The Zhid's Bold 2006 Predictions

At the risk of falling further into the "derivative hack" category, here are my 2006 predictions.

1. I will continue to waste a lot of time thinking and talking about buying either a new, expensive Santa Cruz or Ellsworth mountain bike or a new rifle (Springfield M21 or a custom built .338 Lapua). Affe will bear the brunt of hearing about this.
2. Someone at a major media outlet will figure out that there's no connection between President Bush and hurricanes, snowstorms, rain, earthquakes or other natural occurrences. That someone will be shot in the back of the head and left in a Washington DC park by Hillary Clinton. The NY Times will refuse to cover the story.
3. The stock market will go down. Then it will go up. Not in that order.
4. There will be a slew of Brokeback Mountain imitators, only America will not be as interested in movies about gay plumbers or accountants. When the imitators flop, there will be allegations of homophobia.
5. We won't run out of oil. We will run out of good scotch.
6. A California study will show, conclusively, that violent movies, music and video games have a much stronger correlation to violence than firearms availability does. As a response, California will ban the few firearms that were still legally available as the entertainment industry claims a first amendment right to sell their products without regulation.
7. Diane Feinstein's Ignorant Cunt will post lewd comments about tuna on this site.
8. Instapundit will continue to ignore this site.
9. Many people in Saudi Arabia and Iran who find the Vengeful Zhid while doing an image search for "cunt" will be flogged for looking at Zionist pornography. The victims will respond that they saw no pornography at Vengeful Zhid. The Islamic courts will determine that because she's a cunt, any image of Diane Feinstein is Zionist pornography.
10. Lt. Col. Oliver North will return to active duty to lead a mission on 25 December 2006 to intercept a disguised Osama bin Laden during an attempted terrorist attack. I even have a picture of the disguise:

Happy New Year to all who I agree with or who agree with me. To the rest of you, you're on your own.

Nachon!

What I predicted on August 7, 2005 regarding Israeli's withdrawal from Gaza:

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.

While this is a simplistic version of what I expect, it will go something like this...Israeli tanks and artillery will be moved into position outside of the borders of Gaza, in the area west of
Ofaqim and south of Ashkelon. Israeli naval forces will be positioned off the coast of Gaza. Fixed
and rotary wing aircraft will be sent to cover Gaza's airspace. And at that right time, the entirety of Gaza will be the focus of an awe inspiring bombardment. It will be similar in effect to the bombing of Dresden.

And what has actually happened:

Israeli artillery batteries and warplanes continued to bombard the northern
Gaza Strip after a deadline expired for Palestinians to evacuate a new security
zone which is intended to stop rocket attacks, a military spokeswoman
said.

Israel's unilateral decision to impose a "no-go zone" in the far north
of the Palestinian territory comes as part of a concerted drive to thwart
repeated militant rocket attacks launched from northern Gaza into southern
Israel.

Like I said, withdrawing from Gaza opened up a world of tactical options. This doesn't solve the problem overnight, but it illustrates the problem now facing the Palestinians. They can only provoke Israel so much before Gaza will be bombarded.

Spies like us

In the past week or so, the media, led by the NY Times, have been heavily focused on the NSA eavesdropping story and the Presidential orders relating to the "domestic spying" activities. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the legality of what the NSA or other government agencies did, upon Presidential order (other than to point out that when I was in college (early 80s), a good friend's father, who had a PhD in math, worked at the NSA developing programs that were used to analyze intercepted communications, and it sounds a lot like what is going on today, so the outrage over this is curious), but I will note that even the NY Times had to admit that the "spying" didn't violate any laws.

What I will get into is the concern that the media (especially the Times, which broke the story and continue to cover it extensively) have regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence and how it allegedly violates individual rights to privacy.

As I understand the program, only selected communications were intercepted, ones that had a connection to someone suspected of ties to terrorism. It wasn't a program where all communications were collected and run through a program to find anything that may be of interest.

In other words, before any of these warrantless searches could be made, there had to be a tangible connection between the target and known terrorist operators. To me, that sounds like it was designed to satisfy the conditions enumerated by this phrase:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

That's from the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. It seems reasonable to me to monitor the communications of someone communicating with terrorists.

But to the media, even though warrantless searches are nothing new for Presidents, the fact that they were and are focusing on Islamic terrorists seems to have hit a nerve.

