Qur'an Project

(Note: Cross post from LGFWW)

As I watch snippets of Osama's video, carefully edited by partisan news organizations, I came to an interesting theory on what this video and the video of "Assam the American" mean and what al Qaeda are trying to do. I think that Osama and al Qaeda really are trying to help re-elect President Bush.

OK, OK, I know that may not sound like the Qur'an Pundit you know and love, more like some left-wing/Michael Moore whack-o, but Stay with me here.

Try to understand the thought process of an Islamic terrorist. Osama is completely convinced that Allah will bring him total victory over the crusader President and the Zionist alliance of Americans and the sons of pigs and monkeys. Nothing can stop the will of Allah and nothing will make a difference to Allah in this task. Bringing this victory to Allah cannot be made harder for Allah, nor easier. Given this, Osama is free to pursue his own goals without a conflict with his submission to the will of Allah.

We all know that Osama really hates The President and, for selfish reasons, wants Allah's certain victory to come while Mr. Bush is in office. A Kerry victory, in his mind (and I agree), would make the will of Allah less of a burden on the membership of al Qaeda (certainly not on Allah), thereby reducing the personal glory that is his due. A Bush victory would be just the ticket for his plans. Americans would still be well within his reach in the Middle East and the fighting would continue, this helps him recruit and builds his stature on "the street". His fame and honor for fighting the Crusaders and Jews will be much greater with a Bush victory on Tuesday.

In order to affect his desired result (again a Bush victory), he adopts the language of Michael Moore in order to inflame the Bush base and turn out the vote. He basically uses this language and themes to appear to pound The President, which gains him support on "the street", all while helping Mr. Bush’s campaign.

Looking for translations of the video and other resources? Zombie has done the legwork (This post has more).

Belmont club has the full text of Osama bin Laden’s video speech. Wretchard thinks this is an offer of truce, I think it is a Bush campaign commercial.

UPDATE: We are winning, according to Osama on the unaired parts of the tape.

I will have a post detailing my thoughts on the bin Laden tape later, it will also be cross-posted to the well worth your time LGFWW. Speaking of which, they point us to this piece on the similarity between statements of OBL and Sen. Kerry (D-France).

UPDATE: This just in! Iraqi "insurgents" also back Kerry while the peaceful areas of Iraq back Bush. Thanks to Ace of Spades for the link!

A Small Victory - black hoodie hypocrisy

"Eminem, a rich white entertainer, is suddenly the hottest commodity in the Kerry campaign."

Go read the whole thing.

No leftward media bias? Read The Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004 -- MRC Profile in Bias -- Media Research Center

These are only the top 10, I would have put the lack of reporting on Sen. Kerry's (D-France) continuing distortion of the events at Tora Bora at 9 or 10, but otherwise no major disagreements.

According to this DRUDGE REPORT Story, ABC News is holding a terrorist tape.

"'The streets will run with blood,' and 'America will mourn in silence' because they will be unable to count the number of the dead."

Why do you think that they are holding it instead of airing it? Could it have something to do with the election next week?

I stand by my endorsement.

Today, with less than a week to go before the election, is the day that the prestigious "Qur'an Project" endorsement is unveiled. In a shocker, the endorsement for President of the United States is ... George W. Bush.

Below is a short summary of the issues on which this endorsement is based.

The War on Terror

President Bush is the only candidate on the ballot that does not have a timetable for the pullout of troops currently in Iraq. Senator John Kerry (D-France) has tried very hard to convince the voters that he will be tough on terrorists, but his record does not back up his newfound tough talk.

The War on Terror

President Bush's willingness to actually put action to the tough talk of preemption instead of waiting until we are attacked and responding (ala Sen. Kerry's stated position) is key to winning this war.

Diplomacy and War

President Bush has shown the backbone to stand up to the French and the UN, and when the time came he acted, without a French permission slip, in the best interest of the people of the United States. Sen. Kerry has a long history of placing the interests and security of the people to the United Nations. I want my President to think more of my interests than the interests of the UN.

Taxes

President Bush cut taxes and is fighting to make the cuts permanent. Sen. Kerry wants to raise taxes, but only on people that would otherwise invest the money in new jobs and economic activity. We need a new tax system that does not create disincentives for success.

