Riehl World View

Jeane Palfrey: Another Ut Oh

Okay, now I actually do question the timing on this.

Michelle has more than enough links and background on the DC Madam controversy we can expect to break wide open very soon. I saw something that concerned me and wanted to check it out.

Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, said yesterday that he has been contacted in the past few days by five lawyers asking whether their client's phone numbers are on Palfrey's list of 10,000 to 15,000 customers from 2002 to 2006

Palfrey didn't begin her operation in 2002, she was first a hallmark of the Clinton years.

Palfrey states My business operated successfully without incident, as an adult fantasy service from 1993 to August 2006.

Now what names do you think we won't get to see due to this customer list beginning only in 2002? I imagine many high profile Dems, elected and otherwise were leaving DC just about the time she started keeping records. Don't look for the media to dig too deep into them.

It looks like Republicans are in for a real screwing from the DC Madam. I guess they're about to get their money's worth ... and more.

Is Superman Dead?

Give the short video below a chance, it isn't what it first appears to be. One of the greatest concepts of American culture has always been heroism. Born, I'd argue, by our traditional emphasis on individual rights and freedoms empowering any one individual to rise up above and beyond that which is markedly average.

From certain founders, to named pioneers, fictional characters like Paul Bunyan and other figures, mythic or real, America has always defined itself through its heroes. That's why, though young, we've always put forward more of them than any other contemporary culture. Yes, a John Wayne, half-real, half-myth, would figure into that equation, too.

Conversely, socialism, communism, neo-Liberalism, the Democrat Party of today, they are not just non-heroic in nature, they are anti-heroic. There is no room for the hero in an America driven by a Leftist ideology. Be it a President, Christ, a cowboy, or a Pat Tillman, they must tear it down. It is also why you won't find today's Leftist media celebrating the heroism of any one soldier too loudly, or for too long.

To do so would be to credit individualism above collectivism, to celebrate excellence over mediocrity. To do so would be to support American ideals and values they are dedicated to destroying. And most of the idiots don't even know why they do or don't do it, so little insight into, or understanding of traditional American values have they.

The last sitting Democrat President to understand this was John Kennedy when he said,

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

You will not find a single popular Democrat, nor many Republicans with the insight, vision and courage to sincerely ask the above questions today. As Liberalism opposes any one individual being held up heroically above the masses, it also opposes any one Nation being exalted in a similar manner.

If Superman dies, or is already dead, then so is the America so many of us have come to know, respect and even love.

Hold On

More Waits. See here, not embeddable.

No Jihad In Obama's World View

The Washington Post has mostly praise for Barack Obama's world view, to the extent that he revealed it, via an address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. But the questions the WaPo raises because of what he didn't say might make for more interesting discussion.

In a 40-minute address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Mr. Obama described a foreign policy that centers on continued American leadership in the world and a strong defense but that sharply differs with the Bush administration on Iraq and, at least in tone, on the fight against terrorism.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, he does not use the phrase "war on terrorism." More remarkably, he doesn't mention Islam, much less Islamic extremism -- which Mr. Bush has described as a critical ideological threat to freedom inside and outside the Muslim world. Mr. Obama's advisers point out that much of the speech is directly or indirectly devoted to strategies to combat terrorists, counter their recruitment, and rescue failed or failing states. Still, Mr. Obama ought to explain more directly how he views jihadism. Is it an ideological challenge comparable to communism and fascism, as Mr. Bush contends, or merely an esoteric dogma held by bands of criminals, like the anarchism of the early 20th century? Is terrorism the central threat of the early 21st century, or, as some Democratic strategists argue, merely one of a panoply of challenges that include global warming, pandemics and the rise of China?

It appears Obama views fighting jihad as basically not mentioning it while discussing the plums he intends to offer up in the form of bribes by doubling International aid.

He would double U.S. foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012. Though he didn't offer many details, he did say that "we must couple our aid with an insistent call for reform."

I suspect insisting terrorists lay down their arms will work wonders, don't you? But really even the WaPo fails to raise the most important point. What is it Obama would do to prevent the continued amassing of power by extremist forces within and outside of the Middle East?