On the one hand, the liberal media hate the war on terror, think it is misguided and based on lies, fault the intelligence that led to the war and insist that we could have fought against terror by having had better prevention activities rather than prosecuting a war.

On the other hand, they think it's outrageous that we'd have an intelligence effort in effect that is designed to do exactly what they claim we didn't do well enough before 9/11, i.e., intercept the communications leading up to the terror attacks in an attempt to prevent them.

I don't get it.

How do you get good intelligence if you don't engage in activities like warrantless searches focused on people communicating with terrorists? Even the Times admits that, though they ran the story, there wasn't a violation of constitutional rights inv0lved.

The disdain and outrage seems to be based on the misguided notion that there is an absolute right to privacy granted under the Constitution. Read the Constitution and while you'll find a right to own firerams, you won't see a right to privacy. There isn't one.

The Times is trying to shock its readers, especially those who don't have any background in law, with a story about the big bad Bush administration spying on individuals and violating a right that doesn't exist.

I find this concern interesting, since it is the Times and the liberal media (and political establishment) that are so quick to suspend constitutional rights when it suits their agenda.

Take "assault weapons" as an example. Even though the same Constitution that they hold up as a guarantee of privacy rights to kill a baby or plot to launch a terrorist attack has a provision that goes one step beyond this unwritten privacy right and affirmatively states that there is a right to keep and bear arms, they (liberal media, politicians) seem to ignore all of those concerns about privacy and the constitution.

Why?

Because, as was shown in my prior post about San Francisco's recent election (which resulted in a total ban on firearms), infringing individual rights, as long as the right relates to guns, is justified if you can prevent even one violent act.

This is where it gets confusing, so I'm going to try to simplify matters with a little list starting with the legal basis of the right and then a summary of how the left sees the right:

Abortion: No constitutional provision providing a right to abortion, just the general principal of privacy (also not in the constitution). According to the left, anything that inhibits this "right" should be struck down.

Communications: Constitutional requirement of a reason for the search and seizure and warrant, at times. According to the left, if the reason for the search is to prevent terrorism, out of thin air there is now an absolute right to privacy and a warrant must be had.

Firearms: Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." According to the left, this is not really a right, even though it is plainly written as a right, and a total elimination of the right is justified.

I just don't see the logic there. If there is an unwritten right to privacy that allows you to kill a baby and conspire with terrorists, how can that unwritten right, especially in combination with the enumerated Constitutional right, be so easily ignored when it comes to firearms?

And here's the part that ties it all together for me. This was a NY Times editorial from March 9, 2005:

Terror Suspects' Right to Bear Arms

(NYT) 362 words

Published: March 9, 2005

The good news for Americans concerned about post-9/11 preparedness is that 58 potential gun buyers were flagged in a nine-month period last year as positive matches on a federal watch list of terrorism suspects. The bad news is that 47 of them were cleared to go ahead anyway and buy assault rifles, ammunition or whatever else was on their firearms shopping list. Federal agents could only watch as the crazy quilt of loopholes that passes for gun control in this country enabled dozens of suspects to stock their personal or group armories.

Welcome to the new world of homeland security, where all the national resolve to be alert is clearly butting into the citizenry's near-almighty right to bear arms.

Warnings about terror suspects' easy access to combat rifles grew after 9/11 when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a gun rights zealot who was attorney general at the time, had blocked federal agents from matching gun-purchase records against the growing list of thousands of terror suspects. The privacy rights of innocent gun purchasers were deemed paramount in the national emergency. The policy was theoretically reversed, but federal agents complain that they are still stymied by laws and officials dedicated to the most extreme agenda of the gun lobby.

The alarming ease with which terror suspects can buy high-powered weapons on Main Street was disclosed by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. This is an irony in itself since the Republican-controlled Congress declined last year to renew the 10-year-old assault rifle ban, which had helped keep battlefield weapons out of the hands of mayhem-minded citizens.

The study was requested by Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who is proposing to keep the gun-purchase records of terror suspects on hand for at least 10 years. Currently, purchase records must be destroyed within 24 hours -- another victory for the gun lobby that was obsequiously enacted last year by Congress.

Look at the passage above in bold. Here, the Times scoffs at privacy rights, implying that they should be suspended in the quest for national security. The entire editorial argues that the constitutional right to own firearms should be ignored if there's even a remote possibility that the suspension could assist in the prevention of terrorism. Notice that they don't provide any statistics about firearms use by terrorists operating against the United States. Why? Because terrorists haven't been using firerams against us. They've been using commercial airliners or explosives. Even with that glaring omissions, the Times' position would be fine if the Times was consistent with their belief in the supremacy of terror prevention.