Health Insurance

Sen. Kerry’s "plan" for providing insurance to basically everyone on the government's dime is the scariest part of his domestic policy. Even the threat caused by the huge across the board tax increases that would be required by the other promises he has made pale in comparison to the damage to the health, safety and security of the nation that the threat of socialized medicine would bring.

BTW: "Health Care" is NOT the same as "Health Insurance", dammit!

The War on Terror

Sen. Kerry shows a basic lack of knowledge (or is willfully distorting) the events of Tora Bora. Every time he mentions Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan or Tora Bora drives me further into the Bush camp. If he cannot understand basic logistics, he is not fit for command in a time of war.

So, my legion of armed voters, get out there and pull the lever for President Bush next Tuesday!

UPDATE: Did I mention that President Bush would be a better President to run the War on Terror? If not, it was a small oversight.

Today's must see flash animation.

Today's fun: Swift Geese Veterans for Truth

(H/T: CathyF)

The Daily Recycler has video of partisan political hack Lawrence O'Donnell, who has a day job of "Reporter", using a favorite tactic of the Loony Left on Switfie John O'Neil. Instead of reasoned debate of the facts, he screams "Liar" and doesn't allow Mr. O'Neil a word in without shouting him down.

O'Donnell:

You are not fit to publish...Creepy Liar!

O'Neil:

Mr. O'Donnell certainly has proven he has a good pair of lungs

Such is the state of political discourse in these "United" States... Maybe John Stuart has a point about these political talk shows.

(BTW: it is a long download and doesn't stream too well from here, but well worth the time to fool with it.)

My take on the Swifties? They are spent. Mr. O'Neil has done a great job of bringing their message to an unwilling media for a very long time. The stuff about Sen. Kerry's (D -France) actions after the war are much more important than his medals or his gaming the system to get home fast. For me, the medal stuff has the same weight as the Bush AWOL claims. The military records show that the medals are real, just as they show that President Bush was not AWOL and was honorably discharged. Both are non-starters with me.

Chant with me now...
Filp-Flop Flip-Flop Filp-Flop

Even the headline writer on Yahoo! News notices...

"Kerry Supports Anti-Terror Act, Shifting Stance"

As John Kerry barnstorms swing states in the election's final days, he has harsh words for President Bush on the Patriot Act: It doesn't go far enough"

Now, this is what I call nuance! Why just pander to one side of an issue when you can double-down on your pandering?

(HT: Kerry Haters)

Here is the final installment of "Misconceptions About Islam"
(Crossposted from LGFWW)


Misconception #5: Muhammad wrote the Qur'an
I don't know if this really matters or was a misconception at all. The author needed to pad out the piece and tossed this in. For the record, Muhammad was reportedly not literate and recited the Qur'an to scribes that wrote it down. He did this after each visit from the Angel Gabriel, who gave him the words of the Sura.

Misconception #6: Islam was spread by the sword
The author points to this as proof:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.[Qur'an 2:256]

Also, because when Muslim rule was forced out of Spain after 800 years, there were still Christians and Jews living among the people, this means they were not converted by the sword.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. [Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294.]

In this context "Jizya" is a kind of tribute or tax, but it also implys that the payer would be a dhimmi. They would be fored to mark their houses and themselves as unbelievers and accepted various conditions on their lives and relationships with Muslims.

Here is a very good paper on the subject.


Misconception #7: Muslims hate Jesus
The Islamic belief centers on Allah being alone in his greatness. The "assigning of partners" to God is the highest of sins in the Muslim world. This is why they reject Christianity; the Christian belief that Jesus is the "Son of God" is blasphemous to a Muslim. Oddly, (to me at least) Islam embraces Jesus as a Prophet. While they honor his life, the Qur'an makes a wild claim that he was not crucified, but Allah placed a double in his place to spare him.

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise; And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;[Qur'an 4:157-159]

Misconception #8: Islam is fatalistic
Again, I am not sure what the author is getting at with this statement. It does seem that the Qur'an has a fatalistic message. The message seems to be that everything is preordained, Allah knows what all your decisions and end results. Allah gives you free will, but if you use it you will suffer a humiliating punishment (Allah is big on humiliation and ridicule). The only way to paradise is to submit all your will to Allah and let him guide you to the right path. Sounds fatalistic to me...