We know he'd support creating a vacuum by bailing out of Iraq. We know that military force won't be used until after we are attacked again as no formal state would allow itself to be clearly linked to a terrorist attack before it happened, if at all.

He said that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary -- to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened."

Translation - okay, terrorists, you get at least one free shot. Given the Clinton response to multiple attacks from the USS Cole to our embassies, it's likly they'll be given quite a few.

That neither Obama, some number of Democrat strategists, nor the Washington Post even mention jihad as a movement capable of establishing states, amassing wealth and potentially nuclear arms is the most telling of all. They completely fail to acknowledge, and perhaps even understand the ultimate threat to freedom today as presented by Islamic extremists engaged in global jihad - ultimately through the establishment of states, not simply throwing the occasional dirty bomb.

Democrat Party Announces Growth

The number of people now identifying as Democrats is alarming to say the least:

Ahmadinejad (D) Tehran

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (D) Tehran

I suppose you could call this explosive growth, though it may actually result in more of an implosion in the end.

Edwards Is A Dangerous Man

How disastrous would a John Edwards presidency be for the US? Take a look. His plan for winning the war on terror? Simple, just be nice to them. Bet: as John Edwards says, so the other Dem contenders would do. They just don't have the nerve or stupidity to admit it.

Edwards aide David Ginsberg confirmed that the former North Carolina senator had not raised his hand in response to Brian Williams' question,"Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

He also noted that Edwards elaborated later in the debate.

"I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly, but we have more tools available to us than bombs. And America needs to use the tools that are available to them so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit, the next generation, get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy, and we need one, and I will provide one."

Liberals Blast al-Iraqi Capture

The Washington Post kicks it off and Human Rights Watch follows closely behind

CIA Held Al-Qaeda Suspect Secretly: Officials Disclose That Use of Overseas Prisons Resumed

CIA Secret Detention of al-Iraqi 'Blatant Violation of International Law'

"The CIA's secret detention of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi is a blatant violation of international law," said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. "This transfer shows that Congress will have to act to end the CIA's illegal detention program."

Just over a day since the headline stories of the capture of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi were saying this:

Administration officials say the questioning has provided critical intelligence information about terrorist activities that has enabled officials to prevent attacks, including with airplanes, within the United States.

All bets are off and it's back to bashing Bush and trying to undermine our efforts in the fight against terrorism. The Washington Post managed to get a quote from HRW but didn't feel the need to spell out how linked terrorists or cells would likely have evaporated immediately were the arrest promptly made known.

Only a fool would believe that we'd be able to hold such an individual within the United States secretly without civil rights charges flowing once his domestic detention was made known. So, for the safety of this Nation the Bush administration did what they had to do. But don't bother trying to sell that to the Left, more concerned with politics than protecting me and you.

Why Idiots Never Learn

Why Idiots Never Learn? They already think they know everything. Michelle Malkin's post on what should be the Harvard embarassment, where students interrupted FBI Director Mueller to call for the release of cop killer and terrorism supporter Herman Bell, among other nonsense.

“Herman Bell and his accomplices drove across country for the express purpose of killing New York City police officers. To suggest that he is a political prisoner is laughable. He is a cold-blooded murderer not a victim of his ideals. Police Officers Joseph Piagentini and Waverly Jones, the brave police officers he murdered, will never walk the streets again and neither should Herman Bell.”

Turns out the one Crimson editor isn't even a citizen of the US.

Scroll down for this:

“In Support of Palestinian Political Prisoners”

by Herman Bell

To the Palestinian people, their political prisoners and detainees held in israeli jails. To our brothers and sisters in struggle, we u.s. political prisoners and prisoners of war extend greetings and solidarity and commend you for your stout-hearted resistance to zionist occupation of your land. Your dogged resolve to expel them is admired and respected more than ever. We recognize your plight and honor your historic resistance to this occupation and aggression.

Dhimmification

Eventually we are going to have to stop calling it dhimmification and start calling it large D Democratification, given that it is the Democrat Party that is against most reasonable measures to fight terrorism and for encouraging tyrannical regimes around the globe.

Murtha Supports The, er, Liars

“There was a time when I had confidence in the military, but these guys have lied to us so much.