They're not. Read this editorial from December 18, 2005 and notice how important the Constitution and the unwritten right to privacy becomes...

This Call May Be Monitored (NYT)

904 words

Published: December 18, 2005

On Oct. 17, 2002, the head of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden,
made an eloquent plea to a joint House-Senate inquiry on intelligence for a sober national discussion about whether the line between liberty and security should be shifted after the 9/11 attacks, and if so, precisely how far. He reminded the lawmakers that the rules against his agency's spying on Americans, carefully written decades earlier, were based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights. If they were to be changed, General Hayden said, ''We
need to get it right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberty.'' General Hayden spoke of having a ''national dialogue'' and added: ''What I really need you to do is talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be.''

General Hayden was right. The mass murders of 9/11 revealed deadly gaps in United States intelligence that needed to be closed. Most of those involved failure of performance, not legal barriers. Nevertheless, Americans expected some reasonable and carefully measured
trade-offs between security and civil liberties. They trusted their elected leaders to follow long-established democratic and legal principles and to make any changes in the light of day. But President Bush had other ideas. He secretly and recklessly expanded the government's powers in dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also have violated the law.

In Friday's Times, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau reported that sometime in 2002,
President Bush signed a secret executive order scrapping a painfully reached, 25-year-old national consensus: spying on Americans by their government should generally be prohibited, and when it is allowed, it should be regulated and supervised by the courts. The laws and executive orders governing electronic eavesdropping by the intelligence agency were specifically devised to uphold the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. But Mr. Bush secretly decided that he was going to allow the agency to spy on
American citizens without obtaining a warrant -- just as he had earlier decided to scrap the Geneva Conventions, American law and Army regulations when it came to handling prisoners in the war on terror. Indeed, the same Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who helped write the twisted memo on legalizing torture, wrote briefs supporting the idea that the president could ignore the law once again when it came to the intelligence agency's eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mail messages. ''The government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties,'' he wrote.

Let's be clear about this: illegal government spying on Americans is a violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or not. Nobody with a real regard for the rule of law and the Constitution would have difficulty seeing that. The law governing the National Security Agency was written after the Vietnam War because the government had made lists of people it considered national security threats and spied on them. All the same empty points about effective intelligence gathering were offered then, just as they are now, and the Congress, the courts and the American people rejected them.

This particular end run around civil liberties is also unnecessary. The intelligence agency already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests. The special court can act
in hours, but administration officials say that they sometimes need to start monitoring large batches of telephone numbers even faster than that, and that those numbers might include some of American citizens. That is supposed to justify Mr. Bush's order, and that is nonsense. The existing law already recognizes that American citizens' communications may be intercepted by chance. It says that those records may be retained and used if they amount to actual
foreign intelligence or counterintelligence material. Otherwise, they must be
thrown out.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, would neither confirm nor deny the Times article. Instead, he talked about President Bush's urgent mission to protect Americans and assured everyone that Mr. Bush was following the law. This White House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security threats that it has lost all credibility on that front.
Worse, we have learned the hard way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of the law, much less respect them. Mr. Bush should retract and renounce his secret directive and halt any illegal spying, or Congress should find a way to force him to do it. Perhaps the Congressional leaders who were told about the program could get the ball rolling.

If someone can explain to me why they mocked the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the first editorial and went so far as to argue that individual rights should be suspended when the security of the nation is at stake, yet in the second editorial argued that individual rights should never be infringed, even if it means that our efforts to prevent terrorism will be harmed, please do so.

As it is, I see a big fat double standard.

A big fat dangerous double standard that seems to be designed to empower terrorists and strip individuals of the right to defend themselves.

Barbara Walters, The Light Unto Nations

If you lived in a place where the women were covered in sackcloth and otherwise untouchable, all the fun things in life (like drinking and South Park) were off limits and you shared a hovel with an extended family, and someone promised you that you could have a life of fucking really hot, slutty women in a palace as you were waited on hand, foot and penis, would you accept the offer? Sure you would.

Now we understand why there is Islamic terror, thanks to the New York Times and Barbara Walters...