It may be that the author is reacting to is the constant drumbeat of negativity found in the Qur'an. The text is literally loaded with stories of how the unbelievers will be punished and how even believers that do not follow "the path" will be humiliated and tortured. In stark contrast, there are very few verses that refer to the rewards of Islamic life. It is very hard to read because of this, I mean who really wants to hear over and over again how you are going to suffer. It's a real downer.


Misconception #9: The Islamic Threat
Go back and read this one again. Every time I read it I have conflicting emotions ranging from hysterical laughter to intense anger. Regular readers of LGF will laugh as the author tries to claim that "western media" has made the word "Islam" almost synonymous with "terrorism". It is clear the author does not read stories from the AP where Islamic Terrorists are referred to as "militants" or "insurgents". Charles has too many examples of this on a daily basis to count. The author is right on one count, some of the acts of the Islamic Terrorists are explicitly banned in the Qur'an (beheading and mutilation of the dead), but much of the Qur'an is about the conduct of war and incitement to kill the unbelievers.

Don't believe me, read 164 Jihad Verses in the Koran.

Next, the author goes on an incoherent rant about the underreporting of Christian abuses. Again, this is laughable based on the constant reporting of Charles Johnson on LGF.

Next up is the predictable and tired argument based on literal translations of the word jihad. While it is accurate to say that "jihad" should be translated as "struggle", it is not accurate to infer that jihad is a harmless (to outsiders) struggle. The usage of jihad in the former name of Al-Zarqawi's terrorist group "Tawhid and Jihad" (Now al-Qaida of Iraq) clearly debunks any further argument along these lines.

Next is a passing reference to the encouragement the Qur'an gives to liberating a land where Muslims are being oppressed. The problem with this is that to some, Muslims are being oppressed everywhere that Islamic law is not the law of the land. Liberating Muslim lands that have been taken by the infidels include most of Northern Africa, Spain and much of Eastern Europe. The point about colonialism of the West is lost on me, but he makes the point that Saddam Hussein and Moamar Qaddafi are/were not Islamic leaders, but leaders that (in the tradition of The Prophet) used Islam to control the masses.


Wrap up.
Of course, this article wasn't written for me, or the readers of LGF. It was written for the casual observer to find in a Google search or for apologists to point to when faced with an argument. The farther I get in my reading, the more I am convinced that the whole religion was a tool for The Prophet to create and control his empire.

Read this: Stones Cry Out: Dear Mr. President

Nothing to cut out that does justice to the entire piece. It needs to be read in total.

The Latest! has this to say about the liberation of Afghanistan:

Instead, I woke up the next morning to find my President bombing the hell out of a country that had, at most, a fleeting tie with the Saudi Arabians who were piloting the aircraft into the WTC.

[shakes head in disbelief]

God help us.

Have you seen the prices for blogads on Instapundit?

Over a "100-Huge" a year from just one spot? YIKES! This must be the "mad blog money" that Ace (who is down) is always chasing.

It's GOOD to be "da blogfadder".

INDC Bill has an interesting post where he asks Kerry supporters to chime in with reasons. INDC Journal: Bleg for Kerry Supporters

If you are a Kerry supporter (how did you get here?), go on over and make your voice heard.

For my regular reader, go on over and see what they are saying. Remember its a no-flame zone, so be nice.

OK, regular readers of TQP have seen me rant about my former church (The Presbyterian Church USA) being anti-Israel and not having the sense God gave a horse's ass, but now they have gone Completely Freakin' Nuts!

The 24-member delegation traveled to Lebanon on Sunday and met with the south Lebanon commander of Hezbollah

For the love of God, what are these asshats thinking? Meeting with Hezbollah? The same Hezbollah that blows up children for the offense of riding the bus or getting a slice of pizza? The same Hezbollah that promotes Michael Moore's fraud that kills? The same Hezbollah that we should be fighting just as hard as we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq?

What would Jesus do? I am pretty sure he wouldn't be meeting with Hezbollah.

