What to do with that NoKo ship...

Since nobody is going to be allowed to board the North Korean ship we strongly suspect is transporting weapons -- nukes included -- without permission, and they're not likely to give said permission, why don't we have the various allied navies "guide" the ship (in the same way fighter jets direct a smaller, weaker aircraft to an appropriate landing field when they go astray into restricted airspace) into Somali waters, as it were? We could wait for the Somali pirates to board them, then "come to the rescue" of the N. Korean ship, maybe even "accidentally" puncturing a hull in the process (or is that too much?)... two birds with one stone.

Okay, I know I'm getting into silly fantasy territory, but why can't we figure out a way for our enemies to screw each other, instead of having an administration just stand there and make a show of wringing its hands over nuclear proliferation among rogue nations? We had enough of hand-wringing with the last POTUS, and he actually seemed to care about it.

Gratuitous postcards: To commemorate wars past

Zombietime has up a post well worth reading. The war in Iraq is over and won. It is time the world recognized it, in the same way it recognized the end of hostilities in wars past.








Thanks be to the brave ones.

What's so funny about peace through strength?

Rand Simberg has a follow-up post to his earlier analysis of why we shouldn't be surprised doctors wage jihad against us -- and, precisely, what is behind this jihad in the first place. The follow-up gives background on why they attack us, here in the good old U. S. of A., and it isn't strictly because we're big and mean and have evil intentions...

There are (at least) two categories of error in foreign policy. One is to commit egregious acts against a people such that they rise up against you.

The other is to show weakness, such that they think that if they can hurt you badly enough, you'll give up, and give in to their demands, no matter how outrageous and unreasonable they may be.

While we've done more than we should have of both over the last...well...half century, if not longer, the latter is the major reason that we are currently under siege (at least metaphorically, if not literally).

Yes, bin Laden whined about the "occupation of Arabia" during and after the first Gulf War. And the Arabs continually whine about the oppression of the "Palestinians" by the "Zionists" (see, I can use scare quotes just as well as Reuters, except...well, mine are actually accurate).

But the real reason for the war we're in can be found in the part of bin Laden's speech about the "weak horse" and the "strong horse."

His argument is, Bin Laden has assumed that, because we backed down, we were weak and would remain so. There is more to it than that, of course. But the perception of our weakness -- valid or not, is a large part of our problem since even before Vietnam. It certainly does go back more thana half-century. To wit, Bill Mauldin's 1961 cartoon and comment from What's Got Your Back Up?


More to the point is the comment Mauldin includes beneath the image:

Totalitarian leaders do their worrying in private and always show a resolute face to the world. It is hard for them to understand societies which struggle openly with decisions, and it must be very easy for dictators to make the dangerous mistake of confusing soul-searching with flabbiness.

By and large, since the 1970s, we have been a flabby nation -- especially during terms when military-loathing Democrats have had greater power in Washington. Nevertheless, historically and currently, this nation does not tolerate that sort of self-destructive behavior too often or for too long. Elections come, truth about real threats is recognized, and would-be Jimmy Carters fail swiftly.

I hope I'm not mistaken about my fellow countrymen (not to mention other free peoples). I would hate to see Robert Heinlein proven wrong on his 100th birthday.

At last! a senator who gets it!

Via CQ: Minnesota's Norm Coleman is doing what he can to protect the citizens and the law of this country:

In an effort to strengthen national security, Senator Norm Coleman yesterday introduced an amendment to the Immigration bill to make sure local law enforcement officials are able to communicate with federal law enforcement agencies regarding suspected immigration violations. Currently, a number of cities throughout the nation are using a loophole to get around Sec. 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 by instituting ordinances forbidding local law enforcement to even ask the question as to whether a person is in the U.S. lawfully, thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the federal government.

“In a post 9-11 world, it is simply unacceptable for communities to ignore federal laws requiring them to share this type of information with federal authorities. This is not a matter of making state and local governments enforce federal immigration laws, it is simply a matter of closing this loophole that certain cities have created,” said Coleman. “This defies common sense, as the rule of law must apply to both legal and illegal residents. Moreover, we know how crucial it is to connect the dots in order to avert another terrorist attack in this country. The consequences of prohibiting information sharing are too great. To close this loophole, I have introduced an amendment that will ensure the lines of communication are open between local and federal law enforcement officials.”

Senator Coleman’s legislation will not require local law enforcement to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Moreover, it does not require local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids or act as federal agents. Senator Coleman’s bill will simply give law enforcement officers the ability to inquiry about a person’s immigration status during their routine investigations, and in turn report their findings to the appropriate Federal authorities though already-established channels, as they are currently required to do by law.

