-By Warner Todd Huston

In a misleading expose on the various "end times" religious concepts that are increasingly in the news today, the L.A. Times' Louis Sahagun conflates Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's violent 12th Imam ravings with several different Christian and Jewish end times concepts as if the ideas are one and the same when, in reality, they aren't even comparable.

Ignoring clear Biblical claims that no man shall know when the end times are near, (Matthew 24:35-36) Sahagun focuses on the minority of Christian leaders who claim that despite that Biblical injunction it must be near. But if it isn't they want to attempt to bring it about. Sahagun warns us...

"Their end game is to speed the promised arrival of a messiah."
 
After briefly mentioning Christian, Jewish and Ahmadinejad's concepts, Sahagun attempts to loosely link them all together.

"Linking these efforts is a belief that modern technologies and global communications have made it possible to induce completion of God's plan within this generation."

After this line, though, one would imagine the piece would inform us about all these "modern technologies" and how similarly they are being used to advance the end times, but the piece is oddly re-directed to further highlight the apocalyptic visions of a minority of today's Christianity and the "modern technologies" aspect is dropped for the more sensational.

After going on paragraph after paragraph about these end of times concepts Sahagun's focus on these plans makes it seem as if the entire Christian community is coalesced on creating the conditions for the end times and he fails to highlight the material differences between the various concepts. With the most egregious example, Sahagun fails to delineate the difference between the Christian ideas and that of Ahmadinijad. The 12th Imam theory is one of violence, where all nations will be conquered and forced to convert to Islam, whereas the Christian claim is of merely waiting for prophecy to be fulfilled with Christians but informing the world of what is to come -- no force, no oppression, no violence on their part.

Sahagun also perpetuates the canard that Christians think all Jews must be destroyed, too.

"But when asked to comment on the fate of non-Christians upon the Second Coming of Jesus, he said, 'That's a very embarrassing question. What can I tell you? That's a very terrible Christian idea. What kind of religion is it that expects another religion will be destroyed?'"

Unfortunately for the reader's clarity, Sahagun neglects to mention that no Christian theology claims that it will be Christians doing this destroying, but that it is God's will, not theirs be done. Unlike that of Islam that says the Muslims should take a direct hand in such violence, Christians take a more pacifistic view of preparing for the end times than do Muslims.

Close to the end of the piece, Sahagun does finally hint that not all Christians are as far out as most he describes in his article.

"So, are all of these efforts to hasten the end of the world a bit like, well, playing God? Some Christians, such as Roman Catholics and some Protestant denominations, believe in the Second Coming but don't try to advance it. It's important to be ready for the Second Coming, they say, although its timetable cannot be manipulated."

Unfortunately he uses words like "some" when describing the less driven Christians but eschews such exculpatory language when describing those he obviously feels are nuts in the rest of the piece, causing the reader to imagine those Sahagun thinks are sane are farther and fewer between than the more agitated variety of Christian end times theorist he highlights.

In a final indignity, quoting Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, vice president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership in New York, Sahagun attempts to paint Christians as racists.

"Trouble is, there are many people who want to bring a messiah who looks just like them. For me, that kind of messianism is spiritual narcissism."

Are we to expect that Rabbi Hirschfield imagines his Messiah, the one that Judaism is still expecting to come, might arrive from Harlem, rapping his way to the rebuilt Temple Mount, or perhaps he might be a kindly Buddhist from Japan in a nice orange robe? No, likely the good Rabbi imagines that his expected Messiah will be a Jew, someone who is just like Hirschfield.

All in all this is a barely disguised hit piece on Christianity where Sahagun highlights some wild-eyed, end times theories and leads the reader to imagine that every Christian is a racist, Jew hater that wants to bring about Armageddon.

Funny, though, how Ahmadinejad's Armageddon, the one where the sword of Allah will cleanse the world of non-believers, is only described with no judgmental language attached, whereas Christian's version is called "a very terrible Christian idea".

-By Warner Todd Huston

If it weren't for the utter hatred that people have for Jews, the actions of Syria in this current conflict would seal Syria's fate as a criminal regime. Unfortunately, those standing against Israel aren't interested in facts or justice.  They just want to kill Jews.

The IAF has reported repeatedly destroying convoys of Syrian army transports carrying ammunition and rockets to Hizbullah in Lebanon.

