W

iser minds always said that  publishing a timetable for leaving Iraq would lead to an upsurge in violence.  But what do wiser minds know? We’re just a bunch of warmongers, right? Wrong.

Today, four U.S. soldiers were killed in combat related to the withdrawal, apparently in some sort of firefight, although news is still sketchy at this time; we only know they died of “combat-related injuries.”  Their deaths are part of a rising tide of violence leading up to the much planned-for and publicized turning over of control of several Iraqi cities to Iraqi control: 250 people killed in all during June.

The American media has been mum on the surging levels of violence that have accompanied the withdrawal timeline, even though it’s following exactly the course those critical of Obama’s position on Iraq predicted.  Where are the charges of “Blood on Obama’s Hands!”  Where are the follow-up heart-wrenching personal interest stories on the families torn apart by the violence?  Nowhere. Such stories would require fair and factual reporting.

In AP’s report, linked above, there was one quote I loved reading.  It was a bit buried, so let me raise it up a bit:

President Jalal Talabani said the day could not have happened without the help of the United States, which invaded Iraq in 2003 and ousted Saddam — who was later convicted by an Iraqi court and executed in December 2006.

“While we celebrate this day, we express our thanks and gratitude to our friends in the coalition forces who faced risks and responsibilities and sustained casualties and damage while helping Iraq to get rid from the ugliest dictatorship and during the joint effort to impose security and stability,” Talabani said.

Quotes like that are, I hope, played loud and long throughout the repressed nations of the Muslim world, so they strike fear into the hearts of the likes of Ahmadinejad and al-Assad.

No Comments yet »

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.

No Comments yet »

O

h, they love him and think he’s just great, but Prez-O’s going away gift from NATO was just a crummy T-shirt emblazoned with, “I went to France and all I got was 5,000 non-combatant troops.”  Charm or no charm, Obama is no more successful than his much reviled predecessor when it comes to moving Europe.

But he’s much better at lying about it:

“I am pleased that our NATO allies pledged their strong and unanimous support for our new strategy.  We’ll need more resources and a sustained effort to achieve our ultimate goals.”

Sorry; if you need more resources and sustained effort to achieve our goals, why are you pleased with NATO’s laughably puny decision, and why do you call it “strong?”  Is that like calling the debt-hole-digging budget “A New Era of Responsiblity?”  It’s more like the same old era of Europe counting on us to defend it, and criticising us when we do.

The 27 other NATO countries agreed to send 3,000 personnel on short-term deployments leading up to Afghanistan’s August elections, so they’ll be there for four months max.  Another 1,400 to 2,000 will provide training for Afghanistan’s army. That’s it – but Angela Merle assures us that it’s enough to ensure that “no more terrorist danger emanates from Afghanistan.”

Wanna bet?

1 Comment »

B

aituallah Mehsud, a Taliban leader in Pakistan who’s holding the rapt attention of these reporters, would have us believe that yesterday’s killings in Binghamton were the work of his gang of tribal thugs, in retaliation for drone missile attacks on Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal border region.

“I accept responsibility. They were my men. I gave them orders in reaction to U.S. drone attacks,” Mehsud told Reuters, which is choosing not to discuss where or how they tracked this self-described mass murdering terrorist down.

Personally, I think it’s nothing more than bravado, since the killer was apparently Vietnamese – where the Muslim population is one-tenth of one percent – and apparently was alone, a “man” not “men.”  (Atlas Shrugs, who live-blogged the massacre, says that for a while there was speculation of two gunmen, however.)

Whether this was a Taliban attack or not really isn’t the significant matter here; what’s significant is that this is exactly the sort of attack they would like to mount on US soil. We know this because it was the sort of attack they carry out in places crowded with innocents wherever and whenever they can.  And that leads to a larger question:  Are we as protected today from these sorts of attacks as we were when Bush was in office?

Now, because we have elected a president more concerned with popularity and political correctness than with effectively dispatching terrorists to the horrors that await them after death, we are no longer fighting terrorists and are no longer engaged in a global war on terror. It’s all been slathered in gobblydegook, as we undertake operations against man-caused disaster causers.