(Hat tip Israpundit via Spoons)

Getting ready to vote? Got your voter checkllist all set? No? Never fear, Ace of Spades HQ has got you covered!

"One box of wine spiked with hospital-grade codeine, just in case your wife or girlfriend tells you she's "leaning towards Barbara Boxer;" yeah, she'll be really pissed off that you drugged her, but then, no one comes off codeine in a bad mood, either"

I think that Ace may have missed a few items. One that comes to mind is:

A nice assortment of French Wines and Cheeses to distract any Kerry voters until the polls close. Be prepared to wither any criticism that the cheese is too runny or the wines are not of a good vintage because these people are experts (especially on the whines).

This on Darfur (via Instapundit)

"'If our men go out, they die. If we go, we are raped. That's the choice.'"
...
We were told that the "Arabs" carried razor blades and sharp knives to cut open the atrophied vaginas of old women before they raped them.

Religion of Peace...

Via protein wisdom

Evidently, transforming yourself into a “human beat box” is no longer considered fly. Nor is using the word “fly,” for that matter.

I wish I were that funny...

There have been a number of reaction to my post Misconceptions About Islam. Most follow the form of The Peoria Pundit, my response is below.


I may have been guilty of painting the whole of Islam with a broad brush in this post, but it is response to the tone of the original article. The original author claims the Islamic world is a wonderful place for women due to laws derived from the Qur’an. I don’t think anyone in the West, especially feminists, would think that pre-9/11 Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia were models for the women’s movement. Islam in the West is restrained by secular governments, just like they do Christianity. Nobody here wants to live in a Theocracy, be it dominated by Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Christianity.

Nowhere do I claim the Christianity is any better. However, in the west, Christianity doesn’t write the laws, police the laws, enforce the laws and dole out the punishment. Nor does the justification for "male domination over females, not to mention polygamy, incest, child abuse, slavery and violent against homosexuals" hold less influence than in the West.

Your female Muslim friends might have a different demeanor if they were constantly monitored for "lewdness" (for which the punishment is imprisonment for life), were made to wear burkas in public and not allowed to leave their homes without a male family member as an escort.

I will, however, admit to the charge you make at the end of your post. I do think that Islam is the root of the problem. If it were not, we would have Islamic allies that sole aim was to reclaim their religion from the extremists that have stolen it from them. Where are these "moderate, modern" Muslims that don’t want to be associated with OBL? They should be beating down out doors...

Any...Minute...Now...

Read some of the statements and sermons of the highest placed leaders of Islam and explain to me how the religion itself, as currently practiced, is not the problem.

Well, if you think about it... Man, you can find so many smart people on the Internet...

Morning Java on the Draft

Jeff has a theory that the above post fit nicely into...

They think that the president is an evil genius and dumb as a bag of hammers, and this inherent contradiction doesn't bother them.

Go read them both!

Here is a fantastic collection of quotes from the donkey party elite and others now opposed to the War in Iraq.

Just one of the quotes that I am glad to publicize:

"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002

Source

Go read the whole collection.

(Hat Tip to LGF)

(Cross posted from LGFWW)

I am referred to this piece very often. Apparently it is well known among the Religion of Peace apologists. I thought it was a ripe target for a good old-fashioned fisking…

"Misconceptions" 1-4 are below. 5-9 will be posted next week.

Misconception #1: Muslims worship a different God
The headline of this one is absolutely true; there is a major misconception among the masses that Islam’s Allah is not the God of Abraham or the Christian God. The Qur’an goes to great lengths to make sure that the Believers understand that there is only one God and that Allah is the God of the other, false, religions.

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). [Qur’an 3:3]

Misconception #2: Muslims worship Muhammad
This too is truly a misconception. Where many (if not most) Christians openly worship Jesus, Muslims all know that Muhammad (The Prophet) was a man chosen by Allah to lead the people. My reading has led me to believe that Muhammad was a leader that used a concocted religion to control his troops. This puts him in the same level as Charles Manson, David Koresh and Jim Jones.

Misconception #3: Islam is a religion only for Arabs
While it is strictly true that Islam is not “only for Arabs”, it has a strong Arab bias. There are many places in the Qur’an that make a point to say that the language of the Qur’an is Arabic.

