T

he prophet Muhammed would be tickled piggy-pink with this, as will the millions of subhuman terrorist swine who proudly carry his name, although the rest of the world will recoil in horror:

A Pakistani Federal Minister Monday said that militants were using kidnapped children as suicide bombers across the country.

Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik talking to newsmen here said that the militants were buying innocent children for few hundred thousand rupees and using them to carry out suicide attacks. (Kuwait News via ROP)

By way of contrast, the Son of God taught us:

Then he put a little child among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, “Anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes my Father who sent me.” (Mark 9:36-37)

I’ve read that scripture a whole bunch of times, and I just can’t find anything there about blowing the child up.

Hat-tip: Infidels Are Cool

A

s I understand it, here’s the Obama/Clinton State Dept’s take on how they will win what we used to call the war on terror:  The problem between the U.S. and the jihadists is that we just haven’t been likable enough. We’ will win over Islam if we spend less on the military and more on fish sticks for orphans.

That was the gist of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith A. McHale’s talk to the Center for a New American Security today.  (I thought the old Bush security was just fine, by the way, since no Americans were killed by jihadists on American soil during his watch, post 9/11.)  Here’s some excerpts:

Whether we are strengthening old alliances, forging new partnerships to meet complex global challenges, engaging with citizens and civil society, or charting new strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our national interests depend on effective engagement and innovative public diplomacy. The stakes could not be higher. We must get this right…This is not a propaganda contest — it is a relationship race. And we have got to get back in the game.

Enhanced public diplomacy is a key component of the President’s new strategy in the region…To achieve the President’s aims, we are launching a multi-faceted strategy to provide platforms for local moderate voices, support democratic institutions and civil society, and position the United States as a long-term partner working to create opportunities and enable the people of the region to chart the futures of their own countries.

We are responding to requests from the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to help meet the needs of their people. Secretary Clinton recently announced more than $100 million in humanitarian support for the people of Pakistan. And Ambassador Holbrooke just announced another $200 million. Since 2002, the United States has provided a total of more than $3.4 billion to alleviate suffering and promote economic growth, education, health, security and good governance in Pakistan. [Oh, wait! You mean Bush tried this to the tun of $3.4 billion and they're still trying to kill us? No matter; just apply the Universal Obama Solution - throw lots of money at it.]

Yet we have a credibility gap with many in the region — some have called it a ‘trust deficit.’ So part of our task is reassuring the people that our aim in the region is to support their own aspirations. We need to do a better job of getting the word out about what we are doing to help Pakistan and Afghanistan become more stable and prosperous, both through the local media and by communicating directly with people.”

It is not about getting the word out, or the trust deficit, but it is most definitely about the aspirations of the people of the region.  A significant percentage of them have a deeply imbedded aspiration to bring pain, suffering and death to the Great Satan, and no amount of communication or prosperity is going to change that.  Only rewriting the Q’ran will change that.

Islam has nurtured radicals since the dawn of the religion, through times of great wealth and times of great poverty alike.  Radical Muslims abound in Lebanon, where Democracy still hangs on. And education? Cairo University, where Obama spoke to the Muslim world last week (except for Iran, of course, where the state didn’t broadcast it), has spawned its share of very well educated Islamo-savages.

McHale concluded her comments with a bizarre historical reference:

A few days after I started at the State Department, I moved into George Marshall’s old office. General Marshall saw a world beyond our shores devastated by war and reeling from economic crisis. He knew that our fates and our fortunes were intertwined and that America had to engage with the world to ensure our future. So he launched one of the most far-reaching engagement efforts in history. And today we are still reaping the rewards of that investment in mutual prosperity and security. From Cairo to Kabul, from quiet villages to crowded cities, America is once again reaching out a hand of friendship and seeking new relationships. We know it is the right thing to do and we know, like General Marshall did, that our future depends on it.

Yeah, but back then Europe was a Christian continent. And the enemy was broken, broke and starving - a point we’ll never get to if the administration can’t even admit that we’re fighting terrorists.  There is a role for public diplomacy - what we used to call foreign aid - but alone, it will have no measurable effect on the level of jihadist violence against us.