Today's NY Times runs an article titled "What to Expect When Expecting Heaven." It's a review of a television show hosted by Barbara Walters that explains, finally, what the afterlife is all about. Who would have thought that those two would combine to answer the eternal question.

Here's the part that really opened my eyes...

There's no contest. Of all the major religions, the Muslims have the most
graphic view of heaven. It's refreshing, in fact. They don't mess around
invoking vague spaces of peace and light; they come through with Relais et
Chateaux specifics. One imam tells Barbara Walters on her ABC special tonight:
"We will be in comfortable homes, reclining on silk couches. We will have people
coming - servants, lovely servants, young youths to regale you, Barbara.
Residing in gardens beyond which rivers flow."

Yes - to cut to the chase
- there will be virgins, too. Even for women. (Barbara's "youths.") And why not?
So says Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, who quarrels only with the widespread
misconception that Islamic martyrs get 72 virgins. Seventy-two, he says, is just
an Arabic expression for "countless."

Thanks for that clarification, Imam Rauf...I didn't realize that there wouldn't be ONLY 72 virgins...how foolish of us to take it literally.

We shouldn't expect 72 virgins if we die as good muslims.

Don't be stupid.

We should expect COUNTLESS virgins! And gardens! And servants! And nice houses with silk couches! Far better than the shithole that the typical Islamic terrorist enjoys on Earth.

This is what we have to understand: Islamic terrorists aren't really interested in piety. They're interested in getting some trim and kicking back in a big house. They want to be rap stars. Only, in Islam, there is no decadent music to get you these things. There's only some lunatic like Zarqawi or bin Laden who will act as your agent.

The Times, with an apparently straight typeface, doesn't even stop for a moment to point out that no other religion deludes its followers into thinking that there is a tangible "heaven." I'm a fairly religious Jew, I believe in G-d, and I hope there is some sort of afterlife, BUT I SURE AS SHIT DON'T BELIEVE THAT I WILL HAVE A PHYSICAL FORM IN IT.

I don't believe I'll have a dick that I can stick in some coochie.

I don't believe there will be palaces.

I don't believe I'm going to be FIFTY CENT AFTER I DIE.

As a result, I don't look for opportunities to kill myself in the name of my G-d.

There have been allegations that the lap dances that we give to captured Islamic terrorists is torture. Ha. It ain't torture, it's PARADISE. Maybe the problem is that we need to give them 72 lap dances. Perhaps, rather than interrogating the captives, we should be flying them to Las Vegas, showing them that they don't have to kill themselves for paradise in the desert, CAUSE WE GOT IT RIGHT THERE IN NEVADA.

Changing history, a word at a time

Be warned, this is another rant against the New York Times. I know, it's the ultimate form of beating one's head against a virtual brick wall, but I'm getting so good at it...

I subscribe to the NY Times. I read it every day.

The very wise Affe gives me good advice on this subject when I tell him about the latest ridiculous Times' editorial or story. He tells me that I deserve to be pissed off if I continue to read that garbage. That is, I should stop reading the Times.

I probably should. But I don't, partially because notwithstanding the extreme bias of much of what is printed in the paper, there's also some very good writing and there isn't much else out there, in print form on a daily basis, that covers the same scope.

Since I read the Times on the train to and from work, I'm stuck. Also, because I have far more interest in New York than San Francisco and expect to move back to New York at some point, I prefer to stay up with local New York issues when I read the paper. Of course, I read other New York papers online.

ANYWAY, this was the headline of the story that got to me:

December 14, 2005
Palestinian Gunmen Storm Election Offices in Gaza and
West Bank

The story was a pretty routine piece that reflected the headline, but buried in there was this line:

Most of the gunmen in the incidents on Tuesday were believed to be members of Al
Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a militant group that is part of Fatah. In a statement,
Al Aksa demanded that Marwan Barghouti, the jailed leader of the
Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation, be atop the Fatah
candidate list.

The text that I have put in bold is the irritant.

Say what you will about Palestinian terrorism, but in order for the line above to be accurate, one would have to define the Israeli occupation as having started in 1948. That is, if the Palestinian "uprising" (another bullshit term that obscures the real nature of terrorism) is about Israel occupying something, that something is not the areas commonly known as the West Bank and Gaza. The area is Tel Aviv, Haifa, Tiberias, Safed, Ashkelon, Eilat and every other part of the pre-1967 borders. It's all of Israel, not just the West Bank and Gaza (which is, of course, now occupied by Palestinians).

