while society does have a claim on us, its claim is not absolute.

.

Noonan also points out that the all-volunteer force we currently posses is better trained, better equipped and better motivated than any conscript force could possibly be and that a surfeit of warm bodies encourages commanders to be profligate with those bodies, as we saw in the World War I slaughters on the Western Front. Noonan says that human lives are too valuable to waste. I absolutely agree.

Noonan's fellow blogger Matt Margolis also wrote a post on his own personal views on the question of joining the Armed Forces. Read the whole thing.

In conclusion, leftists and liberals have very little understanding of the makeup of the United States Armed Forces and virtually no expertise in using these forces. If a liberal asks the question, you can try to educate him or her, though the odds are that he or she is too submerged in their fever swamp of choice to actually listen. For the Left, Truth has long been superceded by Desire of What Truth Should Be.

Honesty About Chavez

The left-leaning political circles in the United States (and around the world as well) have a long-standing love affair with authoritarian, anti-American dictators such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein. However as we have long thought, despite the fever swamps, there are some honest, objective liberals who are courageous enough to admit when they are wrong. One such is Jeb Koogler, who writes for the The Moderate Voice. I regret to say that I have no previous experience reading Mr. Koogler, but I shall be making him a regular stop from now on.

In today's Moderate Voice, Koogler writes of his disenchantment with Presidente-for-Life Chavez, saying,

For a long time, I’ve defended Hugo Chavez. I thought that he was fighting a worthy battle against greed and corruption, against years of foreign domination and cronyism. I thought he was trying to improve the lives of poor people, while establishing a strong economy, an independent and self-respecting nation, and a vibrant democracy.

But now, after watching events unfold in the past few months, I’m ready to admit that I was mistaken.

Koogler is one of a very few members of the liberal and Leftist political persuasion who is both honest and principled enough to write something like this, and he should be applauded. Chavez' reign of terror in Venezuela should have been obvious from the very beginning, but his strident anti-Bush rhetoric and his claims to act "for the people" have understandably blinded many. However, it is time to cast off the blinders and see Chavez for what he is- a tinpot dictator who entertains visions of regional hegemony and cares not a whit for the actual people who voted him into power.

As Captain Ed writes,

Koogler's reconsideration is well worth reading. It's not easy to admit error as Koogler does in this piece, and he explains his change of heart very clearly and rationally. The sooner that the American Left follows Koogler's advice, the sooner we can start working to help the Venezuelan people free themselves from Chavez' megalomaniacal grip on power. Be sure to read it all.

I cannot agree more- both with Mr. Koogler's eloquent disavowal of Chavez' ambition and Captain Ed's excellent analysis. If only the socialist sycophants within academia, the so-called "mainstream" media and the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill could display similar moral fortitude.

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey.

Media Mistruths

There have been a number of media malfeasances in the past few years, including Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' attempt to throw the 2004 election to John Kerry, Jayson Blair's racially-protected reign of falsehood at the New York Times and most recently Scott Beauchamp's anti-American propaganda for the New Republic. However, that is not all, by far. The American Thinker's Randall Hoven has done a yeoman's job of digging and has come up with a list of most of the recent offenders. And a very interesting thing is that almost all of them are of liberal or Leftist political views.

I'm not sure whether the preponderance of Leftists on this list speaks to an essential disdain for truth or whether it speaks to Leftists' well-documented belief that the ends justify the means. In either case, it is instructive that the Right seems to respect truth more than the Left, if these examples are any guide.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

UPDATE: The always-wise Victor Davis Hanson has weighed in on the online pages of the National Review, advising the media mavens that "anonymity is a vicious but seductive Siren that lures its heedless listeners to shipwreck on the shoals".

TSA Whiffs Again

As a frequent business traveler, I am not an admirer of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration). I regard it as inconsistent, largely incompetent and staffed with people who should definitely not be allowed any authority, let alone responsible for their fellow countrymen's security and safety. This is not to say that airport security is a bad idea. However, the implementation into one more needless government bueaucracy is a disaster. If terrorists have been unable to strike the United States since September 11, 2001, most of the credit should go to our intrepid military, not to the bunglers of the TSA.