But more significantly, we have a president who, even as he (thankfully) keeps up the drone attacks, cannot address terrorism, let alone stare down the terrorists and give them reason to fear America.  Listen to this question from the post-G20 press conference, when an Indian correspondent he selected so he’s ”not showing gender bias” asks him what he and India’s prime minister discussed about how to deal with the terror that comes out of Pakistan.  After gaffing through a gag – hardly the appropriate response to such a question – he gets to his answer:

Did you catch the answer?  Or did you miss it in the endless blather about carbon footprints and poverty?  Here it is, in its entirety:

“We did discuss, uh, the issue of terrorism. uh, and, uh, we discussed it not simply in terms of terrorism eminating from Pakistan although,uh, we are very concerned about extremists and terrorists [not "man-caused disaster causers?"] who have made camp in, uh, the border regions, uh, of Pakistan as well as  those in Afghanistan.

“But we spoke about it more broadly, in terms of how we can coordinate effectively on, uh, issues of counterterrorism ….”

And then  he was off on a quick jaunt through poverty and into a long, rambling and boring talk about global warming, which included a statement that if the Chinese and Indians had the per-capita carbon footprints of Americans, “We all would have melted by now.”  It’s not funny, this flip damning of America out of the mouth of our president.

So we got six words on terrorism – “coordinate effectively on issues of counterterrorism” – and several minutes on the terror posed by global warming, proof positive that the man is more concerned about what might happen over the next century or thousand years -a concern hundreds of scientists and nearly half the population now disagree with – than he is about Baituallah Mehsud and his jihadist compatriots, who would kill us tomorrow if they had the wherewithall.  Bush kept the Talibums and al-Queerdas from getting that wherewithall – but Obama’s priorities, obviously, are elsewhere.

So while Binghamton was probably nothing more than a disgruntled Vietnamese going tragically haywire, we have less reason than ever to discount the possibility that Mehsud or Mohammed or Abdul might not pull something like this off here soon. 

1 Comment »

O

bama’s Justice Department, unhinged in general and unfettered by the need to do real work like the inept Obama Treasury Department, decided today to play word games with terrorists.  Henceforth, Justice Department briefs will not use the word “enemy combatant,” says a statement:

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase “enemy combatant.”

In other words, an “enemy combatant” is on its face a person who has provided “substantial” support to al Qaeda or the Taliban.  By removing the word from the federal lexicon, Holder & Co. are saying that the assumption of substantial support no longer exists.

The memo does not provide alternative nomenclature, so maybe we can help:

Guys found wandering around battlefields with AK 47s.

People named in al Qaeda and Taliban documents as guys who gave them substantial report.

Guys who repeatedly told Guantanamo personnel that if they’re released, the first thing they’re going to do is try to kill some Americans.

Camel-jockeys who know how to fly airliners.

People known to frequent crowded marketplaces with C4 vests.

FOBs (Friends of bin Laden)

Guys voted “most likely to succeed” upon matriculating from madrassa.

So Holder won’t hold al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers who just had “insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.”  That, of course, will be determined by evidence; more specifically, lawyers for jihadists who will tell Obama-appointed judges their guys just don’t reach the significant/substantial threshhold. “Your honor, he just attended the same mosque and it was an unfortunate coincidence that he was picked up just after that major Taliban pow-wow.  Just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

And then, after the guy’s four or five years of hanging out in Guantanamo with jihadiacs, the guy will get sprung … and will turn up next Tuesday with Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, doing his best to be significant and substantial.

No Comments yet »

S

hould George Bush have invaded Iraq? It’s a question we’ll debate forever, but ask the families of 42 Iraqi flour merchants, and you’ll probably get a yes because they remember the old Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

The 42 were accused by Hussein’s government of profiteering, which you can freely translate as “not giving Hussein what he demands.” In a civilized country, they would have been fined and possibly jailed. In Hussein’s Iraq, they were summarily tried and executed. The Iraq High Tribunal has found Tariq Aziz, long the public face of Hussein’s reign of terror, guilty of his role in the murders, along with two of Hussein’s half-brothers, who were sentenced to death. Aziz escaped with a 15-year sentence, which means he’ll probably die in jail.