A

mong the unbounded wealth of things President Bush caught a lot of flak for was his insistence that there is an axis of evil up to nefarious stuff in our world. We haven’t heard the expression much lately, but now it’s back, in a new incarnation … and not out of the mouth of Republicans.

Memri provides this translation of an article by Khaled Imam, the editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Masaa, in which the “axis” word is invoked again. Imam wrote the piece after Egyptian security forces announced the arrest of seven members of a terror cell that allegedly had carried out a February 22, 2009 terror attack in Egypt.

The capture of the terrorist cell associated with the explosions in a square near the Al-Hussein mosque [in Cairo] last February brought to light two new matters of utmost importance. The first is that this cell was discovered through the Internet; the second is that Al-Qaeda had for the first time carried out an operation inside Egypt. …

The fact that Al-Qaeda has entered the fray indisputably confirms the strong connections between this terrorist organization and Iran, Hizbullah, and extremists within the Palestinian resistance. This is a quadruple axis of evil, whose four components were melded together in a single crucible. It’s impossible now to tell which of them is hoisting the banner of international terrorism, which is bandying the slogans of Islam and instigating hate towards Israel, and which is extolling resistance in Lebanon or Gaza. The four have become one.

The target, too, has become one - namely Egypt, its land, its people, its history, its civilization, its economy, [and] its past, present, and future. Egypt - this gate of steadfastness, this bulwark against Iranian ambitions - is unfortunately the main, if not the only, target, and not Israel, as they claim.

This filthy, stinking, motley crew harbors evil intentions against Egypt, which is protected by the Lord, as well as by our outstanding armed and police forces… whose members are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Egypt’s security. We have the right to be proud of them and of our Egyptian identity, and to defend our national security in every way, both traditional and modern.

Two points. First, I’m very glad, after reading that prose, that we don’t have state-owned media in America. And leaving the more important for last, Imam’s piece shows again that there is indeed a global war on terror that must be fought, whether the current administration realizes it or not.

A

s the wildfire death toll in Australia nears 200, a frightening new question must be asked:  Are the fires an act of jihad?  If no, then an even more frightening question must follow: Why not?

Earlier this year, US intelligence channels identified postings by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network that was urging members of the Religion of Peace in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to start forest fires.  The life-threatening arson was fine with Allah, they said, because “scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels’ forests when they do the same to our lands.”  From Australia’s The Age:

The posting - which instructs jihadis to remember “forest jihad” in summer months - says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that “this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time”.

“Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires,” the website says. “You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia.”

With all the usual disclaimers, what a sick excuse for a religion! Who, other than those that haven’t advanced beyond the 7th Century, still believes that fear is an effective motivator for spiritual matters?  Do they think Australians - or Californians - would fall on our knees and submit to a god who glorifies such reprehensible, sub-human behavior?

The paper quotes Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong’s Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, saying “forest fire jihad” is evidence of desperation by jihadists, since it is an inglorious form of indirect jihad, resorted to only because efforts for grander actions are difficult to pull off in our post-9/11, post-Bali, post-Madrid, post-London world.

I’m not resting easy.  If it was an Islamist terror action, two hundred dead is two hundred dead, whether they died by glorious or inglorious jihad.  And you know SoCal will be dry next summer.

Hat-tip: Jim

T

here are some powerful punches and head-clearing uppercuts among this week’s champion sluggers of the blogosphere, as presented by the Don King of Blogs, The Watcher of Weasels.

