Arik, Melech Yisrael!

Faster than you can say "Howitzer barrage", my prediction has come true:

Hamas says it will stop attacks from Gaza
Israel arrests 206 terror suspects in West Bank

Sunday, September 25, 2005; Posted: 8:10 p.m. EDT (00:10 GMT)


An Israeli artillery piece fires a test round Sunday, just outside Gaza.
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- The militant group Hamas announced Sunday it will stop attacks against Israelis from Gaza, after three days of violence that threatened fragile efforts toward peace between Israel and Palestinians

While my prediction did include the Israeli tactical response, I certainly didn't expect Hamas to realize how utterly fucked they were. Credit to Hamas for not being as suicidal as they claim to be. Like I said, as a Jew, I regret that Gaza is in Arab hands. But as a supporter of Israel, I think that leaving Gaza was a brilliant tactical move. And this explains why. On the same day that the IDF took out a Hamas leader in Gaza with an airstrike, Hamas backed down and agreed to stop attacking Israel. That's a highly atypical response from Hamas, as they generally would have been declaring war on Israel in the wake of such an event.

Ariel Sharon, Melech Yisrael!

Let the streets of Gaza flow with the blood of Arabs (and a return of Dianne Feinstein's Ignorant Cunt)

As I predicted in this post, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza made possible something that wasn't a realistic option before: massive artillery strikes into Gaza to punish Palestinian Arab attacks on Israel. As I said in my original post, prior to the withdrawal, if Sharon is thinking as I think, the withdrawal from Gaza opens up a range of tactical responses to terror that would have a devastating effect on the Palestinian Arab filth. Well, this story today confirms that my prediction was on the money:

Israel also set up five artillery cannons elsewhere on the border, an unprecedented step.

Past Israeli retaliation for Palestinian rocket fire has involved airstrikes or ground incursions. Artillery fire is less precise than missiles, and artillery shells fired into densely populated Gaza could cause many casualties.

And there you have it, dear reader. That bold text was my prediction. Artillery. "Unprecedented". Yes indeed. The real import of the withdrawal from Gaza. If Sharon follows through on this threat and pounds Gaza (like Affepundit would like to pound Dianne Feinstein's ignorant cunt) with massive artillery bombardments, a new era will begin. The balance of power will shift from the Palestinian Arabs, who were able to launch attacks and retreat to areas that Israel wouldn't destroy, to the Israelis, who will now turn Gaza into what I predicted, a killing field. After a few instances of this, the Palestinians will realize that their "victory" in Gaza was really just a prelude to their utter marginalization.

I take comfort in this part of the story, in particular:

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told security chiefs in a meeting that "the ground of Gaza should shake" and that he wanted to exact a high price from Palestinians everywhere, not just Hamas. He promised a "crushing" response, including airstrikes, targeted killings and arrest raids, participants said afterward.

On Saturday evening, Sharon convened his Security Cabinet, a group of senior ministers, to approve a series of military operations proposed by Mofaz, culminating with a ground incursion into Gaza.

Security officials said the operation, to be called "First Rain," would begin with artillery fire, more airstrikes and other targeted attacks. The operation will grow in intensity, leading up to a ground operation unless the Palestinian security takes action to halt the rocket attacks or Hamas ends the attacks itself.

This is the way it should be. Without the settlements and troops in Gaza, there is now no impediment to an overwhelming response. It's the way things should be. The Palestinian Arabs are in control of their destiny. If they want to live in peace, they will stop the terrorist attacks. If, however, they want to wage war on Israel, they will no longer benefit from an asymmetrical positioning. Now that Gaza is 100% Palestinian Arab, there will be no place to hide and no area that is safe from Israeli artillery and airstrikes.

Personally, I hope the Palestinians continue to be as stupid as they've always been and that they don't learn the lesson. There's nothing I'd like to see more than Gaza turned into the final battlefield and millions of Palestinian corpses making that part of the desert bloom.

