Friday, November 30, 2007


If anyone still harbored doubts that Islam is the most dangerous religion on the planet, events in Sudan should eridicate those doubts. A Sudanese court convicted Gillian Gibbons, a 54 year old British schoolteacher, to 15 days in prison for the heinous crime of permitting her students to name a teddybear Muhammad.While she sits in a Khartoum prison, thousands of Sudanese have taken to the streets-many brandishing knives and swords-- demanding her death simply because she named a teddybear Muhammad. When their religion is offended, do Hindus demand death? Do Christians? Or Jews? Or Buddhists? It is only Islam, the supposed religion of peace.

Before anyone accuses those of us who voice anti-Muslim sentiments as being anti-Arab, many may be surprised to learn that most of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are non-Arabs.

Finally, there is a quote from the holy book of Islam that is a perfect summation of the Muslim mindset: "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers..." Qur'an 48:29.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Iraq Troop Surge: Strength In Numbers

By any measure, the American military troop surge that began in February of 2007 has to be considered a success. In January, death by shooting and execution in Iraq numbered 51 a day. Now it is 18 a day. In January,killings as a result of bombings were 43 a day. Now it is 9 a day. Violence overall is down 55%.Obviously, Iraq is still a violent and dangerous country, and any amount of deaths are a trajedy, but the surge has clearly reduced the number substantially. All of this came about with the addition of approximately 30 thousand additional troops. These numbers certainly beg the question: Why didn't we invade Iraq with more troops to begin with? Colin Powell was a strong advocate of invading with overwhelming troop strength. Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had the opposite view. He believed in a smaller, more mobile, more agile military presence. In retrospect, it is obvious who was right and who was wrong on this issue. How different would have the Iraq war been had we gone in there with 200,000 troops instead of the 125,000 mandated by Rumsfeld? If a mere 30,000 soldiers can make a signifigant difference, what kind of difference would have been made by 75,000more boots on the ground for the invasion?

While I supported the original invasion of Iraq, it is clear that the occupation has been an ill-planned fiasco. The Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld team had no coherent strategy for post-Saddam Iraq, and despite their denials, they also had not anticipated the thousands of insurgents that have devasted that country.

The lesson is clear: Do not go to war unless you intend to devastate and destroy the enemy through overwhelming force through numbers. Islamic Radicals would not waste a second on showing us mercy. Tens of thousands have needlessly died because we pulled our punches.

Saturday, November 10, 2007


"Lions For Lambs," yet another Iraq war (or more accurately, anti-Iraq war) film opened this weekend to terrible reviews and tepid boxoffice. The film has a stellar cast of Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who also directed. Despite the superstar cast, the only audience "Lions For Lambs" will draw are insomniacs searching for something to put them to sleep. Like its Iraq war predecessors, "The Kingdom," "Rendition," and "The Valley of Elah," this Tom Cruise vehicle fails to find an audience for its liberal agitprop. Critics and the media attribute the failure of these films to the war weariness of filmgoers. And it is a legitimate claim. You cannot turn on the TV or radio, or open a newspaper or news magazine without confronting the violence and bloodshed in the Middle East. Audiences apparently want diversion from the war when they buy a movie ticket--and who can blame them? The great Viet Nam war films like "Apocalypse Now," "Platoon," and "Full Metal Jacket" were released five to ten years after the war ended.

There is another factor for the failure of these Iraq war films that no movie pundit has cared to address. Maybe the producers of these films and the liberal media refuse to accept the fact that a majority of Americans support the war, our military and George Bush. The last thing they are going to spend their money on is a movie that attacks and demeans everything they believe in. The polls keep telling us how unpopular the Iraq war is, but people are also voting with their wallets. What they are saying to the Hollywood leftist elite is "We're not wasting our hard earned money on your anti-military, anti-American propaganda posing as entertainemnt."

Hollywood, in its self-absorbed culture, believes that most Americans think exactly like they do. Their cinematic jihad is hemmoraging red ink, proving that Robert Redford and his ilk are the film business eqivalent of suicide bombers.

Sunday, November 4, 2007


Wouldn't you love to have had a dollar everytime you heard or read the term "alternative fuels?" We are constantly being told by environmentalists, politicians and the media that we need to be less dependent on foreign oil, and how we must wean ourselves off of gasoline. Ethanol has become the poster child for alternative fuels. This bio-fuel derived from corn is touted as the primary panacea for all of our energy problems, but is it really the Holy Grail of alternative fuels that its proponents claim it is?

On closer investigation, you'll find that rather than conserve energy, ethanol represents a tremendous expenditure of energy. It takes 70% more energy to produce than it actually generates. According to research done by David Pimental, Professor of agriculture at Cornell University, processing a single acre of corn requires 140 gallons of fossil fuel at a cost of $347 per acre. On a per gallon basis, ethanol cost $1.74 to produce, compared to $0.95 per gallon for gasoline. There are also environmental costs. Corn production erodes the soil 12 times faster than the soil can renew itself. If we were to replace half of our gasoline consumption with ethanol, it would require that 90% of our farm land be converted to corn growth.

In terms of money, there would be no savings whatsoever for consumers. Ethanol costs more at the pump, and gives the average driver 2 to 5% less gas mileage. The International Institute for Sustainable Development says that government subsidies for ethanol development costs taxpayers 5.5 to 7.3 billion dollars a year. Because corn has become a cash crop bonanza for farmers, they are devoting more acreage to the crop. This has a twofold effect: First, the ethanol production itself, because of the law of supply and demand, drives up the cost of corn, and because growing it has become so lucrative, farmers are planting it in place of other crops, such as soybeans, wheat and tomatoes, thereby driving up the cost of those commodities and creating shortages.

If we truly are serious about acheiving greater energy independence, we have only to look in our own backyard. The Anwr Reserve in Alaska comprises 19 million acres. Geologists tell us there is as much oil beneath it as there is in Saudi Arabia. To extract it would require the use of only 8% of that area, hardly the desecration of nature that environmentalists claim it would be. In addition, there are huge oil reserves in the Gulf off of Florida, but because of pressure from environmentalists, our lawmakers refuse to allow us to extract a single ounce. Meanwhile, Mexico and Russia are busily engaged in sucking out that oil, while we pay more and more at the pump.

A coalition of politicans, farmers and corporations have produced their own personal gusher: our tax dollars that are being used to line pockets in the name of dubious science. Only a reasoned and rational approach to the energy problem will plug that geyser.