We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.[Quran 12:2]
Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah.[Qur’an 13:37]
We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.[Qur’an 16:103]

Misconception #4: Islam degrades women
I hate to break it to you, but this is NOT a misconception. I am often completely at a loss for an explanation why any free woman would support Islamic government or become Muslim. The author of this page points to a number of truths about Islam and women and rightly points out that for the 7th century, the treatment of women was far advanced when compared to other cultures. Problem is that this is the 21st century and 7th century norms are no longer acceptable.

A complete list of verses in the Qur’an that denigrate women are too numerous to for this forum. I will just grab a few to make my point.

Women are worth one-half of a man:

Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.[Qur’an 2:282]

A man can have up to 4 wives, a woman can have only 1 husband:

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.[Qur’an 4:3]

Don’t be lewd, if you are a woman:

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.[Qur’an 4:15]

Yikes!

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.[Qur’an 4:34]

More here.

"Misconceptions" 5-9 will come next week!

The Stifties are at it again! This time with two very powerful ads.

SwiftVets.com | The Real Story on John Kerry's Military Service

I am writing this before reading anyone else in order to preserve my thoughts without influence.

The President won and by a large margin. He looked calm, happy to be there and in control of his thoughts and emotions. While he made some solid attacks on Sen. Kerry (D-France), he always seemed positive and upbeat. Conversely, Sen. Kerry was whining about the attacks and repeating the same pre-debunked arguments from the last 3 debates. I just about fell out of my chair when he mentioned Tora Bora for the millionth time.

Right off the bat The President hit a home run touching on the Afgan elections, the story about the first voter being a 19-year-old woman and the nuisance remark by Sen. Kerry in the past week. The President's remark "You pay and he goes and spends" was priceless and timely.

On Jobs, I could swear I heard Sen. Kerry advocate lowering the Corporate tax rate... nah, couldn't have because that might make sense. The President countered with tax relief with hard number examples and the Senate record.

When the Gay Marriage issue came up, I was braced for a bloodletting but The President make a compelling case for his amendment. The case against activist judges is sound. I still oppose the amendment, but he made a really good argument. The best Sen. Kerry could do was to hit below the belt at Vice President Cheney's daughter. He may regret that remark in the days ahead.

On abortion, The President was positive and persuasive. He laid out plans for Adoption (I am a major Adoption supporter), banning partial birth and lowering the number of abortions performed. All in all a very reasonable and not-scary agenda. John Kerry: I am pro-choice, I respect my faith, but the church is wrong.

On health care The President bitch-slapped The Senator from France up and down the stage. Sen. Kerry was reduced to pleading with America that his plan was not a government takeover, which tells me that is most certainly is a government takeover. The President hits with MSAs, market-based reforms and TORT reform as well as a nice slam at cBS.

On Social Security, The President again has his way with Sen. Kerry in the worst way. The Senator wants no changes and claims that The President broke the system after he fixed it in the 1990s. The President sticks to common sense reform ideas and clearly states that there is a problem that will only get worse if it is ignored.

Spoons must have been INSANE when The President ducked the assault weapons ban question. The problem is that Sen. Kerry didn’t make a case.

Did the Senator say "IdeaR" 3 times in his closing statement? Is that supposed to me "folksy"? By the way, did you know he was in Vietnam?

The President closes with a highly Presidential statement.


Overall, The President won all questions except 2 (Assault weapons and the Minimum Wage) which should have been home runs. It was his best performance by far and the worst by Sen. Kerry.

I feel much better now.

UPDATE: Jeff agrees.
Spoons is again out of his mind...
INDC Bill thinks it was a tie.
Dean goes Bush based on Kerry only offering a list of (French) whines.
The Llamas go Bush with a slam at Kos and Ollie!
Smash is in the Bush camp.

Jeff at The Shape of Days gets a question from a reader. In answering it makes many fine points about the difference between us and the terrorists. There is too much goodness to excerpt, go read it for yourself.

For the love of God.

Look here for the full story. Excerpts below.

"The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said."
...
The body of one woman was found still clutching a baby. The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face.
...
"Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick."