Journalist, Heal Thyself

What would be the analog to a tax increase for a corporation? I'd guess that it would have something to do with a price increase for the product or service being offered. The reason I ask is that the New York Times Co. announced today that it was terminating 500 employees due to poor financial performance of the Times. It made me think...the Times is always screaming about President Bush's tax cuts and tries to turn every issue into a justification for a tax increase. Just yesterday, the editors of the NY Times called for a tax increase to pay for Hurricane Katrina related costs. This is what the Times' editors said, in part:

They have it exactly backward. The tax-cutting agenda is breaking the bank for our descendants, while impairing our ability to borrow responsibly today. Every dollar that is saved by letting the tax cuts expire as scheduled is one less dollar the nation will need to borrow for Katrina.

A day after his speech from New Orleans, Mr. Bush ruled out tax increases to help pay for Katrina. That's unrealistic. And in any event, letting temporary tax cuts expire on schedule is not a tax increase. It's the law of the land, which Congress wants to change. Now that Mr. Bush has ruled out new tax increases, he should also tell Congress to rule out new tax cuts for the rich. Taking responsibility for the response to Katrina means taking fiscal responsibility as well.

What they are saying, I think, is that given a choice between a decrease in spending and an increase in taxes, the former is wrong and the latter is right. In fact, other than military spending, the Times always demands that government spending not be decreased. I think we can all be safe in assuming that of the 500 people who lose their jobs at the Times, most will be mid or low level employees. The "rich" at the Times (upper management) will not be affected. Hmmm. Seems like they aren't very good at leading by example, are they?

So, what have we here. Does the Times follow its own advice? If they were to do so, they would be increasing the price of advertising on Times' properties and increasing the cost of the papers. Is that what they're doing? Nope. They did institute a new policy wherein opinion columns will no longer be provided for free at the NYTimes.com website, but virtually everyone agrees that the primary effect of that will be to reduce the readership of the opinion writers. No, the Times is not increasing prices (or charging for access to the website).

Why didn't the Times increase prices? The same reason why President Bush didn't increase taxes. Because increased prices result in decreased demand and lower revenue.

And lower revenue is not the way to improve profitability, whether you're a private media company or the United States Government.

Looking back at 9/11/01, three years and 364 days later

Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of the Islamic terror attacks on the United States and I have a few observations. The first is that I used "on the United States" rather than "on New York and Washington, D.C." on purpose. The Islamic world attacked the entire United States on 9/11/01, not just NY and DC. Some people in the US still don't realize this and I don't like the limiting factor of naming the cities only in discussing 9/11.

Second, and this is probably my only other point, there's one thing that makes me think that we may not be able to win the war that the Islamic world started. The likes of Cindy Sheehan and others, such as some family members of Americans who were captured and murdered by Islamic terrorists in Iraq, are the root of my concern. As much as I despise most of the Islamic world, in particular Palestinians, I give them credit for not being afraid of a fight. Have you ever seen a protest in Gaza or the West Bank after a Palestinian terrorist is killed where the people call for capitulation to Israel? When one of them dies, they are ready to send more of their own to battle. Granted, they're fighting for evil, but they are ready to sacrifice and fight for the duration.

We, on the other hand, if you're to believe the media, are ready to give up and run away every time we suffer a casualty. Recently, and I can't remember whether it was in connection with the downing of the Navy Seals' helicopter or some other American casualty event, the father of one of the American dead got on tv and went apeshit, calling for the withdrawal of US forces from all Islamic areas and the typical left wing nonsense that you read in the liberal media and hear from the defeatists like MoveOn or Michael Moore. The next day, one of al Qaeda's top leaders released a tape...the speaker was an older guy, probably al-Zawahiri, standing there with an AK47 and speaking forcefully and without equivocation about their commitment to fighting the west.

I thought about this for a bit and found that it said more than I wanted to hear. They, and all of them, from young to old, are willing to fight and die to defeat us. They don't hesitate to die, actually. We, if you are to believe our media, are afraid of the fight. We are afraid of offending the sensibilities of the world (see, e.g., the way that a lap dance becomes the worst torture the New York Times ever imagined) and we certainly are afraid of making the sacrifices it takes to win a war.