Al Aksa and Barghouti wouldn't stop their terrorism if Israel also handed over all of the West Bank any more than they have since Israel left Gaza or the various Lebanese based terror groups stopped their terrorism when Israel left Lebanon. The Palestinians didn't start their "uprising" because of Gaza and the West Bank any more than Arafat founded Fatah because of the "occupation" (which hadn't even occurred at the time Fatah was founded).

They engage in terrorism, I mean the uprising, against ISRAEL, not Israeli occupation.

To say that the "uprising" is a reaction to Israeli occupation is to excuse the true racist, genocidal nature of Palestinian violence. I wish the Times would have the integrity to report honestly on this.

The uprising, like the founding of Fatah, has a goal of destroying the Jewish presence in the land of Israel, not to end an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

In a real sense, the Times' spin on this is nothing more than a variation of Iranian President Ahmadinezhad's call for the destruction of Israel, denial of the Holocaust and attempt to claim that Israelis are nothing more than displaced Europeans.

Today, the claims are ridiculous to most rational people. But if he continues to make this claim, and it gets enough press, and no one with the same access to the world's media counters the claim with historical fact, more and more people are going to assume that his statements are factual.

I find it amazing that the media didn't take him to task on this one and point out that whether you believe the Old Testament or not, there is ample historical evidence that the land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jews and has had a Jewish population for thousands of years, notwithstanding the various invasions and forcible displacements of Jews from the land. The Jewish presence in Europe was the result of Jews being forced out of present day Israel; to imply, as President Ahmadinezhad did, that Jews are from Europe is to stop history at a convienent point for your argument.

If anything, the myth is that there is an identifiable Palestinian Arab people and state. If Ariel Sharon were to say that Palestinian Arabs don't exist, that they are a creation of failed pan-Arab delusions and that the other Arab states should take in those who claim to be Palestinian Arabs, I have no doubt that the media would go on a campaign to "educate" people as to the long history of the Palestinian people and document their claims to the land.

It's these little turns of phrase that misrepresent reality, and that many people don't pay attention to, but that slowly, insidiously, erode truth with the big lies that become the slogans and accepted facts of tomorrow.

James Risen and Eric Lichtblau's Social Security Numbers Are...

...our business? Or aren't they? James Risen and Eric Lichtblau are the two New York Times' reporters who wrote the December 16, 2005 story "Bush Let U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts."

Today, President Bush explained that he did indeed authorize limited eavesdropping on certain parties suspected of being affiliated with terror groups and he further criticized the New York Times for having disclosed this heretofore secret information.

President Bush was absolutely right to criticize the irresponsible, hostile and reckless reporting of the New York Times.

I don't think that the disclosure of this secret information is going to directly lead to any harm to us, as I'm pretty sure that most terrorists expect that their communications are being monitored, whether there's a warrant or not. I know that if I were a terrorist, I'd always assume someone was listening in.

The problem with the New York Times report was that it is just one in a series of overtly hostile disclosures they've published and there is absolutely no news value to the reports.

Disclosing a secret just because it's a secret doesn't make it news that is important for the typical American to know. This program wasn't targeted at all citizens and, even by the Times' own account, it was limited to a very few instances where the subject had other known ties to international terror, with the communications being intercepted going from the United States to some recipient overseas. So there is no "this affects all Americans" angle to it. It affected only terrorists or terror supporters.

It's not news. It's no more news than it would be news to disclose who the FBI was investigating for being a suspected Soviet spy during the cold war.

The New York Times is so obsessed with harming President Bush that they'd put our national security at risk. While I don't think that the terrorists are getting any new information through the Times' story, I think that there will be so much hysterical scrutiny on the administration now that there may be a hesitancy to employ the lawful means, such as the eavesdropping that President Bush authorized (and yes, kids, the Times' story also admits that there was nothing unlawful about the eavesdropping).

And that kind of hamstringing of our intelligence efforts is what led to September 11.

If it is the Times' argument that all information is important and should be disclosed to the public, then I wonder whether they think that the same type of information about their reporters is also fair game. Isn't it important for us to know whether a reporter is biased? Shouldn't we have access to the reporter's personal information to see what magazines they subscribe to, who they write checks to, where they visit, which movies they watch, what books they read? Wouldn't all of this help us to understand what influences the reporters?