 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278029,00.html

The rockets belong to the Syrian army and are not the kind found on the open arms market, so there is no doubt that it is Syria's arms being used by Hizbullah in Lebanon.
 
“These are rockets that belong to the Syrian army. You can’t find them in the Damascus market, and the Syrian government is responsible for this smuggling,” IDF Operations Branch Head Major General Gadi Eisenkot said."
 
There is just no way that the Syrian army and the Syrian government could be unaware that their supplies are being smuggled to Hizbullah. This means that the Syrians are directly aiding Hizbullah in their goal of killing Israeli civilians despite the fact that Syria has not been targeted in this conflict.

As Eisenkot reminded the media...

“We are not operating against Syria or the Lebanese army.”

And more's  the pity. I believe Israel should send a few well placed air assaults right into al Assad's palaces, hopefully killing many of his cabinet members if not the scheming, racist, whelp of a dictator himself.

And here is where the international community fails in their claims of wanting "peace" in the region. Assad is supplying Hizbullah directly. He  is involving himself in a conflict that really does not directly affect his  people. If the international community truly wanted peace those now standing against Israel would instead be railing against Syria at the top of their lungs.

But what are we getting instead?

Israel should "restrain" herself. A UN "peace keeping" mission should step  in and separate the sides... as if we were warning some unruly kids in the back seat of the family sedan on that Summer vacation drive. "Don't make me separate  you two kids!", says the exasperated Father.

Only, Syria is not an unruly child. It  is a racist, hate-mongering, Muslim country dead set on killing ever Jew it can find.

Further, the USA should support and sanction every bomb Israel sends to Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

Israel, my support  is yours. Destroy the groups that are murdering your children and have been for decades. May their countries run red with the blood of terrorists and their supporters.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Joe Lieberman is getting the first primary challenge he has had for 18 years in Connecticut's Democratic primary. It is so off putting to the good Senator that he is claiming he will run as a "petitioning Democrat" -- which means as an independent -- if he should lose the primary to challenger, Ned Lamont.

There is only one reason Ned Lamont is mounting this challenge to Joe Lieberman; Lieberman's stand on Iraq.

Lamont is a classic limousine leftist with little by way of new ideas and no real support or organization in the Democratic Party of Connecticut. But he does have the support of lefty bloggers across the country and the Bush haters of the fever swamp.

Oh, the nutroots of the lefty blogosphere have a whole litany of "reasons" that they are opposing Lieberman, but when all is said and done it is Lieberman's perceived support of Bush's Iraq strategy that they are mad at.

For instance, one of the nutroots' claims that Lieberman has failed them was the Senator's stance against Clinton during the Lewinisky scandal. But this is really just a smoke screen, a non-issue. For, despite Lieberman's claimed stance, he still did not vote to convict the disgraced president when his chance came to stand up for his supposed convictions.

There are others, but they are equally of little substance.

So, it all comes back to the war in Iraq. That's it. They are one-issue voters. Not voting for Lamont, but voting against Lieberman and all over that one issue.

Sadly, even though they haven't a vote, Conservative Republicans are also one-issue voters where it concerns Joe Lieberman. They support him merely for his support of Bush's Iraq strategy.

This is a great mistake by Conservatives.

For instance, talk show host, Sean Hannity, has been falling all over Lieberman for well over two years saying how he "admires" him and how he believes Joe is a "great man". It is all based on Joe's support of Bush's Iraq plan. And, I have seen similar blind support of Connecticut's junior senator time and again on the Right leaning blogs, too. Recently I read a line on Michelle Malkin's new blog, Hotair.com, where a commentor said, "We'll give you McCain and you give us Lieberman and all will be well". I have seen other such unthinking adulation many places in the Conservative blogosphere.

All of this gushing is because of Lieberman's support of Bush's Iraq strategy.

It must be. Because it sure isn't because of Lieberman's voting record.

Lieberman has voted either outright against every Republican initiative or, as in the case of Soc. Security reform, has hedged his bet but still on the negative side of the issue. Only with Iraq policies has Lieberman voiced his agreement with Republican ideas.

In measuring Lieberman's record, the American Conservative Union has given him a rating of "0" for calendar year 2004, only an "8" in 2005, and a low "17" for his lifetime in Congress based on his votes in the Senate. (By contrast, much as my Conservative friends may not like him, McCain's ACU rating is 72, 80 and 83 respectively.)

