A collection of short clips from MEMRI TV featuring the Iranian state.

WPvideo 1.10

Yes, that was Hugo Chavez saying “Allah willing.” No, Iran’s supposed “space armies” simply do not exist. They did not launch a rocket in to space last week, rather that was yet another ruse in the long list of them.

Senator Barrack Obama is concerned funding for national security is not divied out correctly. Obama wants those funds devided among states that face the biggest threat to terrorism, not evenly divided as is currently the formula where each state receives .75 percent of the $900 million budget.

That plan, while I disagree on the basis of the thesis of the path of least resistance, seems reasonable. But what states has Obama decided should get an increase in federal monies? His own state of Illinois, California, New York, Texas and Florida would all receive more federal funds, and they are also five of the most populated states and the homes of suspected terrorist plots, sans New Jersey of course.

Obama’s campaign states his reasoning is to “ensure the funding is allocated based on the threats states face, not politics.” Again, great. Politics has no basis in national security, but has Obama divided his security funding plan with politics? Not exactly, Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports.

But even though they have much smaller populations, the leadoff Democratic primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would not be harmed. Iowa would get an additional $119,824; Nevada would get $86,222 more; and South Carolina would receive $175,027 extra.

Obama’s campaign counters by saying he does not set which states are most at risk, that it’s the job of the Department of Homeland Security to do so. It is, but what exactly is in either Iowa or New Hampshire that is a major security threat, moreso than, say, NORAD in Colorado who would get a cut in Obama’s plan?

I mean no knock on either Iowa or New Hampshire, but I can reason out why the previously mentioned five states would receive an increase in funding. I cannot, however, see a logical reason why states with national landmarks and strategic centers would see a decrease in funds while primary states receive an influx. It’s playing politics with national security, Senator Obama, and you’ve been caught.

Julio Pino is a Kent State University Associate Professor of History. He specializes in Latin America, and delusional thought filled with the seeds of Islamism. Pino is also a Muslim convert, and runs his own blog (http://global-war.bloghi.com/) where he calls 2007 “the year of Islamic victory.”

From his blog’s about brief:

We are a jihadist news service, and provide battle bispatches, training manuals, and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide. All we want is to get Allah’s pleasure. We will write “Jihad” across our foreheads, and the stars. The angels will carry our message throughout the world.

And this man is, once again, an associate professor of history at Kent State. Mike Adams writes:

Under the entry “Sister Detonates Herself to Eliminate Shia Traitors” there is a description of a female suicide bomber who recently killed 41 people. Just in case you wondered how the host of the site feels about the suicide bomber, the next line tells you: “Now she lies on the Golden Couch of Paradise.”

Despite his clear support of mass murder, he once complained that the Jews were engaged in genocide against the Palestinians. He claimed that as a result of that assertion, he was “harassed” and received “death threats.”

I’ve always assumed that a person who advocates mass murder runs the risk of getting an occasional death threat in the office.

Pino also cleary demonstrates the alliance between the far-Left in this nation and Islamists everywhere.  Referring to President Bush as Bushitler, a common Liberal mantra, Pino wonders if ‘Bushitler’ or ‘Aussie PM Howard’ is “dumber.”  But beyond that, the normal talking points echoed by both the far-Left and the enemies of this nation abroad are emblazened within Pino’s blog.

Adams notes:

Although obsessed with the notion that America is being over-run by “Christian fascism,” he has affectionately referred to his students his “little Jihadists” and his “beloved Taliban.” In other words, he makes no bones about the fact that he works to indoctrinate, not educate, the children of the taxpayers of the State of Ohio.

And what Jihadist sympathizer blog would be complete with the required links to ‘Jihad Unspun’ and far-Left professor Juan Cole?  Pino’s got ‘em both.

HT to those weird sand people with red eyes.

I find the results of the new WaPo/ABC News poll rather stunning. * When asked, “what’s the single most important issue to you in your choice for the Democratic candidate for president,” the difference between those who claimed to be ‘leaned Democrats’ versus ‘leaned Republicans’ is striking.

Only three percent of respondents who ‘leaned Democrat’ said ‘terrorism/security’ was the most important issue for them when deciding on who to vote for president. Twenty-eight percent replied the war on Iraq was the most important issue, but those two are clearly in two distinct answers in this poll (they don’t get the two are interconnected).