If someone were to send personal information on James Risen and Eric Lichtblau to vengefulzhid@yahoo.com and that information were to be posted here would the New York Times find that appropriate? Would they find it appropriate if any personal information about any New York Times' employee were treated in such a manner?

Maybe we'll have to find out whether what's good for the goose is good for the Old Gray Lady...

A prediction regarding the 12/15/05 NY Times lead editorial

As many of you have noticed, I torment myself by reading the NY Times, especially the editorials. As I've discussed elsewhere on this blog, the NY Times has such an intense hate of President Bush that they crossed the line to hysterical left wing ranting in their editorials.

One of the things that really drives them nuts is when President Bush, properly and with justification, links Iraq to September 11, 2001. President Bush usually does this by pointing out that Iraq under Saddam was a source of terror (and supporter of terror) and our war on terror after 9/11 had to include the removal of Saddam.

The Times editorial board thinks that anything that would link the war in Iraq to 9/11 undercuts the left wing opposition to the war and is harmful to the anti-Bush message the Times spreads.

I suppose the logic is this...9/11 affected NYC so the run of the mill bleeding heart Times reader/liberal in NY is loathe to oppose something that was done in response to an attack on their own home. If you can delink the war in Iraq from the war on terror, and thus 9/11, you can stay true to your left wing, anti military roots while not somehow dishonoring the impact of 9/11.

So today, President Bush delivered a magnificent speech about the war on terror. His speech went a long way towards debunking some of the NY Times' favorite anti war slogans. President Bush dealt with the issues regarding accuracy of prewar intelligence and allegations that he lied to get us into the war. His speech also included numerous links between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

The New York Times' editorial writers are going to throw a shit fit in print tomorrow.

The New York Times is going to ignore everything that President Bush said and focus on the links between 9/11 and Iraq. It may even be an editorial that takes up the entire column. They're going to say that the acknowledgement of the problems with prewar intel was too late and too little and then rip into President Bush for continuing to try to link 9/11 to Iraq. They're going to claim he continues to lie to America. They're going to repeat all of the lies that they've printed in the past about President Bush and the war.

The line that I think they are going to focus on is this one:

Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision
to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the
American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.
(Applause.) We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the
removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its
place.

If I'm right about this, President Bush will have scored a major victory against the liberal media attempts to undermine our nation at war. If the NY Times editorial is as hysterical as I think it will be, it will indicate that the Times' editors believe President Bush's speech effectively countered the lies the Times had been spreading about the war in Iraq and the President generally.

In the meantime, I urge everyone to read the speech. Click here for the White House website transcript.

UPDATE

I'm happy to see that the Times wasn't as predictable as I thought they'd be. Bully for them. It changes nothing. But I thought that President Bush's speech, linked to above, was so important that I'd paste it here. The following is a selected portion of that speech.

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the media are
pussies. And Islamic terrorists are assholes. Pussies don't like dicks,
because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that
just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes
their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some
balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't
appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can
be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are
an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy
world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to
have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

Are all Democrats ignorant cunts?

Howard Dean, head of the DNC, calling for the United States to withdraw from Iraq and concede victory to Islamic terror, 12/6/05:

[The]idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just
plain wrong.

Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), 12/10/05:

As a Veteran of World War II, I know what it’s like to fight a war and put
your life on the line every day. I also know what it takes to win a war, and
I know that politics and an attack machine like the President’s plays no
part in it. The Republican Party’s latest ad is a shameful and disgusting
attempt to distract the American people from the problems in Iraq. It may
improve the President’s political fortunes, but the American people and our
troops will pay the price. I hope that President Bush realizes how shameful
it is to play politics when what we really need is leadership, and that he will
direct his Party to take down this ad immediately.

I do agree that playing politics with war and supporting our enemies to gain political advantage over the incumbent President is shameful. However, Mr. Inouye, you ignorant cunt, it is YOUR party that is declaring victory for Islamic terror. It is YOUR party that goes to the press on a daily basis to claim that the US military is in a "quagmire." It is YOUR party that refuses to shed any light on the positive developments and US victories in Iraq.

Go tell Howard Dean, the leader the DNC, about getting out of the business of undermining our efforts for "political fortunes."

I understand that politics is a nasty game, but the Democrats' inability to cover even the most obvious signs of hypocrisy, as shown above, stuns me. Their base must be the most ill-informed group of people in the nation if, within the same week, their leader says that due to the Republicans, we have lost the war and another of their representatives says that the Republicans are playing politics and jeopardizing the prosecution war...