I guess the liberals in America really are as simple minded and delusional as they appear. They didn't think 9/11 could happen, they wanted to excuse those who were behind it almost immediately afterwards and now, that the war is being fought, that can't imagine that blood is going to be spilled and nasty things are going to be done to fight evil. It's as if they thought that hijacking civilian aircraft and flying them into office buildings was the work of an enemy that must be treated with more respect than any other enemy. The logic escapes me. And now that we are being led by a President who is willing to make the sacrifices it takes to win a war, those with the loudest voices in this country (the media and the hysterical liberals with access to the media)are enraged that we'd actually fight back with as much determination as our enemies. So they, the liberals and the media they control, do everything that can to undermine our cause, to dwell on anything negative coming from our efforts while ignoring the utter evil that we confront in the enemy and to sow the seeds of weakness that will lead to our capitulation.

I look back four years at the rage I felt that morning of 9/11/01 and wonder which America really is going to emerge from this. Will it be the weak, defeated America that the liberals and media want or will it be the strong America that our President and our brave soldiers (including my brother, who has spent the better part of the past four years overseas fighting this war) represent?

If one were to walk down the streets of San Francisco or read the New York Times exclusively, it would be the former. I know that the latter represents the majority of America but I fear that over time, the combination of our enemies' persistence in fighting us and the persistence of our own media and many of our own people in supporting the enemy and undermining our cause may prevail.

As the fight continues, I have to conclude that what I see in San Francisco doesn't represent America. I hope this is true and I also hope that if there is to be another attack on America, that it be against San Francisco. As I said in the opening of this post, I think that for too many of those Americans who have become supporters of the enemy, 9/11 was something that happened to New York and DC, not to them as Americans. It may take something worse than 9/11 to happen to San Francisco before the quislings of the left have the same commitment to fight as the Islamic terrorists have.

I hate to yell, but

HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU LIBERALS? My lord, does LOGIC mean anything to you idiots? Have you ever seen a bad argument that you didn't like? Have you ever considered that what you WANT isn't always what you can HAVE?

What I'm talking about is the reaction to Governor Schwarzenegger's veto of the recent bill approved by the California Legislature. Here's the situation: In 2000, the voters of California, by an overwhelming vote of 61+%, approved Proposition 22, an initiative that provided that marriage was for a man and woman only (I'm simplifying the actual text). The constitutionality of Proposition 22 is being challenged in court now, but no decision has been rendered. In California, the legislature is not allowed to overturn laws created by voter initiatives.

So it should be obvious that the Legislature's bill was idiotic, illegal and inappropriate. The proper way for this to work is for the court to decide whether Proposition 22 is constitutional. If it is, then it stands and the Legislature can't try to legalize gay marriage. If it isn't, the Legislature is free to legalize gay marriage. But until the court decides on Proposition 22, nothing can be done. Very simple.

Very simple indeed, unless you're a FUCKING RETARDED LIBERAL. The libtards think that they can get around the law by getting enough people to repeat their newest idiotic slogan, "2000 was a long time ago and people's views have changed." That's supposed to mean that Proposition 22 is no longer valid. I'm serious, this is their argument. Our old libtard friend, midlifeinmarin, the champion of left wing slogans, has repeated this slogan several times already. And, of course, none other than the ringleader of the moronic left, the NY Times editorial page, has pushed this idiotic line of reasoning:

He relies on a fig leaf: five years ago, Californians voted overwhelmingly for a ballot measure that recognized only heterosexual marriages as valid. A statement by the governor's press office declared, "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."

That ignores the fact that five years is an eternity in the fast-moving arena of gay rights. Even though 61 percent of the voters approved the ballot measure, recent polls show that the electorate is now evenly split, with Democrats and independents favoring same-sex marriage and Republicans strongly opposed. The Legislature is hardly a renegade body if it roughly mirrors popular opinion.