This is bad enough, but there is one more punch to the gut:

experienced European investigators were not taking part.

The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.

If there ever was a person that deserved to be put out of our misery, Saddam is that person. I don't care what your position on Capital Punishment is (mine is for extreme cases only), this case is one that merits it. The sooner, the better.

To think there are people that think it was better to leave this monster in power... How sad... for all of us...

Sen. Edwards (D-Bunnies) said:

"I'll tell you what would be good for the economy, would be to outsource George Bush"

Finally Kerry/Edwards gives a clear explanation of their plans! They would outsource the job of President of the United States to France, Russia and Germany via the U.N.

That's not a plan I can get behind...

Hypocrisy. Without a shred of shame...

Today Ollie is miffed over a documentary that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group has scheduled to air. He has his (considerable) undies in a bunch because this "documentary" is not very flattering to Sen. Kerry (D-France).

"Stolen Honor" focuses on Kerry's antiwar testimony to Congress in 1971 and its effect on American POWs in Vietnam. Kerry testified that U.S. forces routinely committed atrocities in Vietnam. The film, produced independently of Sinclair, includes interviews with former POWs who say their Vietnamese captors used Kerry's comments to undercut prisoner morale.

By the links present in the piece, he is advocating that it is a payback for some defense contracts and that his readers should join a boycott of advertisers. Yet, on two different posts he has advertising for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (Here and here).


Surely, there is a condemnation of the plan to bring Mr. Moore's "film" to Pay-per-view on the night before the election on the way... Any Minute Now... and stop calling me Shirley.

In another post, Ollie actually calls someone (other than himself) a Partisan Hack! Pot...Kettle...[whoops can't say that!] Holy Hypocrisy Batman!

Today's required reading is The Shape of Days: Let's get angry: Markos Zuniga writes for The Guardian

"The Bush campaign hasn't marginalized 'angry.' They've marginalized 'fucking insane.'"

Then Jeff gets really good. Go read it all!

Holy Cow! 12.8%?! That is the effective income tax rate of Sen. Kerry (D-France) and his wife Teresa. This from the happy class warrior that want to raise taxes on the top 1% of income earners in the US to "pay for" his spending spree.

The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"

If this isn't enough, look here for a eye opener.

As you may know, here in Massachusetts we have a provision on our state income-tax form that allows all concerned citizens to pay their taxes at a higher rate than is required by law.

It's something you can volunteer to do . . . for the children. For the victims of the Reagan-Bush recession blah-blah-blah. It's a choice each state taxpayer must make on Line 22 - whether to pay at the 5.35 percent rate, set by 2 million mean-spirited voters at the ballot box in 1998, or at the old Dukakis-era 5.85 percent rate.

Sen. Kerry's share at the higher rate? $687. He decided (rightly so) that he would spend it better than the State, problem is that he wants higher taxes for all, except him I guess...

More discussion at INDC Journal.

I am just getting back home. I spent some of last week until tonight in a midwestern swing state and it is sure more interesting than the area where I live. There were signs everywhere you looked for all candidates; I even saw some Libertarian and Green Party signs.

One discussion I had with some locals was very interesting. As a group, these folks were leaning toward Sen Kerry (D-France) because of the promise he made to the camera during the debate not to raise taxes on anyone making under $200,000/year. One gentleman said that he wanted to "get the rich" and another agreed saying that President Bush's tax cut was unfair because of the distribution (parroting Sen.Kerry's/Democrats' party line). I saw that I would not be able to make an argument based on the line of reason used by The President (Taxes hurt job creation etc), so I countered with a simple question. "If I gave you a gun and pointed out a rich man, would you rob him?" The answer was "no, of course not", so I asked them why would they send Sen. Kerry to do their dirty work? There was a number of puzzled looks and then realization...

Simple but effective. Next time you are confronted with the "Tax the Rich" meme, try this simple approach.

Thanks for stopping by TQP!

I am in the middle of a family crisis and have not been able to post. It does not look like it will be much longer before I am back at the keyboard for my regular posting schedule.

To my loyal reader: Thanks for your support.