Now we find even more evidence that the TSA is a disgrace and should be disbanded immediately. According to the San Diego Union-tribune, TSA officers not only lost track of a bad containing suspicious substances, but couldn't even identify the bag's owner.
According to the report,

Security officers tried to find the passenger and the bag but they did not have a good description of the person and didn't know the destination of the bag.

Officials decided to evacuate several hundred travelers in the terminal and have them go through security once again, Melendez said.

The security breach caused delays for flights on U.S. Airways, America West, Continental, and Delta.

And then of course, TSA tried to blame their own incompetence on the traveler! According to spokeperson Nico Melandez anyway, who said, "“If this passenger didn't have those liquids, none of this would have happened."

Um, no, Mr. Melandez. If your agency weren't so ridiculously inept none of this would have happened. It is not the traveler's fault for losing the bag, nor is it the traveler's fault that your agents were unable to identify the passenger in question, thus forcing many innocent people to be seriously inconvenienced. If the TSA could perform its duties in a consistent and professional manner, maybe even using some common sense, then I would have much higher respect. However, as it is, the TSA's record is worse than the DMV's. At least the DMV eventually gets things done. TSA can't even do that.

Light Blogging

As you probably know, I have been traveling on business for the past few weeks. As a result, blogging has been much lighter than usual. However, I am now back in the country, and expect to return to my more usual rate now that I am done with travel for a bit.

Guilty As Charged

Breitbart News reported that Jose Padilla was found guilty on all charges today by a jury in Miami. According to the article,

Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.

This is very good news, as it justifies the Bush Administration. Despite the idiocy of allowing terrorists and accused terrorists access to our legal system, the trial results deliver harsh reality to the folks who have claimed that Padilla is merely a misunderstood American- folks who include much of the mainstream media!

Let us hope that this conviction is the beginning of a long line of terrorists meeting their richly deserved fates. Padilla is a traitor and deserves everything he gets.

Media Distrust

The mainstream media has been beset for some time with attacks of partisanism and inaccurate reporting. Incidents such as CBS' use of forged documents to attempt to throw the 2004 election to John Kerry and The New Republic's recent use of false reports from a soldier in Iraq merely accentuate the Press' many problems both with accuracy and with objectivity.

A new Pew poll is a real eye-opener, however. The poll reports that well over half of Americans believe the US Press Corps is biased, inaccurate and uncaring. The poll reports that,

More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".

To me, this is vindication. The MSM has done an abysmal job over the past few years, and their uncalled-for attacks on the current Administration are of a viciousness heretofore unseen in American politics. I also find the report that 53 percent are unhappy with the media's stand toward their own country interesting. It seems that these oh-so-clever members of a "world citizenry" are joining a world citizenry at the expense of the respect of their fellow Americans. And no member of the Press can claim that the media coverage of US efforts anywhere in the world ahas been favorable at all. MSM outlets are always happy to interview high-ranking terrorists, or people who shout "Death to America", but are strangely afraid to publish reports that reflect well on the US troops who are so bravely protecting these reporters.

Maybe this will being to make these false reporters think about where their true loyalties lie. And maybe they might even rethink how they report events to more accurately portray their fellow countrymen and women.

Travel

I have been somewhat silent of late, due to the demands of my professional career. I have but recently returned from the great state of North Carolina, where I spent a week on business. I regret that pause in my blogging, but I fear that it may remain intermittent during the duration of this month, as more travel looms and work also remains a very high level of demand as well.

Democratic Defeat

The Democrats and their allies in the so-called mainstream media have long been working to ensure that the United States does not prevail in the Iraqi Campaign, while they simultaneously tell us that they "support the troops". This work was revealed for all to see today by House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, who admitted that a strongly positive report by General David Petraeus would "impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war".

Clyburn was at least honest in admitting that the Democratic party has become without apology the party of defeat. They cannot bring themselves to put the national interest over their narrow partisan goals, and they above all cannot and will not root for American success. if the United States goes to battle, you can count on most of the Democratic Party (including their mouthpieces in the national Press) to do all in their power to make sure America loses.