In the Watcher’s Council corner, newcomer Right Truth scored a TKO with P.C./D.C., a rather long-ish but spot on piece on the difficulties we find ourselves in because we fight under PC rules, while our opponents from Islam don’t. (See how the boxing images all tie together?). Here’s the ring girl, strutting a particularly good paragraph from the piece:

Now, here’s where political correctness comes into play. We cannot fight the war on terrorism by singling out Arabs or other Muslims. We must consciously give “equal consideration” to that old lady in the wheelchair during airport screenings. We must conclude that openly hostile and questionably patriotic Dearborn, Michigan does not engage in terrorist recruitment or support. We must always address the “Palestinian Question” whenever we seek reasons why some people are quite prepared to blow themselves up in order to kill us. And, the grand finale, we cannot undertake diplomacy without somehow laying the blame for world destruction squarely upon the Israelis. Do you detect a trend here?

Runner-up Joshua Pundit also wrote on our war against the jihadists in Defeating the Death Cult, which got the most points on my score card for its analysis of how existing laws could be used to suppress eager jihadists at home:

As for legislating dangerous ideologies, our courts have been down this road before when faced with the communist conspiracy here in America in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Those laws exist and are quite plain and provide a firm and above all constitutional foundation when it comes dealing with most to the problems we have in the US with some practitioners of Islam and the people overseas who export jihad into America. And a few perfectly constitutional tweaks would cover the rest.

He cites, for example, how US code of justice, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2385, § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government is applicable and could be used to make the imams of the Saudi-funded Wahhabist mosques shut up.

My piece, Jihad’s Phony Hostages, on the Jew massacre in Mumbai the MSM continually called a hostage-taking, came in fourth.

And in the non-Council corner, we have a somewhat clear winner, and first on my non-Council score card, Elder of Ziyon’s Islamist strategy vs. Western tactics, an essay on a familiar theme that needs repeating:

The West is attuned to short-term thinking. Perhaps this is because of the need to elect new leaders every few years, but it sacrifices long-term strategy for vaporous short-term gains. It would be laughable to even consider that the West has a plan to defeat the Islamist world that spans more than a decade.

The Arab and Muslim psyche, on the other hand, is very much attuned to long-term trends. A hundred years is but a blip in Islamic history and, from their perspective, Israel has not yet lasted as long as the Crusades. The battle takes decades and centuries; it is not something that has to be mopped up by the next election cycle.

As a result, every Western concession to the Islamic world is tactical from the Western perspective and strategic from the Islamic perspective. Tactics without strategy is a loser’s game.

Note that I said a “somewhat clear winner.” I didn’t vote for my own entry, Stratfor’s Strategic Motivations for the Mumbai Attack, because my free subscription had apparently timed out and I got a different page from the link. Assuming all Council members got this page, I voted first place to the Elder; had I realized others were seeing the Stratfor page, I would have voted it into first, giving it 2/3 more points and the Elder 1/3 less, and we would have had a different winner. The piece states early on:

More important than the question of the exact group that carried out the attack, however, is the attackers’ strategic end. There is a tendency to regard terror attacks as ends in themselves, carried out simply for the sake of spreading terror. In the highly politicized atmosphere of Pakistan’s radical Islamist factions, however, terror frequently has a more sophisticated and strategic purpose. Whoever invested the time and took the risk in organizing this attack had a reason to do so. Let’s work backward to that reason by examining the logical outcomes following this attack.

Then it looks at four different strategic/geo-political ramifications of the attack and leaves you pretty much gasping for breath by the time it’s all wrapped up.

Also in second place was American Thinker’s The Legacy of Jihad in India, a rather dry but very important historic analysis of Islam’s ongoing attacks on Hindus, stretching back nearly 1500 years.

The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in 636—637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under Qutub—ud—din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu resisters on the Western coast of India from 636—713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during 636—870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870 C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni (from 1000— 1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri’s conquest of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E.

I hate the PC C.E. designation, BTW. Give me AD any day, and praise the Lord. But that (and the dryness of the piece) aside, you need to know the awful barbarism Islam has thrust on India for no reason other than India is peopled with Hindus. Only then can you really understand the Mumbai attack.

See all the winners at Watcher of Weasels. And Watcher, you need a bit more pomade.

H

ere’s Azam Amir Kasav, 21, as far as we know the sole surviving terrorist from the Mumbai terror attacks.