Also sentenced: Ali Hassan “Chemical Ali” al-Majid, who received a 15-year sentence, and two other former Hussein officials.

In addition to the slaughter of the 42 merchants, the men were also tried for involvement in other bruttal acts by the Hussein terror regime, including the suppression of the Shi’ia uprising, during which thousands were killed, and the chemical attaks on the Kurds.

The Iraq High Tribunal would not be functioning and these men would not be facing punishment for their crimes were it not for the U.S. invasion. No, instead Hussein would still be holding on to power, still threatening his neighbors, still shooting at U.S. planes sactioned by the U.N. to enforce the no-fly zone, still crushing his people in the name of kleptocracy.

Was it worth it? It all depends on how it turns out – something that’s very much on David Kilkullen’s mind. Kilcullen – that’s him on the left – is an Australian army officer who influenced Gen. David Petraeus’ thinking on counterinsurgency and the surge, and  he’s worried it might not turn out well at all:

Kilcullen’s ideas, as implemented by Petraeus, helped make the surge more successful than earlier American initiatives in the war, and they are likely to shape U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan for the immediate future. Kilcullen, who was profiled in the New Yorker in 2006 and currently works for a think tank called the Center for New American Security (CNAS), has laid out his views in a new book, “The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One.” Filled with lists, diagrams and bullet points (never underestimate the effect of PowerPoint on contemporary official prose style), the book lays out what Kilcullen thinks America must do to redeem itself in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention the wider Muslim world). Like many of his colleagues, however, he seems skeptical that we’ll summon the will to pull it off.

Although Kilcullen has worked for the Bush administration (most notably as an advisor to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) he has never disguised his belief that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was “an extremely serious strategic error” — “f***ing stupid” is how he reportedly characterized it in a less formal context. Furthermore, he regards the early conduct of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan as ineffective and often self-defeating. Nevertheless, he insists that America owes it to both nations not to abandon them to the sectarian bloodshed that would probably follow a hasty withdrawal: “Regardless of anyone’s position on the decision to invade, those obligations still stand and cannot be wished away merely because they have proven inconvenient.” (Salon)

Agreed; the obligations cannot be washed away, but it is still possible, likely even, that Obama will nonetheless walk away from it, leaving too soon an Iraq that is emerging from chaos and establishing a functional, Democratic government.

And if he does, and if Iraq fails as a result, we’ll know the answer to the question “Was it worth it?”  And we won’t like the answer much.

2 Comments »

M

adge, honey, wouldya file this story in the “Is anyone out there the least bit surprised?” file for me, OK?

WASHINGTON – The Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration’s efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007. Rasoul is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a nom de guerre that Pentagon and intelligence officials say is used by a Taliban leader who is in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan.

The officials, who spoke anonymously because they are not authorized to release the information, said Rasoul has joined a growing faction of former Guantanamo prisoners who have rejoined militant groups and taken action against U.S. interests. Pentagon officials have said that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on foreign battlefields. (AP)

This isn’t Bond plus one. Ol’ 008 didn’t slip out of prison using fabu gizmos from Q. He just packed his bag and was flown out, courtesy of the U.S., due to the sheer insanity and never-ending shrillness of the Libs, a torture powerful enough to even break George W. Bush.

As I’ve pointed out before, these forces of stupidity don’t bother to answer the most basic questions. In this case, the question is, “If one of our soldiers was released from a Taliban prison, would he go back to fight?” After the laughter dies down about the idea of a Taliban actually letting one of our guys out, even Libs would have to admit the answer is “no.” So why would they expect a Taliban to do any differently?