Cuttin' and runnin'

There's a new ad out from the GOP...it doesn't really break any ground, new or old, but it is a nice jab at the liberal mantra of withdrawing from Iraq.

The liberals claim that calling for a withdrawal from Iraq is part of healthy and important debate and reflects the views of many Americans. I disagree with them on both points, but I'm not going to spend any time in a point by point dismantling of their argument. They're going to believe their own slogans without regard to facts or logic. They are more interested in hurting the President and the GOP than in doing what's best for the country and there's nothing that will change that. It's politics.

But it did get me thinking and reminded me of something that happened 15 or so years ago. I had just started dating the woman who would later become my wife and I was still a bit rough around the edges. I'm certainly not going to portray myself as a thug or anything like that...Jewish redneck, maybe. Jewish thug, no.

But, before I met my wife, I did get in a little trouble with the guys I hung out with (white guys from San Francisco's Sunset district). The trouble we got into was mostly with the Chinese gangs that were so big in San Francisco at the time (mid to late 80s).

A few months before I started dating my wife, there was an incident where I was in a car with some other guys, one of whom had his girlfriend with him. We were parked on a street in the Richmond district of San Francisco and a group of Chinese guys walked up to the car. It turns out that the girl in our car was the former girlfriend of one of them, and they were in the Wah Ching gang, and they didn't like that she was dating one of us. As happens with younger guys, no one would back down and guns were pulled and it got pretty intense before the driver of our car got some sense in him and set the car in motion before shots were fired.

So with that as background, a few months later I'm on a date and driving in the area where the incident described above occurred. We're going to a bar and just cruising down the road (two lanes in each direction). A car comes up fast behind mine, comes close to hitting my bumper, pulls around to pass and then cuts me off and the driver slams on his brakes, getting his car sideways and blocking the road in front of me. Without even thinking, I reached under my seat and pulled out the gun I kept there (the 9mm seen elsewhere on this site), rolled down the window and stuck the gun out towards the car that was blocking me, ready to shoot.

This all happened within about 10 seconds, and my wife was in shock. That didn't last long, as she quickly began screaming at me and reached over towards me to pull my arm (and the gun) back in the car. In a split second I pushed her off and screamed "IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DIE, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP UNTIL THIS IS OVER!"

Luckily, she followed my orders, the guy in the car blocking me saw the gun in my hand, aimed at his head, and took off, and within 30 seconds it was all over.

My wife was furious. She told me she never wanted to be in that kind of situation again, that I was never to speak to her like that again, etc. But she didn't break up, as she understood that what I did was the right thing to do given that we were in the situation, but she gave me a choice of either getting that kind of thing out of my life or I would not be dating her anymore.

The point of my telling this story is that right now, we, as a country, are in the situation I described above. The Democrats are doing nothing more than distracting us at a time when distraction will lead to disaster. Rather than wait until the situation has calmed down and THEN do as my wife did, which was to set out the groundrules for why she was pissed off and what it would take to keep us together, they, instead, are grabbing at the gun and screaming like a woman during the critical moments of the incident.

I'm happy to say that my wife had better sense than the Democrats.

Why I Love Rumsfeld

From today's speech on the future of Iraq, by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. That he so clearly understands the left wing slogans used against him and can make fun of those idiotic stereotypes is one of the reasons I like him.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Secretary Rumsfeld.
And this is a set of very serious issues, but maybe a light moment will remind the secretary that he was one of the great CEOs in getting that broadband technology widely distributed.
(LAUGHTER)
RUMSFELD: I was also one of the sponsors of the Freedom of Information Act when I was a member of Congress.
MODERATOR: All right.
RUMSFELD: I was young and foolish.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm just kidding

"Support our troops, bring them home"

I love the quote that is the title of this post. It's one of the least clever spins I've ever seen in my 40 something years on this planet. The fact that those who hate America and the military the most are the ones who repeat this idiotic slogan says it all.

I will, however, admit that it got me thinking. It wasn't just the "support our troops, bring them home" canard that got me thinking; it was also Representative John Murtha's infamous brain fart statement that the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth."

Truth be told, it was actually Murtha's comment, more than the standard Pelosi/Boxer/Bin Laden slogan about bringing the troops home, that got me thinking. What was I thinking?