The Washington Post newspaper reported of Clyburn's comments:

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

I have a couple of problems with this. First, why does General petraeus carry weight only among the Blue Dog Democrats and not among the rest of the party? Is this because most Democrats do not respect military leaders, or because they simply will not listen to anything that might support the continuance of the campaign?

Secondly, where is the disapproval from Americans that a national political party has dedicated itself to the defeat of its own people? For that is what the Democrats and their Press allies seek. For some reason they seem to feel that defeating George Bush is more important than defeating Islamic imperialists. Let me remind Democrats that Islam despises most of the causes Leftists and Democrats hold dear, including abortion on demand, gay and lesbian relationships, a free Press (though how much Democrats actually support a truly free Press is in doubt), and an open political speech (here again, how much Democrats really support free speech is in question).

I thank Representative Clyburn for his openness and honesty. However, I am truly amazed that this clear declaration of the Democratic Party's determination to work for the defeat of their own country does not prompt outcry and maybe even criminal charges. Clyburn's comments are an admission that much of the Democratic Party is working to assist our country's enemies. Didn't that used to be called treason?

Wetzel on Race

In the aftermath of Michael Vick's indictment on animal-cruelty charges, Yahoo! Sports columnist Dick Wetzel wrote a column stating that the case highlighted a racial divide. He's right in that it seems that most of Vick's supporters are black and maybe he is right that the animal-rights extremists who were there to protest against Vick were mostly white, but I think he completely missed the bigger point.

Why is it that African-Americans get the benefit of the doubt where whites do not? If Wetzel was truly concerned about racial divides, he might have done something to quiet the rush to justice in the Duke lacrosse case. But he didn't In fact, I cannot recall Wetzel writing anything at all in favor of those falsely accused players- accused by Crystal Mangum, a black woman. And I can only guess it was because those defendants were white men. No need to grant them any due process.

And that is the tragedy. It shouldn't matter what the defendant's color or sex might be- the Constitution promises due process for everyone. I have no idea if Michael Vick is innocent or guilty, and in any case it is not my place to guess or to tar him with accusations that may be untrue. I hope for hiss sake that he is innocent of everything except bad judgement in friends. But it is interesting that reporters seem to feel the need to call for restraint when the accused is black, yet do not grant that same privilege to white defendants. Did Wetzel call for restraint regarding the three (falsely) accused lacrosse players? No, he did not. He may not have fanned the flames, but he certainly did not make any effort to smooth them either.

I think it is time that the United States stopped pointing racial fingers. Race should be irrelevant to a crime that is committed- it is a matter of perpetrators and victims. If a crime was committed for racial reasons, whether by the Ku Klux Klan or the Black Panthers, then the penalties should be doubly harsh- no matter the color of the accused. And whether it is three white men falsely accused of raping a black woman, or a famous black man accused of killing dogs, we need to grant both of them the very privilege mandated by our Constitution- innocent until proven guilty.

It is a pity that our media has not yet learned that simple fact, but then they have long wanted to highlight excesses as opposed to restraint- evil over goodness and death over life. it is a pity that they can't be somehow put into the dock with Mr. Vick, for they are as guilty of exacerbating the situation as are those who actually killed the poor animals in question.

Illegal Visits

Although the U.S. federal government doesn't seem to understand the idea that a sovereign state has a right to decide who comes to live within its borders, Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona doesn't seem to have any problem understanding the idea. Already well-known for some of his unique ideas on dispensing justice, the sheriff announced today that illegal aliens are not allowed to visit relatives incarcerated in his jail.

The sheriff intends to run background checks on every visitor, and all visitors will have to prove their identity. Should an illegal try to visit, it appears that they may just wind up inside with the one they were visiting. The sheriff shrugs off criticism, saying simply, "I run the jail. I decide who goes in there."

I'm sure that the illegal-alien industry will scream bloody murder, but I can find nothing but approval for the sheriff's actions. Illegal aliens, by definition, are illegal. They are breaking the laws of the United States, and I personally do not understand why we should be making any effort whatsoever to pander to them. They should have access to no services in this country. They should have no ability to work in their native language and they shoud definitely not have access to US courts. Illegal aliens should be arrested and sent home whenever and wherever they are found.