He voted against every Bush tax cut, voted against Justice Alito's Supreme Court appointment, opposes traditional marriage laws, is against drilling for oil in Alaska, is for partial-birth abortion, and supports some of the absurd restrictions as outlined in the Kyoto Protocols. And this is just for starters.

Lieberman is not a "conservative" Democrat. It's just that simple.

So, for conservatives to be won over to his support merely on that same one issue that his detractors are upset over him for is a great mistake for a true conservative to make.

There is no doubt that Lieberman has stood up to the nutroots on this one issue. He has stuck to his guns on his support for Iraq. We can all admire him for that and support his decisions in this instance. Absolutely we can hope he beats this crazy leftist, Lamont, as well. I most certainly am not saying we should pillory him as those on his own side are doing.

But to vocally and forcefully claim him an ally is a step too far. In fact it is many steps too far. Lieberman, save for this one issue, as important as that issue is, is not our friend. He is not our ally and he cannot be looked to when we need crucial support for conservative initiatives and ideals. The man is a classic 1970's liberal.

Admittedly it is fun to see him defying the far left, fever swamp, nutroots. That is for sure. And, I must also admit that I sometimes get that twang to yell, "Go get 'em Joe." But I warn my fellow Conservatives: Don't let your own desires to smack the nutroots around blind you to Lieberman's true positions.

I cringe every time I see a Conservative blog, or radio talker slobber over Lieberman as that support is just another blow to our agenda every time it is voiced. So, the next time you think you want to cheer Joe Lieberman on, remember this Op Ed.

Joe Lieberman is NOT our friend.

-By Warner Todd Huston

The L.A. Times has gone into despair over a 10 second pause in a recent press conference held by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Army chief of staff.

In an article titled "Is U.S. Winning? Army Chief Is at a Loss", by Peter Spiegel, published on July 15th, the L.A. Times moaned that we surely must be losing the war because General Schoomaker paused for "10 seconds" after being asked if we are winning.

"It seemed like a routine question, one that military leaders involved in prosecuting the war in Iraq must ask themselves with some regularity: Is the U.S. winning?

But for Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff known for his straight-shooting bluntness, it proved a hard one to answer.

During a Capitol Hill briefing for an audience mostly of congressional aides, Schoomaker paused for more than 10 seconds after he was asked the question -- lips pursed and brow furrowed -- before venturing:

"I think I would answer that by telling you I don't think we're losing."

How many times has the MSM gotten all over Bush and Cheney both for declaring that we are winning, or at the end of this conflict? Remember how they beat Bush up for the "Mission Accomplished" banner? See how they jump all over Bush every time he says we are winning?

Should we expect that General Schoomaker is stupid enough to voluntarily jump into that media attack pit?

Further, shouldn't we expect a General to be thoughtful and consider his words carefully when answering such questions? Shouldn't we be thankful that he pauses and gives great thought to the questions put before him instead of blurting out the first thing that comes into his head?

Seems to me like the good General is being a prudent, thoughtful leader when giving the question its due consideration before answering.

But, not to the L.A. Times. Schoomaker's pause has convinced them that all is lost.

"It was a small but telling window into the thinking of the Army's top uniformed officer and one of the military's most important commanders: Despite the progress being made by the new Iraqi government and the continuing improvement of local security forces, the outcome in Iraq, in many ways, is growing more uncertain by the day."

Um, NO, Petey, that is NOT what the general said. In fact, at the end of your own story you finally did report what Schoomaker said...

"I think we are making significant progress; I think the challenges continue to come," he concluded. "I do not believe that we are losing, but where I think we are on the scale of winning is very difficult, and time's going to tell."

That's a far cry from "the outcome in Iraq, in many ways, is growing more uncertain by the day".

But, I guess this does show the MSM's short attention span. 10 seconds was all they could put into the conference before they wandered off to make up out of whole cloth what was actually said!

Technorati Profile

By Warner Todd Huston

Just a Reiminder on how successful our economy is...

The Bush economy is a fantastic success. But here are some of the facts because the MSM won't spend much effort to let us know about it:

"According to the Office of Management and Budget's Mid-Session Review, which couldn't be worse news for New Direction Democrats. According to the report, President Bush's goal of halving the deficit by FY2009 is a year ahead of schedule, thanks to increased tax revenues produced by pro-growth policies. This year's deficit has fallen to $296 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP---30 percent lower than February's forecast, and nearly 50 percent lower than 2004. FY2008's deficit is projected to fall to $188 billion, a more palatable 1.3 percent of GDP.