This is classic NY Times sloganeering. They call the California Constitution a "fig leaf" and, instead, imply that because Democrats support legalizing gay marriage, that's more important than the law. HUH? Read what they wrote, above. They don't deny that the California Constitution prevents the Legislature from overturning voter approved laws. They don't deny that the voter approved law had an overwhelming 61+% vote in favor. Instead, they say that because a few years have passed since the vote, the law should be ignored. Wow. Yep, throw out that several hundred year old constitution and all federal laws too...my lord, not only is that stuff old, the people who approved it are all dead! Why should we follow that nonsense anymore?

I guess the NY Times and their fellow libtards don't care that one of the most important things about law is it's predictability. No, they want law to change with the whims of the people. Not all people, of course. Just the people they agree with. And the best part? Even the most favorable (to the Times' position) poll has voters split on the question of gay marriages. Last I checked, it only took a fraction over 50% to pass a law. So at the very worst, even if we were to accept this newly created rule that a law has to be resubmitted when polls show the public's opinion changing (really, where do these FUCKING IDIOT LIBERALS GET THIS SHIT FROM?), PROPOSITION 22 WOULD STILL BE LAW.

I wonder if the Times would be so willing to ignore Constitutional protections if a majority of people in California supported slavery or outlawing affirmative action or allowing summary execution of liberals....

I hope I can say "I was right".

About a month ago, I wrote this:

At present, because of the presence of the Israeli military and citizens in Gaza, any military operation has to be precise and limited in scope, else damage be inflicted on friendly forces. Once Israel is out of Gaza, that limitation ceases to exist.

Gaza has the ocean on one side, unpopulated areas of Israel on two other sides and the Sinai desert on the third side. There really isn't anywhere to run from Gaza and there's very little to harm if devastating military action is employed in an indiscriminate fashion.

In case it isn't clear by now, what I imagine Gaza becoming is a killing field. Once all Israeli interests are out of Gaza, Israel will be free (subject, of course, to diplomatic issues) to use the exact opposite of a surgical strike on Gaza. Rather than have to send in men, Israel will be able to employ artillery and air and sea based munitions. I don't think this is going to happen upon harassing action by Palestinian Arab terrorists (e.g., a few mortars lobbed over the border), but it will happen when the Palestinian Arabs mount a serious attack on Israel from Gaza.

Today,on the eve of the completion of the withdrawal from Gaza, the chief of Israeli military operations, Major General Yisrael Ziv, said this about how Israel will deal with any Palestinian attacks from Gaza:

"An hour after we leave the field, there will be a strategic change ... in the nature of our response to even an attempt at terror. We shall have a far more extreme reaction to any attempt."

Close enough to what I predicted, I hope it happens. If it does, the withdrawal from Gaza will have been a very wise strategic move.

A Message to the Chickenshits

A message to the Chickenshits: Stop bitching, stop pointing fingers, get your protesting asses to New Orleans and other affected areas and get to work.

What is a Chickenshit? A Chickenshit is the left wing equivalent of a Chickenhawk, which, of course, is the term the left uses for those Americans who support the war but are not in the military.

So, I say, if you leftists can dismiss the arguments of those who support the war by saying "you should be volunteering for the war if you support it so much" I say to you, you fucking maggots should be heading to the storm areas rather than whining about Bush being behind this. For those of you who scream that Bush is somehow anti-black because a hurricane hit New Orleans and the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana refused to heed the President's advice to use those empty school buses to evacuate, I say: Shut up and go help out those blacks who you claim to care so much about.

And for Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton, I say you should get your lazy black asses to New Orleans and tell your people to stop looting (which perpetuates the stereotypes) and destroying what little is left of the city. Where are all of those black activi$ts now?

If anything, this shows the hypocrisy of the left and the negro race baiters, that they care more about using tragedy for political gain than in helping out their own people.

As the Mayor of New Orleans said, in another context, get off your asses and do something. Stop getting hysterical about government plots. You people are fucking psychotic. Listening to you libtards would lead one to believe that Karl Rove has invented a hurricane that is attracted only to black areas. Really, people, stop being so self loathing, stop trying to find a way to turn every bit of misery in the world into a political hatchet and start doing something to help out.

Fucking hypocrite Chickenshits.