Why can't Congress understand this simple fact? Illegals are illegal.

The Judges Strike Back

It would seem to most people that they have the right to decide who can live in their town, and if there are illegal aliens hiding, then the townsfolk should be able to tell their police to round them up and hand them over to the federal government for removal. Unfortunately, it seems that judges either have no common sense or are too blinded by their desire to destroy the United States and turn it into Mexico, Junior.

Today, federal judge James Munley struck down Hazelton, Pennsyvania's anti-illegal alien law on the ground that it infringed on teh federal government's prerogatives.

This is truly sickening. Judges have no problem letting the federal government walk all over the rights of the States and the People, but when municipalities try to help out (especially when the Fes are lying down on the job as they are in this issue) then judges have no problem telling the municipalities that they cannot step in. And what was this judge thinking? Municipalities have a perfect right to police themselves, so this is not in the slightest infringement- it is helping out. Maybe Judge Munley simply doesn't want to give up his Mexican housekeeper or his garden boys?

It is time that municipaliites rise up and demand action. Sovereign nations have a perfect right to protect their broders, and towns and locals have a right to determine who can enter. These illegals are, well, illegal. What doesn't Munley understand about this?

This decision is an embarrassment. However, this will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court, in the end, though I think it is time that Congress removes the issue of rights for illegals from the purvey of the federal judiciary. They have proved they cannot be trusted, either on POW or on illegal alien issues.

A Voice of Reason

...on environment. Investors' Business Daily published a much-needed blast of fresh air through the emotion and illogic of climate-change, pointing out that If scientists can't get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?.

This is an excellent question. The editorial goes on to point out a few other common-sense truths regarding the entire climate-change hysteria, including:
- Local weather forecasters cannot predict more than ten days in advance, and even those predictions are often sadly wrong
- Short-term predictions of worldwide temperature changes have never been accurate. As evidence, IBD uses NASA scientist James Hansen's prediction that the world would warm up by .45 degrees from 1988-1997. He was wrong; the world warmed just .11 degrees.

I cannot forget as well that most of the same folks (including much of the global media) who are claiming we face a cataclysmic warming now were clamoring that we faced a coming ice age less than fifty years ago. They were wrong then, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any more correct this time around. Setting aside the fact that virtually none of the green crowd are very good at logic, they aren't very good at predicting much of anything- almost every single one of Greenpeace's claims regarding the environment has proven at best overblown and at worst plain false. As Investor's Business Daily concludes their article,

"The formula for a climate of fear, though, requires nothing more than a lot of thunder and a bit of heat generated by political activists."

I could not agree more.

More MSM Misinformation

One would think that CBS had hlearned that deliberately reporting false information was not a good idea. However, in the wake of President Bush's July 25 speech it appears that CBs at least is still determined to present their own opinions and bias as news.


Some examples are provided by the folks over at Power Line:

CBS's attack on Bush is remarkable. The network essentially called the President a liar. Here are some of CBS's key statements; let's take them one by one:

President Bush appealed today for more time for his Iraq strategy to work, but this time with a new rationale. *** President Bush's rationale is clearly shifting, from policing sectarian violence to targeting al Qaeda.
As the White House pointed out today, the President has talked about the threat of al Qaeda in Iraq in more than 40 speeches and other public appearances this year. It's interesting, too, that CBS thinks the old rationale was "policing sectarian violence." I'd be interested to see a single instance where President Bush has said that our mission in Iraq is "policing sectarian violence." CBS continued:

The President linked al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq directly to Osama bin Laden...
Bush: Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil.
But this is a clear contradiction of the January speech setting limits on U.S. involvement.

First, what Bush said is obviously correct. The leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have indeed sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. CBS doesn't directly deny this fact, but claims instead that it somehow contradicts Bush's speech on January 10. CBS next shows a clip from that speech, in which Bush says:

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister, and Iraq's other leaders, that America's commitment is not open-ended.
How on earth are these two statements in conflict? Bush said in January that our commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. He said yesterday that the leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And CBS calls this a "clear contradiction?" This can only have left viewers scratching their heads.