Real GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.6 percent in the first quarter, making this the 18th consecutive quarter of economic growth. Coupled with this growth, the American economy has produced more than 5.4 million new jobs since August, 2003. The U.S. unemployment rate, lower than the averages of the past four decades at 4.6 percent, has become the envy of the world.

Finally, spurred by the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues have increased by 11 percent, or $246 billion from 2005 to 2006. That's almost 19 times as much as Rep. Obey and House Democrats hoped to put toward deficit reduction by raising your taxes. Since the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003, tax receipts have grown no less than 34.6 percent. All of this has happened in spite of the devastating effects of September 11 and the economic burden of the War on Terrorism.

So why, you may ask, would we raise your taxes in order to balance the budget and reduce the deficit? That's a question Minority Leader Pelosi and the New Direction Party must answer for the American electorate."

(Thanks to the Federalist Patriot for the reminder!)

Yet the Democrats have issued their new agenda for America which calls for tax increases because of our econimc "failure"s? What country's economy are they measuring again???

-By Warner Todd Huston

There was an amusing story going around right after Nixon's re-election in 1972. As the story goes a New York columnist wondered how Nixon got re-elected as that Columnist had never met anyone that voted for him. This is the same sort of hermetically sealed bubble in which writer for Fortune Magazine, Marc Gunther, seems to live. A nether world where everyone he meets is homogeneous, all having the same opinions, influences, and pastimes.

In a recent article titled The extinction of mass culture, Gunther bemoans the loss of what he imagines is a common American culture because of the rise of the Internet, its diversity of sources of information ringing death knell for the MSM.

But here is the bubble in which he lives defined; Gunther imagines the loss of influence experienced by the MSM has made our country "poorer" for that diminished influence! Obviously he feels the time America was controlled by the same opinions from the self-appointed few in the MSM was a better day.

"I think the explosion of choice has left us poorer in at least two arenas. The first is journalism. ... The network evening newscasts, big-city newspapers and the national news magazines once had the money, access, skills, commitment and power to deliver lots of original reporting and put important issues on the national agenda. Today, they are all diminished.

Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don't think we are better informed. Niche media will, inevitably, continue to weaken mass media."

Amazingly, choice is "bad" to Gunther! And, worse still, it is somehow destroying our "culture"... that is, if you define "culture" as that which is controlled by old media outlets like The New York Times, news magazines, and the big three TV networks!

Ridiculously, Gunther's idea of a loss of culture is the fact that one can no longer easily name the biggest TV star or the most recognizable Advertisement slogan.

"TV's biggest stars are Oprah Winfrey and Katie Couric, but they don't appear in prime time and they've been around for years - before the 300-channel universe fragmented audiences and damaged broadcast TV's hit-making machinery.

As for advertising, there are no 21st century equivalents to 'We Try Harder' or 'Where's the Beef?' or 'Just Do It.'"

Somehow, I just can't warm to the idea that a passing of ubiquitous ad-lines like "Where's the Beef" equates to a culture of which we should bemoan the passing! Nor do I think we are somehow "poorer" because there isn't a particular TV star whose name is on the tips of everyone's tounge. But Gunther seems to feel that we are "poorer" for such losses none-the-less.

Sadly Gunther feels that all that America "is" is what happens on TV.

"Mass culture provides intangible benefits, too. Big stars, hit TV shows and even commercials help knit a society together. Think of the feeling that comes a few times a year - the morning after the Super Bowl or the Oscars - when tens of millions of Americans share a common experience."

This statement proves that Gunther is in a bubble of his own making, one of mere personal experience as well as one rooted in only a short amount of historical time. This "mass culture" Gunther seems to think America "is", has only existed for a small portion of our great country's history.

Without question, radio and Hollywood movies brought a sort of mass culture to America but only starting in the 1930s. And it wasn't really until TV became ever present that this commonality of experience that Gunther seems to feel defines America really took off.

Before mass entertainment, we had our history, our struggles, our educational system, our values, our politics and politicians comprising our culture and creating those shared experiences. But we also had our regional differences and local ideas that brought our communities together. Since the inception of mass entertainment venues like radio, movies and TV, our REAL culture has been watered down, even ridiculed and made "poorer" by the ever downwardly spiraling standards of that very entertainment. Recalling Newton Minnow's "vast wasteland" line here seems apropos.