Charles Johnson says:

Mainstream media is universally spinning the Duelfer Report against George Bush, but the report is far more damaging to John Kerry.

While the other side says:

Duelfer's report renders pre-war statements by President Bush and his senior advisers flat wrong.

Go read Charles, you can forget the cBS News story, the entire thing is wrapped up in the quote I gave...

This is for my homies, with apologies to Issac Hayes...

Who's the President
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?
BUSH!
Ya damn right!

Who is the man that would risk his neck
For his brother man?
BUSH!
Can you dig it?

Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about?
BUSH!
Right On!

They say this cat Bush is a bad mother
SHUT YOUR MOUTH!
I'm talkin' 'bout Bush.
THEN WE CAN DIG IT!

He's a complicated man
But no one understands him but his woman
George Dubya!

Original lyrics here

UPDATE: I have been corrected... The first verse is more properly devoted to Dick Cheney.

Who's the grumpy, mean Veep
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?
DICK!
Ya damn right!

President Bush took off the gloves and let Sen. Kerry (D-France) really have it. I say it's about dam time...

Text: Bush's Speech in Pennsylvania (washingtonpost.com):

As a candidate, my opponent promises to defend America. The problem is that the senator, for two decades, he has built a record of weakness.

The record shows he twice led efforts to gut our intelligence service budgets. The record shows he voted against many of the weapons that won the Cold War and are vital to current military operations. And the record shows he has voted more than 50 times against missile defense systems that would help protect us from the threats of a dangerous world.

The Senator's record is terrible and should be brought in front of the voters. Sen. Edwards (D-Bunnies) said "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.", I have to say he has it backwards...

The debate was won by Vice President Cheney and by a large margin. I doubt anyone's vote changes as a direct result, but Mr. Cheney's performance completely erases any gains by the Senator from France's win last week. At times Sen. Edwards (D-Bunnies) was out of his league and failed to show the skills at litigation that earned him enough money to buy a Senate seat (money from your pockets BTW). He had nothing new to say, while Mr. Cheney effectively (although dryly) re-inserted a number of attack points that the Kerry/Edwards camp has no counter.

Every time Senator Kerry's voting record is mentioned is a plus for the Bush Campaign. Every time Halliburton is mentioned, it adds to the support of people that would vote for Sen. Kerry anyway and alienates the undecided voters. Every time Kerry/Edwards repeats already debunked claims about Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran, the worse they look.

I love it when the full debunk of the talking points is already done before the debate starts.

Bottom line: Kerry's Senate record is fully in play and the Dems are out of ammo on foreign policy.

Post debate discussion's best line goes to Brit Hume:

"The grumpy and mean caucus needs a representative"

UPDATE: Spoons has lost his mind, IMHO.

UPDATE II: Allah links from the "linkfest of love". Many thanks, O Creator of Worlds!

UPDATE III: Did someone say "Halliburton"?

From a very interesting MEMRI Translation:

The former Dean of the Faculty of Religious Fundamentals at Al-Azhar, Dr. Abd Al-Mu'ti Bayyoumi, explained: "Islamic law states that it is forbidden to kill civilians who are distant from the area of fighting, who are not participating in military operations, and who have nothing to do with the occupation of lands. However, civilians who take part in military operations, whether it be supplying food or giving medical treatment to the fighters, their legal status is that of fighters who are attacking land, honor, and property, and therefore there is no prohibition in Islam against killing them."

A lecturer at Al-Azhar University, Dr. Salih Zaydan, added: "Whoever cooperates with the fighters who attack the land of Muslims, like the American civilians who are aiding the military in Iraq, becomes through his actions a fighter himself. Muslims are permitted to fight against such people and to kill them so as to defend land, honor, and property, and thus there is no prohibition against killing them."

(bold inserted)

Here is a really big opportunity for the mythical "moderate Muslims" to stand up and cry out that this is wrong. The "peaceful Muslims" have the most to lose from statements like this because current actions are directed against the terrorists and not Islam as a whole. Statements like this make it plain that anyone seen as helping either side is fair game.

"Moderates", do you really want your leaders to declare civilians as open targets?

(Hat Tip: Allah)

Welcome to the new digs!