I don't really ask all that much, I think, when I ask our elected representatives to stand up and recognize that this country was built on the principle that the law is egalitarian toward its citizens, and, in light of that, should at least act as though they respect those laws. It's nice to know somebody's senator sees his job in the same light, and is willing to try to do something about those who undermine the law of the land.

I wish, I wish, I wish... dammit, I'm still stuck with Durbin as my senator!

Will somebody from Minnesota please give Coleman a big kiss for me?


Update: Power Line has another good reason for shutting down "sanctuary city" policies and enforcing the law as written. Follow the link to Jean Hopfensperger's Star-Tribune story, especially.

I heart John Doe

For the record, that's every last one of them who has the good sense to report suspicious activity.

I could give them all a kiss on the lips.

Or, if that's too scary, I'd give them all fuzzy little kittens. I may have plenty of those, soon.

So far, there isn't much trouble going on around me, out here in the dingles (other than the stuff one usually gets in a swell little redneck burg). But I appreciate the folks who take care of my friends and family in faraway places. And I hope to all that is holy the Republicans in Congress get their acts together and pass some respectable protective legislation, so that nobody can be CAIR'd into poverty and ruin.

Can we use this in the GWOT?

My sis-in-law sent me an e-mail with this article in it. In Florida, it seems, they sometimes grow stuff Texans and Oklahomans would envy:


To my mind, this would be the perfect tool to use against jihadis. Get the DNA of that bad puppy and clone it, then drop the clones where we think they'd have the greatest impact...

There are no more journalistic ethics

At least, they haven't been taught to Gavin King, reporter for Aussie paper Cairns Post. This low-life-with-a-press-pass contacted blogger Sheik Yer'mami (who contributes heavily to the anti-jihad site Winds of Jihad) for comments on a proposal for building a local mosque, promising Sheik that his anonymity would not be broken. King subsequently not only published the actual name of the blogger, but his home address and telephone number, among other private data. From the letter (posted at Dhimmi Watch) Sheik sent to the Australian press council in complaint (with emphasis added by me):

Islamic terrorism is a scourge on humanity. Gavin King, the Cairns Post reporter who focused his article on me, ad hominem, my family, age, business, even listing my property holdings including where I live, is totally out of line. My identity was never a matter for the public record. Because of death-threats to anyone who opposes the spread of Islam I certainly see myself and anyone else in that regard entitled to anonymity. That should be common sense.

It would seem that common sense still isn't terribly common. At least among the news people.

(Full confession: I write a weekly column for a small-town paper. I even took a few courses in journalism in my feckless youth. But I do not want to be associated with those sorts of people who risk the lives of private individuals for their own agendas.)

King has not only endangered the blogsite by labeling it a "hate site" sight unseen, but he has endangered the lives of Sheik and his entire family, plus anybody else who is seen publicly as his friend and supporter.

As one commenter pointed out, this isn't the first time a journalist has endangered the life/lives of private citizens for no good reason. Earlier this month, a Virginia newspaper published the names and addresses of all its local citizens who had concealed carry gun permits -- without regard for the possibility that some of those people were (a) hiding from violent exes or (b) not actually carrying guns, only carrying permits, and (c) perfectly within their legal rights to own and carry guns for their own protection. The paper essentially printed a shopping plan for gun thieves.

And another case is cited of a paper which published the address of a battered women's shelter. Nice.

I hope Sheik and his family can find some satisfaction from the Cairns Post. I hope King gets his hindquarters tossed to the wolves in much the same way he has tried to do to Sheik. Not that I think anybody but the jihadis are likely to do anybody any physical harm. It's just that, when violence arises (and it will. There is jihad in this world, and people are really dying because they choose to think and live freely) I'd just like to see it come to the right people: the ones who would call it down innocents.

Democrats: Serious about our safety

In a pig's eye.

First, they wanted to bring all our troops out of the one place where they're actually succeeding in killing terrorists, they chose to undermine every effort the POTUS made toward national security, then they do their darnedest to stop all profiling at airports because it might be racist (even though only the result ends up being biased -- against known terrorist groups and terrorist supporters). Now, they want to screw up the airport security further by handing it over to the infinitely corrupt union system.

At the rate the Democrats in Congress are going, the only people who will be able to fly safely will be terrorists and their supporters who own their own jets.

sheesh.

Another gratuitous postcard: new year is bearish for some

It looks as though this is a bad year to be a terrorist.

The news comes from all over, about stuff going on all over -- from the courtroom to the battlefield, from propagandists and apologists to professional hatemongers, life is becoming somewhat less bearable for friends of al Qaeda and their murderous ilk.

Unfortunately, the news is not all bad for islamists. They're still allowed to assemble and cook up a little sedition in free countries like Australia. Let's hope it doesn't get too grisly, there, when they release the football hooligans....