Therefore, the death of the MSM and the rise of Gunther's lamented "choice" should be welcomed, not feared.

Speaking of politics, Gunther was also crying about how that has been affected by the MSM's loss of influence with his "second arena" of worry.

"The second arena where we are worse off is politics. This is related to journalism, as the moderate and responsible (okay, bland) voices of the MSM get drowned out by partisan, opinionated cableheads and bloggers."

Once again, Gunther is blinded by personal experience and a narrow knowledge of this country over too short a period of time. This "bland" world of mere facts and journalism that Gunther imagines existed to so better serve our common culture is a somewhat mythical creature that only existed between the decades nearing the end of WWII and the beginning of the Clinton years.

Gunther imagines that we had a steady, proud and unpartisan "journalism" that is now being drowned out by those evil bloggers. Yet, this is a canard. We have never had an unpartisan media. In those wonderful, halcyon days of perfect journalism that Gunther so warmly recalls, we had a decided lack of diversity of opinion as the main news sources all converged on a single ideology, one just as decidedly anti-government if not outright anti-American.

Gunther is also seemingly unaware of how bitter and partisan the press was during the entire of the 150 years before WWII, before FDR succeeded in co-opting the press to his narrow view, corralling them into lap-dog media status. Further, Gunther seems unaware that, since WWII, the media has viciously attacked anyone who did not toe the same socialist line that FDR set up in the 1940s. Truman, Reagan, Bush and W Bush have all been savaged because they stood for ideas that veered from the leftist line while their opponents rarely got but a cross word.

Gunther also claims that we are more "polarized" now than ever before. This similarly shows he doesn't know much about American history, but is basing all his opinions on his own narrow experience.

"Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree. Anderson suggests that this could well be a temporary problem, and that if the major parties continue to move to the extremes and the quality of debate continues to deteriorate, the Internet could well enable a new party or parties, to arise."

In this country's history, the press WAS the "filtering out" that the polarized political sides used to screen out unwanted ideas. From the very first days of our Republic newspapers chose a candidate or cause and promoted them. Each town had several newspapers, all of which supported their man or cause. If you supported a side, you read the paper that supported your side. And after WWII when the MSM all coincided on a single point of view, news outlets vehemently and overtly chose a side "filtering out" all opposing views. The only difference between the early days of American journalism and that after WWII is that diversity of opinion was quashed in the later.

Again, Gunther is dreaming of an American tradition of nonpartisan professional journalism, a trade that really has never existed. At least now we can get honest opinion from the new media on the Internet instead of the barely disguised homogenous leftism of the MSM.

Lastly, it is rather amusing to see him carp about the "extremism" of the Political Parties as if this is something new. America's political Parties have often gone "extreme" in the past, usually when they are out of power and trying to regain it or when their extremism is consequently causing them to lose the power they do have. They always figure it out eventually and distance themselves from the extreme and it is then they usually win. But, in many ways, politics is always about extremes, passions, loud talking and bellicose claims no matter who wins.

So, what Gunther laments as passing mostly never existed but in the minds of the snooty, Ivy League grads that run the MSM with their common opinions agreed upon and settled before they write their first "fact". The real world -- you know, the one Gunther has yet to visit? -- never ran that way but for that short, sleepy time of the Media's "Golden" age. This loss of culture that Gunther is so worried about is nothing to cry over, but something to celebrate. We are climbing out from under the oppressive opinions of the media elite and blinking in the sunlight of a world of free expression and forming our own opinions.

... But then, that threatens Gunther's elite position, I guess. So, maybe we can see why he wails so?

Of course, Gunther's "culture" dominated by I Love Lucy, Madison Avenue ad campaigns, ABC News, and The New York Times is a far different and "poorer" culture than that of the struggle for Religious Freedom, the Founding Fathers, the settling of the West, the great wars, and the quest for civil rights that forms our real culture. The culture that Gunther cries over at night is not the real culture of the country and its loss will not harm us a bit.

Gunther may be the king of media, he may know every prosaic entertainment trivia question under the sun, but he don't know jack about history nor what "culture" truly is.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Why anyone ever bothers using an AP/Ipsos poll result to "prove" anything is beyond me. It has been well documented by multiple sources that this France based polling company habitually over samples Democrats in their polls and this particular poll is no different.