The war in Iraq, the ‘economy/jobs,’ health care, honesty and ’strong leadership’ were more important to those who ‘leaned Democrat.’ But there’s another important distinction to make. Despite the economy chugging like an unstoppable freight train, the poll also indicates respondents don’t believe the U.S. economy is in good shape. Therefore the second highest concern by those who ‘leaned Democrat’ is one that is completely irrational based upon misinformation more than anything else (those who ‘leaned Republican have similar figures for the economy/jobs).

*The same general disclaimer about trusting poll results stays, especially when said poll feels the need to explicitly state there was an “oversample of African-Americans.“

John Gizzi, the Political Editor of Human Events, writes on Rudy-mania.  Gizzi notes that despite Giuliani not having the most conservative track record on many social issues, Conservatives are jumping out in favor of the former New York City mayor.

Why?  Gizzi explains:

The most frequent reason cited by conservatives for backing Giuliani is what they perceive as his leadership ability during a time when terrorism is a critical issue. Michael Der Manouel, Jr., former California state GOP treasurer and founder of the Lincoln Club for major Republican donors in Fresno, told me, “The most important issue is: Who is going to protect our country? Rudy Giuliani showed what he could do in a crisis after 9/11. If our cities are burning, issues like abortion and gay rights — on which I do differ with Rudy — aren’t going to matter that much.”

Giuliani’s stances on social issues, according to most accounts I have read previously, were supposed to the death blow to a Giuliani presidency.  His position against an amendment banning same-sex marriage (I’m against an amendment too), his pro-choice stance and his weak second amendment stance are often cited as reasons one, two and three why Conservatives would never vote him out of the primary.  Add in Giuliani’s stance in favor of a guest-worker program, though it does differ slightly than no-border Bush, is also cited as a crushing defeat.

But what the naysayers do not seem to understand is exactly what Jim Geraghty wrote in his book entitled ‘Voting to Kill: How 9/11 Launched the Era of Republican Leadership‘ and wrapped succintly by Manouel above.  Those voted into office in 2002, 2004 and 2006 by Conservatives were voted in mainly because of the war, not some imaginary litmus test created by the editors of the nation’s leading newspapers.

And it is just that key fact that Giuliani seems to be running on, according to Russel Berman, who writes: “Chiefly, he is trying to convince conservatives, at least implicitly, that social issues have to take a backseat in this election and that he is the candidate with the strongest record on key economic and security policy matters.”

When compared with the other GOP frontrunners, you’ve got a man who presided over an attacked city turning back a check from Saudi Arabia versus a senator who sponsored legislation for a detainee bill of rights.  It matters not to me whether Giuliani personally believes in same-sex marriage, that’s for the states to decide, and they have. It does, however, matter to me that in this time there is a leader of this great nation that can successfully narrate both foreign policy and strategically navigate the fields of doubt, both allied and other.

For all of Giuliani’s faults, his strength in the key area of concern for those of us who recognize there is a war raging is enough for us to support him.  Despite the political punditry not recognizing this fact, it really is just that simple, and there’s no question that realization is what Geraghty noted all too well.

Amil Imani, an Iranian-born American citizen, writes on why we must confront Islamism at the American Thinker. A short excerpt:

There are those who claim that the majority of Muslims in the world are moderate and non-violent. It may be so. Yet, the silence of this majority is deafening, although, they do speak up from time-to-time by, for instance, claiming that the 9/11 slaughter was the work of the Jews, even when Osama himself proudly admits the dastardly act.

This very same Muslim majority pours into the streets of the West on a moment’s notice to protest against the slightest perceived affront to its sanctities, but they almost march to condemn the violent acts of the Islamists or speak up against them. This sort of behavior by the majority makes it complicit with the Islamists.

In spite of all this, Islam’s apologists and lobbyists want us to accept the notion that the present Islamic radicalism is an aberration that, given time, will dissipate as have all radical movements of the past. These folk fail to tell us about the radical movements that inflicted horrors on humanity before they expired.

Read the full column.

Imani also writes on his site a column entitled ‘Political Correctness is the Incubator of Islamism‘ and lays out several facts which include, but are not limited to:

• The jihadists are not confined to a minority of disaffected Muslim youth. How young are Bin Laden, his deputy doctor of death Al Zawahiri, mullah Omar of the Taliban, Khamenei and Refsanjani of Iran, just to name a few? How disaffected are they? Muhammad Ata, leader of the 19 airborne thugs and the decapitator of Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl were somewhat younger, yet well-healed and Western educated.
• Islamists are Islam’s locomotive that takes the wrecking-ball Islamic train on its demolition course. Islam and democracy are incompatible. As democracies practice their magnificent accommodating belief, they knowingly or unknowingly lay the track for the advancing wrecking train of Islam. We, in the United States of America must resist Islamism while it is still gathering momentum, unless we wish to end up in the same fix as the Europeans.