Does he look a bit dazed to you? It might be the painkillers he’s been given, or the interrogations he’s been through, or the awesome knowledge that he’s now a hero to millions of Muslims … or it might be this:

The Mumbai terrorists may have pumped themselves full of drugs to keep going during their murderous three-day rampage.

Indian police sources say tests on the bodies of dead Islamic fanatics revealed traces of stimulant drugs.

One said: “We found injections containing traces of cocaine and LSD left behind by the terrorists and later found drugs in their blood.

“There was also evidence of steroids, which isn’t uncommon in terrorists. These men were all toned, suggesting they had been doing some heavy training for the attacks. (Source)

Gosh, and here I thought all-powerful Allah gave his terrorist warriors all the special powers they need to carry out despicable, sinful, stomach-turning acts in his name. (Not really. It’s long been common knowledge that Islam’s suicide bombers and terror commandos are hopped up and stoned out when they go to their glorious martyrdom Hell. That is, if they’re not mentally retarded or unknowing children.)

And here’s one more thought about the photo: It’s a testament to the higher status of most civilizations, and the lower status of nearly all Islamic nations, that the photo exists at all. We see Kasav’s face wound treated, and his body hooked up to a medical device. If Kasav had been an American soldier captured in any of the fronts of Islamist terror’s war on us, we would see only a picture of him beheaded, or him mutilated, or his corpse dragged through the streets to the hysterical cheers of onlookers.

But it wasn’t the other way around, so we can look directly into the dazed eyes of horrific Islamist evil. And we can pray for his eternal soul.

A

nother three despicable jihadists have discovered Hell - not virgins - awaited them in the afterlife, and I wish I had been there to see the looks on their faces.

Imam Samudra, Amrozi Nurhasyim and Ali Ghufron were shot by an Indonesian firing squad today for their roles planning the Bali nightclub bombings, which killed 202 and wounded more than 100. And for what? Did it further their dream of a new caliphate? Hardly. did it spread Islam? Not on your life.

But they still accomplished one of radical Islam’s primary goals: Removing non-Islamic people from the planet. A fine religion, Islam.

More at BBC.

My recent post on the Cal. sanctity of marriage proposition, Prop 8, Gay Marriage and the Spread of Islamofascism, generated a rather different comment:

Hi; May I interject a real life situation. I’d like to hear your guidance on this. My mother was given a drug to take to lessen the chance of miscarriage and promote healthy babies — that’s what the doctor told her. The drug is Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. In male fetuses, it feminizes the brains of one in five of us ‘DES sons’.

I finally came to terms with this, and realized my choice was transition or die. So, I’m now a male-to-female transsexual who’s had ‘the operation.’ I’ve changed all my legal paperwork and although I still have a male body with XY chromosomes, it has been retrofitted to approximate female anatomy, which is good because if I ever end up in an accident, there will be no ’surprise’ for the first responders.

I ‘pass’ very well, thank you. Only rarely do strangers figure out I was not born this way. Most people have to be told, by me, or, more often, by someone else who just has to ‘drop the bomb.’ All my paperwork has been changed.  Legally, I’m female.  But I have to find an OB/GYN who can check my prostate during my yearly pelvic exam (yearly mammograms don’t need that level of disclosure.)

So my question to you is — knowing what you know now about me, and assuming for the moment you get absolute power to label me and make determinations on where I can and can’t go —

-Do I marry a man? Or do I marry a woman?

-Which restroom and changing facility do you feel I, a male-to-female transsexual, should use when in public spaces?

-Am I immoral?

-Am I a paedophile?

-Am I tearing down western society in support of a deviant agenda?

-Am I selfish?

I eagerly await your responses; Hazumu Osaragi

Obviously, there’s a bit of a set-up happening here, since my post wasn’t about trans-sexual issues at all.  Nevertheless, I took some time to give Hazumu a thoughtful answer.  I’d be interested in your thoughts …

Y

ou know the old saying, “Gays and Islamofascists don’t mix.”  Funny, yes, but there really is a nexus:  If California’s Prop 8 fails and gay marriage remains the law of the land here, look for the Golden State to become the address of choice for America’s Islamofascist population.

