This is a must watch video for those who are tired of hearing mealy-mouthed liberals complaining about America, and it's coming from a Brit (who sounds like and has characteristics very similar to a younger version of Pat Condell)

(HT - Jawa Report)

And here's a bonus - it's yet another message to liberals: 'Right From Left'

Although the George Soros/MoveOn.org - controlled side of the Democratic Party would like you to think otherwise, but as Lorne Gunter at the National Post notes, Israel is Western civilization's canary in the coal mine. If Israel cannot survive, perhaps Western civilization -- pluralistic, democratic, individualistic, secular, free-trading and devoted to the rule of law -- will be unable to last, either:

[...] On the eve of Israel's 60th anniversary, those of us who cherish our own fundamental freedoms had better hope the Jewish state makes it through its second 60 years; or else our own right to think, say or worship as we please (unless, of course, we come under the scrutiny of a so-called human rights commission) is in jeopardy.

[...] What has Israel's survival got to do with us? Israel is far away. It has different enemies than we do. Even among Islamic extremists, they are battling Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO and Islamic Jihad, while the West is confronting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Besides, if we're nice and accommodating of diversity, the terrorists will respect our attempts to honour their culture and faith and leave us alone.

Nice theory. Too bad jihadis of every label view Israel and the West as conjoined and inseparable. Even though we may not see our destiny as inextricably linked with Israel's, they do. If we give up on Israel, they will simply take that as a sign they might be able to pressure us next to give up on Quebec, Mississauga, Michigan, Birmingham and the Paris suburbs.

[...] Aaron Klein, an American journalist who now lives in Israel, last year released a fascinating book, Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans -- To a Jew!. In it, he recounts how in hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of terrorists their declared hatred of the West was nearly as great as their hatred of Israel. They were not motivated by poverty or political oppression as much as by faith and ideology, and nearly all spoke of establishing a worldwide caliphate once they had dispatched the Jewish state.

Continue reading ...

With this in mind, one can't help but wonder why and how it came to be that the secretary of state of a president who was once friendlier to Israel than any of his predecessors now claims that the establishment of a state for a people who have distinguished themselves as the most overtly pro-jihad, terrorist society in the world would be the greatest thing American could ever do.

Although the George Soros/MoveOn.org - controlled side of the Democratic Party would like you to think otherwise, but as Lorne Gunter at the National Post notes, Israel is Western civilization's canary in the coal mine. If Israel cannot survive, perhaps Western civilization -- pluralistic, democratic, individualistic, secular, free-trading and devoted to the rule of law -- will be unable to last, either:

[...] On the eve of Israel's 60th anniversary, those of us who cherish our own fundamental freedoms had better hope the Jewish state makes it through its second 60 years; or else our own right to think, say or worship as we please (unless, of course, we come under the scrutiny of a so-called human rights commission) is in jeopardy.

[...] What has Israel's survival got to do with us? Israel is far away. It has different enemies than we do. Even among Islamic extremists, they are battling Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO and Islamic Jihad, while the West is confronting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Besides, if we're nice and accommodating of diversity, the terrorists will respect our attempts to honour their culture and faith and leave us alone.

Nice theory. Too bad jihadis of every label view Israel and the West as conjoined and inseparable. Even though we may not see our destiny as inextricably linked with Israel's, they do. If we give up on Israel, they will simply take that as a sign they might be able to pressure us next to give up on Quebec, Mississauga, Michigan, Birmingham and the Paris suburbs.

[...] Aaron Klein, an American journalist who now lives in Israel, last year released a fascinating book, Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans -- To a Jew!. In it, he recounts how in hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of terrorists their declared hatred of the West was nearly as great as their hatred of Israel. They were not motivated by poverty or political oppression as much as by faith and ideology, and nearly all spoke of establishing a worldwide caliphate once they had dispatched the Jewish state.

Continue reading ...

With this in mind, one can't help but wonder why and how it came to be that the secretary of state of a president who was once friendlier to Israel than any of his predecessors now claims that the establishment of a state for a people who have distinguished themselves as the most overtly pro-jihad, terrorist society in the world would be the greatest thing American could ever do.

Readers would do well to check out this must read piece by see-dubya over at Michelle Malkin. Be sure to read through to the links, as well.

For America to ignore what the Saudis are doing around the world to foster and support radical Islam, is inviting the end of life and freedom as we now know it.

And the same goes for all western countries.

Readers would do well to check out this must read piece by see-dubya over at Michelle Malkin. Be sure to read through to the links, as well.

For America to ignore what the Saudis are doing around the world to foster and support radical Islam, is inviting the end of life and freedom as we now know it.

And the same goes for all western countries.

Last week the AP reported that the Bush administration has launched a ridiculous and naive front in the war on terrorism (my description - not the AP's), this time targeting language. Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, do not want people to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," or "Islamo-fascism." In other words, Don't call jihadists - jihadists any more. Don't call Islamo-fascists - Islamo-fascists, and don't call the Islamic terrorist group - a terrorist group, and don't call the al-Qaida movement - a movement. By doing so the Bush administration endorsed the vocabulary pushed by pushed by the jihadists that live inside America - the Islamic organizations identified by the Justice Department as being directly tied to terrorism (Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North American, Muslim American Society, the Institute for International Islamic Thought, et al.).