If you are here, you have successfully avoided the network goblins and bypassed the "Vast Left-Wing MSM conspiracy"!

This should be much more reliable than blogspot and allow me to post bigger and better pictures when available.

If you have questions or problems, please email or the old address here.

As the left crows about a "Kerry victory" in the debates, more of his arguments are proven to be false or have blown up in his face.

Jeff Harrell has the goods on 2 major arguments the Sen. Kerry (D-France) used that are now shown to be unreasonable.

Things aren't looking too good for Senator Kerry in the wake of last week's debate. First China explicitly — and preemptively — rejected his plan for bilateral talks between the United States and the DPRK, and now Tehran has rejected his proposal to give nuclear fuel to the Islamic Republic.

Add to this the severe bitch-slap that Citizen Smash gave the "Should have gotten OBL at Tora Bora" argument and it all adds up to another massive Kerry mistake.

If you need further debate losses for Sen. Kerry, see BeldarBlog for an excellent point about Kerry as a negotiator that is well worth checking out.

Attention someone/anyone in the Kerry camp! You need to check with your off-shore backers before making stupid claims about how your guy would be able to unite the world. If you can't get China and Iran on your side against President Bush, maybe you should give up...

Right Reason has done some investigation into GDP and defense spending of Sen. Kerry's (D-France) allies. The results and undeniable conclusion is right here.

So tell me, out of France, Germany, Brazil, Spain, or Canada (total defense budget: $110.3 billion, less than 1/3 of US defense spending), which ones would have to join before it would be a real alliance?

I think that Sen. Kerry is thinking of France. It seems that to many on the (hawkish?) Left, France being on board is the only way to be "legitimate". Apollo's reasoning doesn't much matter to the hard Left, though it might have some traction with the undecided group.

Nice work! I hope that the Instalance gets this info into as many heads and hands as possible. Of course, the Instalance is nothing compared to the mighty QP-Lanche!

Please read the whole thing.

(via Instapundit)

As hard as it is to believe, I am #3 on Google for the term "kathryn-kramer israel" and #2 for "authoritatrian theory of newspaper".

How weird...

Spoons has an interesting take on the Libyan call for sweeping changes in the UN.

The U.N. is worse than useless. It's dangerous, counterproductive, and evil. It would be wrong to call it antiquated, because that would imply that there was a time when the U.N. served a valuable purpose. There never was such a time.

Then, he gets mean!

I don't know if I would support these changes. I completely agree that the UN is useless, anti-American, and downright silly. Sudan is on the "Human Rights Committee", that is comedy gold right there. Anything that would bring down the UN in the long run is in US interests, but not something that would set the UN free to evangelize anti-Americanism and communism without some type of check. The US Veto power at least keeps them closer to being honest.

Imagine a John Kerry win combined with the loss of the UN Veto. We would be all speaking French and the call to prayer would be heard 5 times a day in all American cities before we could even impeach his bony ass.

One thought occurs to me about what Sen. Kerry (D-France) said last night about the battle of Tora Bora.

Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

My immediate reaction was how dishonest this remark was. The statement suggests that Sen. Kerry would have ordered an all out assault on the region using US Troops. Everyone knows how foolhardy that would have been. OBL would have still escaped into Pakistan and we would have taken thousands of causalities. Consider the cry of "over 1,000 killed in Iraq" (A very, very low number, thank God) that the Senator's supporters are so fond; what would the Senator say today if The President would have ordered that assault? Impeachment? I might have supported it...

It turns out that this mythical assault could not have happened even if The President would have been foolish enough to order it. Citizen Smash should know.

The only US military on the ground at Tora Bora was a contingent of about two dozen Special Forces who were airlifted in to the area on December 2. Their mission was to coordinate the ground attack and to “laze” targets for US bombers. There is no way that these men could have taken Tora Bora without assistance – And the Marines in Kandahar already had their hands full.

So, we are to believe the Senator from France would have ordered a foolish assault with troops that didn't exist in theater and somehow would have captured OBL in Tora Bora. If he could have somehow marshaled enough troops to make the assault, the causalities would have been unacceptable, even to his own constituents.

Thank God George W. Bush was President. May he enjoy a peaceful second term!