Islamofascists, or Islamists as I prefer to call them, don’t want to be bothered with Judeo-Christian laws and traditions that get in the way of their living the Koran in their daily lives.  That means more than just not wanting any toilets around that face toward Mecca; it means being able to live out their misogynistic “right” to polygamous marriage.

Muslims, and particularly Islamists, have a way of using local laws - laws they dislike for not being Sharia - to their advantage.  For example, Mark Steyn writes about some welfare law wrangling that’s gone on in the UK:

You can’t (for the moment) marry multiple wives within the United Kingdom, but if you contract a polygamous marriage in a jurisdiction where polygamy is legal, such as certain, ahem, Muslim countries, your better halves (or better eighths?) are now recognized as eligible for British welfare payments. Thus, the concept of “each additional spouse” has been accepted both de facto and de jure.

And elsewhere in Europe:

Thousands of polygamous marriages like Hadi’s have sprung up throughout Italy as a byproduct of a fast-paced and voluminous immigration by Muslims to this Roman Catholic country.

Despite the obvious culture clash, Italian authorities largely turn a blind eye, leaving women in a murky semi-clandestine world with few rights and no recourse when things go especially badly, as they did in Hadi’s case. …

Italy is one of several European nations faced with the issue of polygamy. In Britain and Spain, where large Muslim communities have also settled, some officials favor recognizing polygamous marriage as a way to ensure the wives’ access to pensions, medical care and other state benefits.

Steyn details at length in America Alone how Islamists and their hard to find but supposedly still around somewhere more moderate Muslim brethren have used Europe’s open society and namby-pamby multiculturalism to exploit laws protecting gay rights to make inroads toward the legalization of polygamous marriage.  After all, if a man can marry a man, why can’t a man marry three women?

Charles Krauthammer explained the logic in a 2006 WaPo column, Pandora and Polygamy:

In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I’m not the one who put them there. Their argument does.

He concludes the piece with what I forsee as the rallying cry of CAIR as it begins to hurl petrodollars by the barrel at California legislators in the days that would follow the rejection of Prop 8:

[D]on’t tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect.

Todd Zywicki, writing at Volokh, made a similar if more inscrutable point:

Here’s my thought–the definition of marriage as one man and one woman seems somewhat arbitrary, which is why it is difficult to justify. The primary justification I can see is a Hayekian one of prudential deference to tradition unless there is an extremely strong case for rejecting it. I would distinguish this from what I would understand as a Burkean objection, which I would read as tradition being prescriptive, rather than prudential. But whether this is an accurate distinction is probably a debate for a different day.

So the question is, if you get rid of the “man-woman” prong as largely arbitrary, why does this not lead to getting rid of the “one-one” prong as well? It seems like the new line is just as arbitrary as the old one.

Indeed.  And California is just the place for this to happen.

California has liberal courts and, with Massachusetts, the nation’s longest gay rights tradition.  It has a liberal legislature that is prone to writing state laws in the name of multiculturalism and inclusion.  One doesn’t have to be a gay rocket scientist to see that in the blink of an eye, gay marriage in California will lead to a very Sharia-like polygamous marriage in California.  And if that happens and you happen to be a jihad-hungry, woman-deriding Islamist living in Kansas or Kentucky, what state would you head for?

In a closing footnote, it’s interesting that you could take this argument entirely the other way: If Prop 8 passes, it will open the door to polygamous marriage. That’s a favorite red herring of  the No on 8 set, who argue that because the proposition calls for the enthroning in our state constitution of a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman - instead of one man and one woman - it’s all just a Mormon conspiracy to turn California into Warren Jeffs‘ new hang-out.

Chilling. It looks like either way, the Islamists could win.