Patrick Poole puts this into perspective:

Imagine that following the bombing of Peal Harbor in December 1941, that FDR had prohibiting the use of the terms "Nazi" or "Japanese Imperialism" due to pressure brought to bear by German and Japanese-American lobbying groups. Or at the height of the Cold War that the US government had determined to ban the use of "Soviet" or "communism" for fear of offending the sensibilities of Russian-Americans or European socialists.

Yet that is precisely what has happened following the revelation last week by the Associated Press that the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security has issued guidelines banning the use of "jihad", "mujahedeen" and other Islamic terminology with reference to Islamic terrorism. This move lays bare the ideological prison house of political correctness in which our top policymaker's reside. The strictures are so ridiculous that even President Bush can't help himself in violating the guidelines.

No one can claim in defense of this move that it has been rooted in years of serious study and assessment of the issue at the highest levels of government. If so, where might these studies and assessments be found? What series of government publications outlines the strategic threat doctrine of our enemy in the War on Terror, similar to that prepared on Soviet doctrine in the early years of the Cold War? What comprehensive doctrinal assessment may our military and political leaders consult to inform themselves on the tactics and strategy of our enemy? Such does not exist, and the adoption of the government's new "lexicon" is an admission that such a strategic threat assessment of our enemy will not be done. This new effort means that in essence we have chosen to fly blind in the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

The categorical failure of our political leadership nearly seven years after 9/11 to engage in even the slightest effort to assess exactly who the enemy is and how they propose to attack and defeat us borders on treason. What could possibly represent the complete abdication of responsibility by our political leaders than deliberately avoiding addressing this pressing, and for our men and women in uniform a life-and-death, issue?

So on what basis have our public officials made this recent decision? This new effort is being driven by politics, not public safety, as demonstrated by the fact that such pandering measures adopted by the British government which the State Department guidelines appear modeled after have completely failed to abate the terrorist threat there. And it reveals that our national security policy is being determined more by public affairs officials driven by political correctness than sober reflection by our nation's intelligence, military and law enforcement personnel.

No one can claim in defense of this move that it has been rooted in years of serious study and assessment of the issue at the highest levels of government. If so, where might these studies and assessments be found? What series of government publications outlines the strategic threat doctrine of our enemy in the War on Terror, similar to that prepared on Soviet doctrine in the early years of the Cold War? What comprehensive doctrinal assessment may our military and political leaders consult to inform themselves on the tactics and strategy of our enemy? Such does not exist, and the adoption of the government's new "lexicon" is an admission that such a strategic threat assessment of our enemy will not be done. This new effort means that in essence we have chosen to fly blind in the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

Continue reading: Flying Blind in the War on Terror

Political correctness run completely amuck? Indeed, by endorsing the guidelines proposed by the jihadists that live openly in our midst, the Bush administration has embraced the ridiculous, naive, and dhimmitudious assumptions that what's good for our enemy, is good for us, that we can conquer Islamic terrorism and convince jihadists to love us - if only we speak kindly to them or pretend they aren't what they are, and that people in the Muslim world will be influenced by what non-Muslim authorities say about Islam; yet, clearly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to warrant these assumptions. As Robert Spencer writes, "In reality, jihadists routinely claim "moral and religious legitimacy," and that has to be confronted, not ignored."

Last week the AP reported that the Bush administration has launched a ridiculous and naive front in the war on terrorism (my description - not the AP's), this time targeting language. Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, do not want people to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," or "Islamo-fascism." In other words, Don't call jihadists - jihadists any more. Don't call Islamo-fascists - Islamo-fascists, and don't call the Islamic terrorist group - a terrorist group, and don't call the al-Qaida movement - a movement. By doing so the Bush administration endorsed the vocabulary pushed by pushed by the jihadists that live inside America - the Islamic organizations identified by the Justice Department as being directly tied to terrorism (Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North American, Muslim American Society, the Institute for International Islamic Thought, et al.).

Patrick Poole puts this into perspective:

Imagine that following the bombing of Peal Harbor in December 1941, that FDR had prohibiting the use of the terms "Nazi" or "Japanese Imperialism" due to pressure brought to bear by German and Japanese-American lobbying groups. Or at the height of the Cold War that the US government had determined to ban the use of "Soviet" or "communism" for fear of offending the sensibilities of Russian-Americans or European socialists.

Yet that is precisely what has happened following the revelation last week by the Associated Press that the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security has issued guidelines banning the use of "jihad", "mujahedeen" and other Islamic terminology with reference to Islamic terrorism. This move lays bare the ideological prison house of political correctness in which our top policymaker's reside. The strictures are so ridiculous that even President Bush can't help himself in violating the guidelines.