Again, read the full column and peruse Imani’s site. He has some very interesting opinions and has written some articles that I think are spot-on.

The Blotter reports in an unusually candid statment by the United States Director of National Intelligence, Jack McConnell, indicated both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are in the Waziristan region of Pakistan and building new Al Qaida training camps.

Referring to Pakistan’s rugged tribal area, McConnell said “to the best of our knowledge that the senior leadership, No. 1 and No. 2, are there, and they are attempting to re-establish and rebuild and to establish training camps.”

It is this area which has been news of late when CIA officials and unnamed sources have told publications Al Qaida has at least attempted to rebuild under the peace agreement brokered with Pakistan in the tribal region of Waziristan.  As noted by The Blotter, this testimony comes one day after U.S. intelligence presented Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf what has been described as ‘concrete’ evidence Al Qaida is using the territory to rebuild its terrorist network (coverage HERE).

We haven’t heard anything from OBL in nearly one year, while Ayman al-Zawahiri has released several video and audio tapes within over the course of the past year.  That has led to speculation OBL is dead, but it has also led to speculation the due split up, apparently having issues who gets the prettiest virgins.  In fact, Musharraf has said he believes the two went their different ways.

Now it appears that is not the case, that the two are at least in alliance to rebuild Al Qaida under the safe refuge of tribal law, and in a region where there is at least some open hostility towards the Pakistani government.  An October 2006 strike against a madrassa used as a training center was aiming for Zawahiri, so we knew U.S. intelligence at least believed Zawahiri was within the region.  But bin Laden has been rumored to be in the Northwest Frontier near the finger of Afghanistan bordering Uzbekistan.  That appears not to be the case according to McConnell’s testimony.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) . . . the Liberal hawk?

SEN CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “Now, in terms of the weapons coming in from Syria, those weapons that you’ve described as coming in from Syria and perhaps other Sunni neighbors are killing our troops. Do we have a plan to address the Syrian weapon source — of killings of our troops?”

JOHN MCCONNELL, Director of National Intelligence: “Sir, I know the military is working that border area to close it down from not only weapons but also jihadists coming in –”

LEVIN: “It’s more than just — we’re trying to close down the Iranian border area too. The problem is that these weapons are coming from a state which is — doesn’t recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn’t. We’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source that are killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran, I think we have to try stop them that are going to the Sunni insurgents as well as to the Shia. I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, to go into Syria to go to the source of any weapons coming from Syria? That are going to Sunni insurgents? That are killing our troops? … I think we ought to take action on all fronts including Syria and any other source of weapons coming in, obviously Iran is the focus – but it shouldn’t be the sole focus.” (Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 02/27/07)

Video here. Is this the same Senator Levin whose own views on Iraq have changed with the wind when politically popular to do so? Yes it is. Is this the same Senator Levin who has called for a “phased redeployment” of American soldiers from Iraq? Tis true. The same senator who has repeatedly thrown barbs towards President Bush and is considered someone a congressman must talk to when discussing national security issues? Ditto.

And now the senator who has called for a “phased redeployment,” which is political speak for withdrawal that sounds like it has teeth, wants to open up fronts against Syria and Iran.

The line during the conversation on the Hill isn’t completely unexpected. This past Sunday on ‘Meet the Press’ Levin said there’s no real ‘possibility’ for the United States to withdraw all soldiers from Iraq because they are there to provide “continued training of the Iraqi army, support for logistics in the Iraqi army, a counterterrorism purpose or a mission because there’s about 5,000 al-Qaida in Iraq.” Yes, good Senator, there are Al Qaida terrorists in Iraq.

So why would Senator Levin change stances all of the sudden from one of the staunchest critics of the war and advocates for withdrawal to opening up two new fronts in the war? It couldn’t be because the United States will enter into talks with Iraq, Syria and Iran to help pacify the nation, could it? Surely Senator Levin has a backbone and doesn’t just argue for the exact opposite of that which the Bush Administration plans on doing. He’s not that fickle, is he?