Rasoul is heading up Taliban ops in Southern Afghanistan where Obama the Liberator (of Guantanamo, no Afghanistan) is set to send 35,000 of our troops shortly. The former detainee will then set about killing as many Americans as he possibly can, something that would have been impossible for him to do if he were still basking in the Caribbean.

This is exactly why in every war we have held prisoners of war in detention until hostilities are over, and why we’ve just put the particularly nasty ones up against a wall and shot them dead.

But don’t expect a Lib to understand the outrage of freeing enemy prisoners so they can kill our soldiers. No, they’d rather have American blood on their hands than have a Geneva Conventions-violating jihadist terrorist deprived of due process they’re not even due.
 

2 Comments »

Budget Office Has No Faith In Stimulus

T

he Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan provider of economic analysis to Congress, isn’t the least bit optimistic about the effect of Porkasaurus on the economy. In fact, they see it as bad news:

President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary. (WashTimes)

And what of all the jobs Obama says (models) his bill will create?  CBO dismisses the impact of Porkasaurus jobs on the economy as “minimal.” And that makes this comment from “Suggestions4Obama” particularly pathetic:

I do not understand why people are having diffculty understanding. The number of unemployed people (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million. The Department of Labor reported today that nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent. Payroll employment has declined by 3.6 million since the start of the recession in December 2007, …. most of this mess happening only in past three months! And some wonder Obama is pushing so hard for a stimulus package. Is the Herbert Hoover approach, do nothing, all we need, leading us to a twelve year depression ??

Here’s the deal, S4O:  Simply stating the problem doesn’t make the stimulus a solution. Ask the guys in the photo – after all, the Depression got worse after FDR tried to spend his way out of it. Continue Reading »

No Comments yet »

W

e hear a lot about the prisoners in the war on terror, folks like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his buddies in Guantanamo, but we hear precious little about people like Piotr Stanczak, who suffer the great misfortune of being captured by the other side.

As the new administration moves forward with its plan to close the prison that is the world’s best option for holding the world’s most disgusting criminals, it does so in the face of reason, ignoring the threat jihadists pose, which they demonstrated most recently with their handling of Stanczak. Why is this crazed charade moving forward?

Well, as near as I can tell it’s because the Leftists of the world have united in orange jumpsuits to howl in protest that America is protecting the West from those who would destroy it.

After years of reading Leftist drivel against Guantanamo, it’s all really boiled down to policy – the trials aren’t happening fast enough. Sure, the hardcore left still equates Guantanamo with torture – against overwhelming evidence of humane treatment and limited, temporary use of techniques that are not life-threatening against only a few of the most important intelligence targets … who happen to also be the most deadly of the prisoners.  Yet the symbol-driven Obama admin proceeds with its focus on the facility – the perceived need to close the prison – giving itself a terribly thorny problem that is nothing more than Leftist hype.

This situation is uniquely driven by the left. No one else is protesting or raising issues. Oh, sure, there’s a periodic peep of protest from the U.N., but do a search for “Guantanamo” at the U.N. News Center and you get nothing.  Even though the housing of prisoners in Guantanamo doesn’t shake the world, it particularly shakes the American anti-Bush, anti-war Left, and Obama is listening.

Do you think the American anti-Bush, anti-war Left will protest how another prisoner in the war on terror, Piotr Stanczak, was handled?

A Taleban group in Pakistan is reportedly claiming to have killed a Polish engineer, Piotr Stanczak, who was kidnapped in September last year.

Reports quote a Taleban spokesman as saying he was killed after a deadline expired for the Pakistani government to free captured militants.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Warsaw had received “informal confirmation” that the man was killed.

Pakistani security officials said they could not confirm the Taleban claim.

A Taleban spokesman said Mr Stanczak was beheaded after a deadline expired on Friday for the release of a number of militants in government hands, Reuters reported.