But, here is the AP wire headline screaming that "Americans want Democrats in Power" in their latest poll.

WASHINGTON - Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November. With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

So, what was the sampling numbers for THIS one?

According to the AP/Ipsos site they over sampled Democrats...again.

Registered Voters polled:
Strongly Republican - 17
Moderately Republican - 25
Definitely independent or neither - 5
Moderately Democrat - 32
Strongly Democrat - 21
_____________
Total Republican - 41
Total Democrat - 53

Looks to me like they gave the Democrats a 12% advantage in the sampling. Yet the actual results resulted in only an 11% higher Democrat reading!

Wouldn't that be a 1% Republican gain? (hat tip sweetness and light)

Jut another ho-hum day in the MSM!

-By Warner Todd Huston

Gorbie is wagging his finger at that big, bad U.S.A. and ABC News is helping him do it.

In a piece by Claire Shipman, Mikhail Gorbachev is claiming that we ”Americans Have a Severe Disease” because we see ourselves as “winners”, but that Russia’s attacks on democracy are just “some mistakes” made.

And once again, Ronald Reagan -- the man who REALLY ended the Cold War -- is ignored by a fawning media falling all over itself to genuflect at the feet of failed leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.

The pieces starts with this idiotic paragraph:

“Mikhail Gorbachev is generally regarded as the man who broke down the ‘iron curtain’ that separated the communist world from the West and thawed the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.”

No, Mz. Shipman, only the MSM imagines that Gorbie broke down the Iron Curtin. Anyone with any knowledge of the era knows it was the strength and good sense of Ronald Reagan that ended the Cold War and set the Soviets on the path of their last steps to dissolution.

To be fair, Gorbie did lightly scold Russian president Vladimir Putin … but only lightly.
 
Gorbachev said of Putin,  "Putin has used and he will continue to use authoritarian measures…” But Gorbachev is sure that everything is going fine, just the same. “… but Russia will form a democracy. I know Vladimir Putin. He is a moral person”, Gorbachev concluded.

Yet, this “moral man” has cancelled elections, used his government to forcibly take over private businesses, jailed competitors and shored up a neighboring authoritarian, anti-democratic regime.

And of these many mistakes Gorbachev says “so what?”

"We have made some mistakes," he said, referring to recent attacks on Russia's democracy. "So what? Please don't put even more obstacles in our way. Do you really think you are smarter than we are?"

But for the leaders of the country that has freed a people, helped set up and foster elections, and fought terror all across the world, Gorbachev has nothing but harsh words.

According to Gorbie…

Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney are, "… are just hawks protecting the interests of the military -- shallow people,"

And he “wryly” said of Bush, "He's very determined. You can't say he does not have character."

But he reserves his worst criticism for the entire American people. "Americans have a severe disease -- worse than AIDS. It's called the winner's complex," Gorbie opined.

The Gorbie love ends with his last statement, "I want my grandchildren to live in a democratic country -- in a peaceful world. But it's hard to imagine because there are so many answers we still need to find."

I don’t doubt that it is “hard” for him “to imagine” since he excuses the anti-democratic actions of Putin but thinks the pro-democratic actions of the U.S.A. is a bad thing!

And leave it to the MSM to slavishly listen to this old crank’s nonsense.
 

My son went away to Iraq with the Illinois National Guard, last week. I, the proud papa of one of our brave men in uniform, stood in the bleachers at the General Richard L. Jones Armory in downtown Chicago on the morning of July 3rd watching as the boys of the 178th Infantry battalion (MPs) presented themselves to their relatives and Chicago's media for the last time before they leave for duty in Iraq.

Republican candidate for governor, Judy Barr Topinka, was present and stayed for a while shaking hands and wishing the soldiers well. Every single TV news outlet attended to interview the boys for a segment on their nightly newscasts.

And where was Dick "Turban" Durbin when the boys from Chicago were preparing to leave for Iraq?

Talking about bugs.

No, not the NSA, CIA, surveillance kind, I mean real bugs. Dick was touring nearby Kane county, Illinois looking for the emerald ash borer beetle that he is trying to get Federal funds to combat.

Obviously it was more important to be merely one county away looking for insects instead of making an appearance at the ceremony wishing bon voyage to the soldiers of the biggest city in his state.