When, oh when will we see the federal judiciary start to force news organizations to be a little more careful in lying to the public? There are laws to prevent this kind of thing, and esecially in cases where the "news" organizationss are clearly lying to the public. Why can't they be used. A few hefty fines and (for the leakers at the New York Times, some hard time in jail, might convince these enemies of the American people that they would be better off being less overt in their antagonism towards an elected President.

CBS, CNN and the other members of the Old Media have made it their business to destroy this PResident and his Administration from the moment that they tried to throw the 2000 election to Al Gore. They have never been fair, nor have they made any real attemtp to report the actual news- they have instead reported their own slant, becoming bolder as it becomes clear that for some reason Republicans fear the media. If this had been the Clintons, Janet Reno and the Justice Department would have undoubtedly been on the case by now- recall the vicious attacks promulgated on anyone who dared to criticize the Clintons.

In any event, it becoming clearer and clearer that the mainstream media need to have their teeth pulled, and the only way we can do that is by turning off our televisions and closing forever the pages of these tired propagandists. Time to let network news and the liberal Press go the way of the dodo bird- into rightly-earned obscurity and poverty. Faster, please...

Hat tip to Power Line.

China's NBA Problem

When Yao Ming was chosen as the number one overall pick in the 2002 NBA Draft, China successfully used its influence to ensure that Yao ended in a situation that benefited both him and China. China was pleased with the success of their not-so-subtle machinations that resulted in Yao playing in a city that boasted both a heavy Asian influence and no competition for playing time from an established American player.

Fast forward to 2007. With the Number 6 pick in this year's draft, the Milwaukee Bucks franchise took Chinese forward Yi Jianling, who has been touted as the next great Chinese player. Neither Yi's agent nor the Chinese government was pleased, as Milwaukee does not have a large Asian population, and there are a number of other players on the Bucks' roster who could potentially be a bigger star than Yi- which in turn would limit Yi's playing time and thus his opportunity to get better against NBA-caliber competition. These handlers are pushing to get Yi traded to a city where he would be able to play more and have a more Asiatic audience.

China has always been one of the more overtly racist countries- in fact a good friend who is of Chinese origin states bluntly that Asia is the most racist area in the world. they have also been accustomed to throwing their weight around with few consequences, as the only nation with the power to counter their moves has been reluctant to do so. However, this may teach China the limits of their ability to influence foreign events, and could potentially backfire catastrophically on them.

The owner of Yi's Chinese team, Chen Haitao, apparently has stated that Yi would not play for Milwaukee. The Beijing Times reported that,

"The national team and the Olympic Games are now our key considerations," Chen said. "If Yi goes to a team where he can't compete, that would be being irresponsible to the national team."

Well, that may be irresponsible to the Chinese national team, but American teams are not required to consider the Chinese government's wishes in drafting players. They draft to improve themselves, and if Chinese players want to play in the NBA, they cannot dictate to American sports teams- and neither can the Chinese government. NBA teams draft players based on their own decisions of how to improve. Milwaukee thought that Yi might be of some use, so they drafted him. His obligations to the Chinese national team, or China's desires do not enter into it. From the Bucks' perspective, if he is good enough, he will play. If not, he will sit. China's desires do not enter into the situation at all.

There is also another factor to consider. the owner of the Bucks is United States Senator Herb Kohl. As a member of the United States government, he is well-placed to resist any outlandish demands from China about Yi, and China can ill-afford to offend the United States. And of course, if Yi refuses to play for Milwaukee, then Milwaukee can simply keep him from playing at all, and Yi will neither improve nor be able to play for any other US team. And future Chinese players will be tarred with the Yi brush. Just as Darko Milicic's failure made European players less popular, as this year's draft clearly showed, Yi's refusal to play where he was drafted may rebound negatively on China. And that is something China does not want.

Ultimately, I believe that Yi will probably play with Milwaukee. China's leverage in this case, unlike with Yao, is not strong enough to force the Bucks to trade Yi, and Yi's own actions make him less attractive to other teams. Nor does he have the track record of success that would convince a team to take a flyer on him. But the entire situation may end up being a black eye both for Yi and for China- something that neither can afford.