No one can claim in defense of this move that it has been rooted in years of serious study and assessment of the issue at the highest levels of government. If so, where might these studies and assessments be found? What series of government publications outlines the strategic threat doctrine of our enemy in the War on Terror, similar to that prepared on Soviet doctrine in the early years of the Cold War? What comprehensive doctrinal assessment may our military and political leaders consult to inform themselves on the tactics and strategy of our enemy? Such does not exist, and the adoption of the government's new "lexicon" is an admission that such a strategic threat assessment of our enemy will not be done. This new effort means that in essence we have chosen to fly blind in the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

The categorical failure of our political leadership nearly seven years after 9/11 to engage in even the slightest effort to assess exactly who the enemy is and how they propose to attack and defeat us borders on treason. What could possibly represent the complete abdication of responsibility by our political leaders than deliberately avoiding addressing this pressing, and for our men and women in uniform a life-and-death, issue?

So on what basis have our public officials made this recent decision? This new effort is being driven by politics, not public safety, as demonstrated by the fact that such pandering measures adopted by the British government which the State Department guidelines appear modeled after have completely failed to abate the terrorist threat there. And it reveals that our national security policy is being determined more by public affairs officials driven by political correctness than sober reflection by our nation's intelligence, military and law enforcement personnel.

No one can claim in defense of this move that it has been rooted in years of serious study and assessment of the issue at the highest levels of government. If so, where might these studies and assessments be found? What series of government publications outlines the strategic threat doctrine of our enemy in the War on Terror, similar to that prepared on Soviet doctrine in the early years of the Cold War? What comprehensive doctrinal assessment may our military and political leaders consult to inform themselves on the tactics and strategy of our enemy? Such does not exist, and the adoption of the government's new "lexicon" is an admission that such a strategic threat assessment of our enemy will not be done. This new effort means that in essence we have chosen to fly blind in the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

Continue reading: Flying Blind in the War on Terror

Political correctness run amuck and beyond? Indeed, by endorsing the guidelines proposed by the jihadists that live openly in our midst, the Bush administration has embraced the ridiculous, naive, and dhimmitudious assumptions that what's good for our enemy, is good for us, that we can conquer Islamic terrorism and convince jihadists to love us - if only we speak kindly to them or pretend they aren't what they are, and that people in the Muslim world will be influenced by what non-Muslim authorities say about Islam; yet, clearly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to warrant these assumptions. As Robert Spencer writes, "In reality, jihadists routinely claim "moral and religious legitimacy," and that has to be confronted, not ignored."

When a reporter challenges George Bush on his credibility after he describes the US as winning in Afghanistan, Bush at first tries to explain that "winning" doesn't mean the war is over. Either not listening, unable to comprehend the difference, or too wrapped-up in her own agenda, the reporter still challenges the president's credibility. Bush then notes that he has said repeatedly that tough fighting remains ahead. After the reporter tries asking the same question again, Bush vents his frustration ....

Be sure to watch the entire video; the importance of this video is not the lefty nutcase reporter, rather President Bush's going to lengths to explain the difference between "winning" and having won the war - a difference that escapes the liberal mindset of the clueless on the left, especially the left wing media.

When a reporter challenges George Bush on his credibility after he describes the US as winning in Afghanistan, Bush at first tries to explain that "winning" doesn't mean the war is over. Either not listening, unable to comprehend the difference, or too wrapped-up in her own agenda, the reporter still challenges the president's credibility. Bush then notes that he has said repeatedly that tough fighting remains ahead. After the reporter tries asking the same question again, Bush vents his frustration ....

Be sure to watch the entire video; the importance of this video is not the lefty nutcase reporter, rather President Bush's going to lengths to explain the difference between "winning" and having won the war - a difference that escapes the liberal mindset of the clueless on the left, especially the left wing media.

Here's an interesting emailed-in request for Mohammad caricatures. The writer says he is a Norwegian University College student that's "more or less done with writing the manuscript" for his book; "1001 caricatures of Mohammad as a defense, for the right to ask the critical questions and make caricatures. As we can gather from the books title, he needs contributions in the form of 1001 caricature drawings of Mohammad and asks that we publish his request in our "blogg." It's signed "Alias John Smith."

So, being the nice folks that we are, here's his request for contributions of Mohammad caricatures:

1001 caricatures of Mohammad

What should the answer of the freedom loving peoples of the west be ageist the fascist forces in Islam who threatens with violence to stop critical opinions and caricatures of Islam?

If you are one of many who share my beliefs that we have to fight this totalitarian ideology, you now have the possibility to participate.

I am writing a book called "1001 caricatures of Mohammad as a defense, for the right to ask the critical questions and make caricatures. As you understand from the books title, I need contributions in the form of 1001 caricature drawings of Mohammad.

I am writing this book under a fictional name because of the dangers combined with expression critical views of Islam. Any contribution will be protected in the same manner as my self.

Make history; defend the freedom to many take for granted. With a pen you can stand up and fight for the right to be free in the battle of liberty for all the peoples of the world. Send your contribution to:
1001.karikaturer.av.muhammed@gmail.com

Yours sincerely

Alias John Smith

His blog is here ...

Judging from the reaction that Muslims exhibited during the Danish Cartoon episode from only 12 caricatures, the reaction "John Smith" will get from 1001 caricatures of Mohammed is going to be "interesting," to say the least.

Sort of related: Don't Tase me Mo!