I was thinking that we've been at war for a few years and it really didn't take more than a few months from the war's start for the Democrats to try to do to this war what they did to (dare I mention Vietnam?) that other war that began in the 60s-undermine our efforts and give our enemies tacit support.

But, I figured , maybe the Democrats are right. If we can't win a global war against terror in a few weeks, we probably should just give up.

Because, as we all know, those causes that the Democrats support have been successfully pursued in well under a few weeks. Let's take, as an example, affirmative action.

In a matter of a few days after affirmative action was first implemented in the late 60s, it had accomplished its goals. Right? Uh...

It's been FOUR DECADES since affirmative action was foisted upon America by the Democrats and we're told that we STILL have a broken system. Four decades of reverse racism, of stripping people of rights so that others can be given a handout, and we have no exit strategy. Four decades and we have no idea when the problem will be resolved. Hmmmm.

Obviously, affirmative action is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth". If the Democrats think that a war that hasn't been concluded in four years is a "quagmire" and we were misled in starting it, what could they possibly say about something that has been festering for TEN TIMES as long with no evidence that a successful conclusion is near?

It's obvious, based on the collective wisdom of the Democrats, whose patriotism and sincerity can't be questioned, that any campaign that isn't swiftly concluded is a disaster and must be ended. Those minorities who were supposed to be benefited by affirmative action have actually been stigmatized by it. Affirmative action has resulted in people assuming that any minority who is admitted to a good school or hired for a position of responsibility must have been handed the opportunity due to affirmative action. Far from eliminating racism, affirmative action perpetuates it. So, taking the lead of Murtha, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, et. al., and stealing the heartfelt slogan regarding supporting our troops by bringing them home, the new mantra must be...

SUPPORT OUR MINORITIES, END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Hairy palms, blind terrorists and Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad is an ignorant cunt

While I consider pornography (and the viewing of it) to be one of the better things in life, I do understand that Islam considers it to be evil. In fact, if one ever believes the BBC, this article claims that the Iranian government actively censors websites it considers to be "incompatible with Islam", with the bulk of those websites being porn websites.

So imagine my surprise when I checked my sitemeter and found this

























Go ahead, click on the image. It turns out that some dirty little boys or, even worse, curious little girls, don't fear Allah or President Ahmadinezhad enough. Somehow, Iranians are getting to the internet (wait, isn't that owned by the Jews????) and searching for pictures of...take a guess...no, not pictures of el Buraq, not even pictures of Mohammed getting a prostate exam by a prophet...those bad little Iranians are looking for pictures of CUNTS!

And it's not just an isolated incident. A few days later (i.e., today), I got another hit from Iran (Tehran, in fact) using the search term cunt again!


Click again and you'll see that maybe the Iranians aren't so bad after all. Yeah, sure, they're terrorists and are developing nuclear weapons and are behind a lot of barbaric acts of violence around the world, but at least SOME of them like to close the door, fire up the computer and crank out a batch to some good old fashioned trim!

72 virgins is a nice promise, but when it comes to the here and now, what would YOU rather do? Put on a cemtex laden vest and blow yourself up and HOPE that those mullahs were telling the truth or find a way around Allah's own internet censors and crank your junk?

So while I wish nothing but the worst for Iran and the Iranian people, I salute those few brave Iranians who are finding a way to the liberation of masturbation. That y'all have found your way to my humble Zionist Zhid site makes it all the more rewarding.

Crank away, Iranians!

UPDATE
In the few minutes after posting this, I received thousands of emails pointing out that I used the wrong spelling for "cemtex" and it should be "semtex." Almost all of the emails came from Polish readers. Here's the deal...
First, my mother was born in Czechoslovakia so I have a closer connection to cemtex than most readers, especially those whose mothers were born in Poland.
Second, this is my blog and if you're going to proofread it, you're going to find a lot of errors, grammatical, spelling or otherwise. If you get the gist of what I'm trying to say (e.g., that I am referring to an explosive when I say cemtex) that's all I give a flying fuck about.
Third, I tend to write these entries when I'm half asleep, drunk or, as was this case with the post above, have some porn playing in the background.

So while I'm sure that "cemtex" is actually "semtex", I'm not going to change it. But for those of you who have other corrections to submit, please send them to:

vengefulzhid@yahoo.com

All corrections will be carefully considered and then ignored.