Yes, apparently the ash borer beetle is more dangerous to America than are terrorists as far as Senator Dick is concerned.

In researching this beetle problem, I can agree that we Illinoisans need to try and stop their advance across the state. But, was it right to be only a few dozen miles from the soldier's farewell ceremony yet to eschew attendance to talk about bugs? No, they aren’t that important.

Worse, the matter isn't even very pressing as to the funding issue, anyway. Durbin has said that the matter of Federal funding won't be settled until the coming September! He certainly had the time to make a token visit to the soldier's ceremony, I'd say.

So, once again, we see that Dick "Turban" Durbin has his priorities clearly on display. The soldiers that he thinks are as bad as the enemy -- OUR soldiers -- are to be ignored as a bug takes first palce in Durbin’s list of priorities.

Spending Federal funds on bugs or supporting our soldiers? The choice is clear for Durbin.

Senator Durbin, meet the beetles … but to heck with Beetle Bailey.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Bet this won't get any press...

Blogger Hao Wu freed after being held for five months

"Reporters Without Borders voiced “immense relief” at the news of the release today of blogger and documentary filmmaker Hao Wu after nearly five months in detention. His release was announced on her blog by his sister, Na Wu."

The oppressions of the Commie Chinese is something that the MSM really doesn't like to talk much about. The MSM seems to want to paper over any oppression the Chinese do to their own people as a private or internal issue, or some such thing.

“At the same time, 50 other people are currently in prison in China for writing about ‘subversive’ subjects online,” Reporters Without Borders continued. “China is by far the world’s biggest prison for bloggers and cyber-dissidents. We would also like to pay tribute to the courage of this blogger’s sister, who battled relentlessly for his release.”

The Chinese are more oppressive of the press than any other nation but Cuba. They have jailed, tortured and murdered more people of conscience, religious conviction, and views of democracy than any nation since Stalin's U.S.S.R. passed from the scene. And the Commie Chinese have long ago far outpaced the evils perpetrated by Russia.

China has killed more people than any other nation in history.

So, where is the MSM on this?

Focusing more on the story that the GOP "stole" the 2004 election in Ohio, THAT'S where they are!

-By Warner Todd Huston

-By Warner Todd Huston

Well, the Japanese are finally starting to return to adulthood. Since the end of WWII and their subsequent loss of the war to the US, Japan has been slowly evolving from the dependent child to the loud but unsure teen. Now they are about to become adults, once again, ready to step out fully on their own.

And we have the psychotic, idiot that China allows to oppress the North Koreans, Kim Jong-il, to thank for this transformation.

Japan has announced that it is considering the prudent step of preemptive strikes against North Korean missile launches.

“Japan has warned it would launch a pre-emptive military action against North Korea if it had firm evidence Pyongyang was planning a missile attack.”
(Source BBC)


When Japan reformed its civil government after WWII, it placed a measure in its Constitution that prevented it from forming an army that might be used for aggressive purposes. That was a necessary measure to take at the time as the Japanese had been among the most vicious and violent cultures of the world previous to that time. The Pacific Rim as well as the rest of the world needed reassurance that a militant Japan would never again threaten the world.

But, that day is long passed. Japan, in many substantive ways is a different nation, a different, more civilized people.

So, it is sensible and right that they begin to look to their own defense with a stronger and more vital military force. And it is right that they take on the preemptive strike ideas of the Bush Doctrine. North Korea is NOT a sane, civilized nation and it will NOT observe up to diplomacy and discussion.

It will only know overwhelming power lined up against it.

“Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba said it would be "a self-defence measure" if North Korea was going to "resort to arms against Japan".

"Mr Ishiba said it would be too late if a North Korean missile was already on its way.”

Exactly the sane logic that Bush has used to reverse decades of Democratic Party weakness and Vietnam Syndrome fear to tell the world that a threat will be dealt with before it harms the US.

Japan is coming into its own Bush Doctrine with the realization that the world isn’t a nice place where love and flowers greet you at all turns. North Korea is a threat to the world, but even more dangerous to Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the region. It is even a threat to China and only Chinese hardheadedness keeps them from admitting it.

So, good for Japan. Welcome to adulthood again. It’s been a long time.

Until this is up and running, please check us out at our old address...

PUBLIUS' FORUM
http://www.publiusforum.blogspot.com

As soon as Town Hall gets their bugs worked out we will be developing this site.

...thanks and good blogging!