Pirate's Cove linked with Carl Levin Steps Back From Surrender Monkey Central...

Regular readers know I am a Newt Gingrich for ‘08 supporter, but since Newt hasn’t declared and there’s a good chance he won’t declare, I’m pretty solid in Giuliani’s camp. Personally I don’t care about the so-called issues that will keep Conservatives from voting for Rudy. I’m a Conservative and I support him.

The primary issue for me isn’t the Second Amendment, Roe v. Wade or whether or not Rudy once wore a dress for a comedy skit (McCain did too). I actually think the latter bodes well for both candidates that did because it shows they are willing to laugh at theirselves, unlike a certain politician who ran opposite of President Bush in ‘04 whose botched jokes were at the expense of others.

Taxes and how the nation combats Islamism are primary for me, and I think they are connected. A high increase in taxes will result in a drop for support to fight Islamism, that is unless you are of the impression the government should function as an employer too. Quite obviously, I do not.

Giuliani spoke in front of the Stanford University’s Hoover Institution over the weekend and reiterated why I am supporting him. Giuliani said the GWOT had done “damage” to the image of the United States, something that is quite certain but for different reasons than critics of the war have mentioned thus far, and proposes on how to correct that wrong impression.

“We have to say to the rest of the world, ‘America doesn’t like war,’” Mr. Giuliani said. “America is not a military country. We’ve never been a militaristic country,” he added, saying national leaders have fallen into an “analytical warp” by defining the battle as a war on terrorism and not, as he deemed it, a “war of the terrorists against us.”

On taxes and how to fund the war:

Democrats, he said, would want to raise taxes to pay the higher costs of a war. “That shows a dividing line, and to me, a misunderstanding of how our economy works,” Mr. Giuliani said. He said that while Republicans believe that the American economy is “essentially a private economy,” Democrats “really believe, honest, that it is essentially a government economy.”

Giuliani also proposed to rename the Republican Party to the “party of freedom,” but to do so would require explanation on his account to erase the constant smears of what it means to be a Conservative. A Conservative, at one’s core, is the limitation of government in all facets of life, because a Conservative believes the less government, the better and more free.

It is this, dare I say it, Reagan-esque quality that I see in Giuiliani. And I must admit, it makes me rather excited as Reagan was the first president to serve while I was alive and had developed a memory (I was two when Reagan took office). I am a Reagan Conservative.

According to the upcoming issue of Newsweek, New York City police are concerned “bridges and tunnels, Jewish organizations and Wall Street” may be the targets of Tehran following increased tensions between the United States and Iran.  The warning was presented by the NYPD and given to “security execs.”

NYPD officials have worried about possible Iranian-sponsored attacks since a series of incidents involving officials of the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. In November 2003, Ahmad Safari and Alireaza Safi, described as Iranian Mission “security” personnel, were detained by transit cops when they were seen videotaping subway tracks from Queens to Manhattan at 1:10 in the morning. The men later left New York. “We’re concerned that Iranian agents were engaged in reconnaissance that might be used in an attack against New York City at some future date,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly told NEWSWEEK.

While the targets due fit both Tehran’s ambitions and the likely targets of a regime that sponsors terrorism, the fact that Jewish organizations are potential targets sticks out like a sore thumb.  During a 2006 news conference at the United Nations in New York, Ahmadinejad stated “Jews are respected by everyone, by all human beings” and that he is “not anti-Jew.”

The rationale behind statements against the nation of Israel and for Jews tries to blind the entire world into Ahmadinejad’s true feelings.  And indeed that is the duplicit rationale by Islamists everywhere.  With respect to Ahmadinejad, his repeated comments questioning the Holocaust where Jews who didn’t just migrate to Israel were invovled in and his top advisors condemning Jews as dogs, not to mention Iranian children’s shows depicting Jews as apes, Jewish centers in New York and elsewhere would be prime targets of an Iranian attack.

Ahmadinejad wishes to frame the world into two camps.  Those who support the United States and the Jews, and those who support his regime.  That’s fine and dandy, really, but he’s feeding the world false promises with regards to almost everything that comes out of his mouth.  And indeed you don’t really know what Ahmadinejad believes in if you don’t read trandscripts of his rallies in Tehran because his words to members of the Western media are complete fabrications.  And besides, it’s not as if an Iranian proxy hasn’t explicity attacked a Jewish Center before.