M

y friend Jim usually just gets a hat-tip; this time he gets a post all his own.  Jim, carry on …

In a message dated 10/27/2008 10:43:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, “swingdawg” writes:

I do realize that the colosal [sic] failure of the Bush presidency, in every single area, will be incredibly difficult to fix, but the next 8 years of an Obama administration followed, no doubt, by a Biden or Clinton administration should be enough time to repair all the damage that has been done.

Oh, by the way, it was Bush who just ‘Socialized’ the banking/mortgage industry.

Excuse me, but haven’t the Democrats been in charge of both houses of Congress since the last election? What great things have they to show for their turn at the oars?  (Besides a 12% approval rating, the lowest in history, and considerably lower than President Bush’s.)

“Swingdawg” would like to have everyone forget or ignore history and join the folks over at MoveOn.org and Daily Kos and succumb to BDS, but (thanks to the wonderful Internet that Al Gore invented) we can actually go back in time and see what happened.

It was during the Clinton administration (a Democrat if memory serves) that they enacted policies that set up the collapse of the housing market.  1) On November 12, 1999, President Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which for 55 years had prevented banks, the nation’s lenders, to get into the so-called “investment banking” business (stock brokers).     2)  Also in 1999, Clinton appointed Franklin Raines… to become the CEO of the obscure but powerful Fannie Mae giant GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise), which had been “privatized” and listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

So the pattern becomes clear. Harvard Law School attorneys - noted for their lack of economic knowledge — create an easy-money system which relies on flakey loans provided by fat-cat financial manipulators who are the primary contributors to the re-election campaigns of the legislators - almost exclusively Democrats. (Some more good history here.)

In 2005, we almost fixed the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac problem, but the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter. We now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

(Another bit of historical data here.  [NOTE:  Do not read if you are a "Progressive," it is not healthy to be confused by facts after your mind is made up.])

Since your friend writes. “I do realize that the colosal [sic] failure of the Bush presidency, in every single area…”, I have to ask if he blames the 9/11 attack by radical Muslims, on President Bush’s policies as well?

Referring back to our Internet history sources once again, it seems that our earlier attacks go back to President Carter’s time (I think that he was a Democrat too), and really ramped up under President Clinton, where in 1993 we had our first attack on the World Trade Center; (and allowed our Special Forces to be humiliated by a pissant Warlord in Somalia); followed by (Oklahoma City in 1995?), the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996, and the coordinated bombings of our two US Embassies (Tanzania & Kenya) in 1998.  President Clinton then finished out his term with the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

Please put me in the camp of right thinkers who believe that it was President Clinton’s do-nothingness in response to each of these attacks that emboldened our enemies and brought about the Islamist attack of 9/11.

In my opinion, President Bush’s kick-ass response to that is pretty much what has helped keep us safe for these past years, not the Democrats or Progressives!

Your friend might also want to consider how poorly Democrats do in other areas of government.  In spite of what the Media would like folks to believe, it was Democratic Mayor Nagin and NOT President Bush, who left all the school buses parked during Katrina.

Or how about those crime statistics?

A popular chain email, Chicago War Zone Information, sloshing around Chicago informs the reader, “Body count.  In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq.”

Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor Richard Daley. . .  . our leadership in Illinois. . . . all Democrats.  Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago (a lot of good gun control does, huh?). Of course they’re all blaming each other.  Can’t blame Republicans; there aren’t any!

The Illinois state pension fund is $44 Billion in debt, the worst in country.  Cook County (Chicago) sales tax is 10.25%, the highest in country.  (Look’em up if you want).  Chicago’s school system one of the worst in country (despite the millions from Ayres/Obama).  This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.  He’s gonna ‘fix’ Washington politics?  Give me a break!!!

You might ask “Swingdawg” if he can give an example of where a Progressive policy (other than just a hand-out, of course) has actually improved conditions for a minority group?

Oh, and just for the record…

Demographers have shown that since the 1940s, the Democratic Party has segued from the party of the working middle class to the party whose voters look like a double-hump camel: they are either the poor who vote for entitlements or the extremely wealthy millionaires and billionaires who provide the “juice” to buy the allegiance of the first group.

McCain-Palin 2008!