“We have killed the man after authorities refused to release our colleagues,” the spokesman, calling himself Mohammed, told Reuters. (BBC)

Let’s review this terrible news.  Stanczak was not an enemy hostile; he was abducted while doing survey work for the Pakistani oil ministry 40 miles from Islamabad, far from the front.  He was held under conditions we will never know because the Red Cross/Crescent was not allowed access to the facility … if we can even call it a “facility.”  He was held without trial – and murdered without trial.  His death was, to put it mildly, inhumane.  Say what you will, that is not the portrait of a Guantanamo detainee’s life.

The Left will not mourn the death of Piotr Stanczak.  Obama will not consider the contrasts between his ordeal and the daily life of Guantanamo detainees.  He won’t compare the innocence of Stanczak to the evil in the heart of the detainees.

Will nothing will be learned from Stanczak’s death? A few of us might memorialize him, but do any among us think his death will lead to more rational decision-making by the Obama administration?

12 Comments »

S

o, the Obama admin is batting around the idea of moving the world’s worst terror-mongers out of Fidel Castros backyard and putting them in mine – specifically the Pendleton Marine base just south of my home. I’m with Rep. Duncan Hunter on that idea:

Camp Pendleton is a place where we train our Marines and sailors for combat. It is not a detention facility, nor should it be transformed into one. Any attempt to accommodate detainees at Camp Pendleton would create an unnecessary distraction for the Marine Corps and interfere with its primary mission, which is to combat terrorism. (source)

Yup. But Obama’s committed to closing the one place on earth that’s ideal for storing these creeps (if you don’t count Superman’s Fortress of Solitude), so they just might be coming to a military base near you.

Awful as that is, it’s better than letting them go, as Abu al-Hareth Muhammad [Muhammed?!  You mean like the Prophet of Peace?!] al-Oufi is proving.  (How do you like the photo of him?)

You remember Abu; he’s the guy who ended up in Guantamo because he was just stopping off at the Tastee Freez nowhere near the battlesite, and his attorneys argued loudly his innocence, so he was released back to his freedom-loving, terror-hating home state of Saudi Arabia.  The date of his release?  Sept. 11 (yes, 9/11!), 2007.

But when video of ol’ Abu being all al-Qaeda-like in Yemen surfaced this week, those of us with brains realized (the shock!) that the Lib’s charactization of this noble victim was just a wee bit off. 

Here’s the Abu that Seton Hall prof and detainee defender Mark Denbeaux  and his fellow asylum inmates saw, in Abu’s own words:

“I was on my way to Quetta, Pakistan, to help people, the refugees,” al-Oufi told a military panel at Guantanamo, according to a transcripts reviewed by The Associated Press. He explained that he was arrested along with many other Arabs and sold to U.S. forces for bounties. Al-Oufi insisted he had never set foot in Afghanistan. 

Yet we held poor Abu without charges or trial until all of our Cherished American Ideals were destroyed.  But wait … maybe Bush isn’t the worst president of all time; maybe he had it right! Because here’s what we’ve learned about poor, poor pitiful Abu:

On Wednesday, the SITE Intelligence Group, an organization that monitors extremist Web sites, provided a translation of al-Oufi’s biography contained in an online militant forum. The personal history was completely at odds with how al-Oufi had characterized himself as he tried to convince a panel of U.S. military officers at Guantanamo that he was an innocent man who had been swept up in Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. …

… [T]he biography said he had fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir before he was captured, and had narrowly escaped death when “an American rocket” hit a house in Afghanistan where he and 13 other mujahedeen were sleeping. Al-Oufi was the only survivor and “was not hit by even one piece of shrapnel.”

The biography tries to present al-Oufi in a heroic light, using flowery language.

“He continued fighting until Afghanistan fell into the hands of the Americans,” said the biography. “He could not help but go to Pakistan and wait there until the Taliban started anew, and then he would return. But Allah determined for our lion to be imprisoned.”

Huh. Go figger.

Will the ACLU, Denbeaux and their ilk learn from this? Of course they will!  They will learn new strategies that minimize the reality of the likes of Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi so they can continue to take the wrong side in this epic battle for the future of civilization.

No Comments yet »