Leonard Nimoy has called for a two state solution for which, in deference, several notables (amongst them Israelis), have called.  Nimoy does make a telling statement about the whole idea of two separate states.

“In fact, there is an end in sight. It’s known as the two-state solution – a secure, democratic Israel as the Jewish State alongside an independent Palestinian state.”

He does deserve some credit for seeing Israel as a Jewish state but, if you notice, there is only one democratic state mentioned here. It isn’t expected that another Muslim Arab state will be democratic. As a matter of fact, as always, Israel is expected to remain multicultural andrespect the rights of all its inhabitants, yet the proposed Arab state would, like all the other Arab states, not be open to Jews. Not that many Jews would like to live in an Arab state, considering the centuries of slaughter and pillage that have been the lot of Dhimmi Jews in Arab lands.

This is pretty par for the course, but what is even more egregious is his call for the division of Jerusalem.

“Their plan includes a Palestinian state alongside Israel with agreed-upon land swaps. The Palestinian-populated areas of Jerusalem would become the capital of Palestine; the Jewish-populated areas the capital of Israel.”

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the demographics of Jerusalem would see this as being very “Pie in the Sky.” Without discussing the merits of the argument, the city is a patchwork of neighborhoods, with communities which are impossible to separate without a mass transfer of population. In the eyes of the world, this means kicking Jews out of their homes. There is also the historical precedent set by the last time parts of Jerusalem were under Arab control, between 1948 and 1967, when Jewish holy sites were used as places to corral animal and the headstones from Jewish graves as flooring in bathrooms. Lest one think this is a relic of a bygone era, recall what happened to the Synagogues left behind following the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif in the Gaza strip.

“Peace Now’s activities and programs… keep peace on the world’s agenda… Like those Israelis who issued the peace plan, the members of Peace Now have their boots on the ground. “

Peace Now keeps one thing on its agenda, and that is the expulsion of Jews from their ancestral homes in Judea and Samaria. They have no other platform except returning Israel to its 1949 borders, otherwise known as the Auschwitz borders. The group has never called for any change to the maximalist demands of the Arabs, nor acknowledged the plain facts that the entire Arab-Israeli conflict is based on the desire of the Arabs to return the Jews to the degraded state they were in when they were under Muslim rule, where they could be beaten, robbed or killed with impunity.

Bringing his extensive resume to the forefront, Nimoy then compares the situation to an episode of Star Trek. “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” in which the two remaining survivors of a planet continue their battle fifty thousand years after every other inhabitant on the world has died in the war. This would be a strong political statement, were it not hopelessly naïve.

Israel and the Jewish nation have two options: fight for survival or return to the time when they were at the never tender mercies of the nations that lorded over them. The Muslim Arabs, following the precepts laid down by the Koran, were historically amongst the worst oppressors of the Jews. This is something worth fighting to prevent, even if it lasts for fifty thousand years. Giving in to evil does not bring peace, it only brings more evil.

The bottom line is there is no solution to the conflict in Israel as long as the Arabs demand everything and still see themselves as the rightful rulers, not so much of the land, but of the infidels who reside upon it.

—–

Alvi has a running under-commentary about the on-going ubiquitous Iraq war, which was strangely (and refreshingly) undefined and unfocused. Certainly a critical view of America’s actions underscored the shots of bombed out hotels, of guard checks, and most of all, of the stories told by the band members. “Firas” (who knows if these were real names, given security issues) the bass player, spoke the best English and thus became the central character; “Tony,” the lead guitarist, though hyped as a spectacular talent, was barely average by western standards. “Marwan,” the drummer, and “Faisal,” the second vocalist that Alvi talked to (the first having fled to Syria) offered occasional pity comments. According to Marwan, “if you can teach every prisoner to play drums . . . you’re gonna have good citizens. . . .” (Here in the United States, I think we have tried that by having them do laundry or make license plates. Not sure if that’s worked yet.)

Band members addressed the extreme difficulty they had in even practicing in a city in which every block had either a check point or was controlled by one militia or another. Then there was the electric power issue: during the one concert Alvi filmed (in front of perhaps 20 people, all males), the electricity went out after a few songs. Alvi himself quickly experienced the impossibility of carrying normal western-style interviews in war-torn Baghdad. His crew paid $1400 U.S. dollars a day for two drivers, two shooters, a translator, an armored SUV and a second vehicle, which he thought was a steal under the circumstances. Most of the filming came from hand-held cameras; much of it from the windows of the SUV or in isolated apartments or alleys. Even getting from one block to the next in 2006—before the surge—was difficult, and Alvi found that talking to ordinary Iraqis at that time was impossible. They trusted no one, and the western reporters hid in the hotels, sending Iraqi camera crews out to get footage and report back, whereupon the brave journalists would do voice-overs as if they were there.

The most amazing aspect of “Heavy Metal in Baghdad” is that, however representative or unrepresentative Acrassicauda was, they were hardly a jihadist anti-western band. Under Saddam, merely “head-banging” could land you in jail! Acrassicauda sported “Metallica” and “Slipknot” t-shirts; learned their music from American and British metal bands (whom they loved); listened to bootleg American tapes; and flat-out admitted, “we’re not a politic [sic] band. . . . we stay out of politics . . . .” Firas noted “I don’t give a f –k about the news. . . . I’m trying my best to get out of the country [to where] I can have peace.” When Alvi first contacted the group, Saddam Hussein was still in power, and the band members recalled that they were only allowed to play a concert if they wrote a special song to Saddam, which they did. It had “shit lyrics” they agreed: “Following our leader Saddam Hussein, we’ll make them fall, drive them insane.” Come to think of it, the lyrics in Van Hagar weren’t all that terrific, either. By the way, the band’s name, Acrassicauda, is Latin for “black scorpion.”

Indeed, the absence of a jihadist or even Islamic tone to anything was stunning. Instead of praying before playing (as many Christian bands do), Acrassicauda gave a rousing football-type cheer: “Acrassicauda—let’s go!” Firas observes “I’m Sunni, my wife is Shiite,” and suspected “someone else” was causing the violence in Iraq,” though he didn’t name the U.S. “I got nothing against religion,” he said, “I’m a Muslim but I’m not that straight.” During the entire movie, there was not a single Allahu Ackbar or discussion of jihad, paradise, the Great Satan, or holy war. Firas also observed that “people” came into Iraq from “Turkey, Iran, everywhere,” by which he meant al-Qaeda terrorists.

In the end, Alvi’s would-be story of an Iraqi heavy metal band ends up like that of most American rock bands. Unable to practice or play (or, in the U.S., pay the bills), Acrassicauda goes to Damascus where they eventually break up. Perhaps one lesson of “Heavy Metal in Baghdad” is that without the USO, it’s damned tough to have “normal” entertainment in war zones, regardless of the style of music being offered. But Alvi perhaps could have gone much deeper with the more important theme of how these Muslims looked so much like American Christian youth who had fallen away from the church for secular pursuits. And still more important, there is an unexplored question of whose culture is more powerful—the fundamentalist Islam of the mullahs or the freedom, in whatever its lyrics and musical form, embodied in the West.

Heavy Metal in Baghdad (2008), Produced by Eddie Moretti and Suroosh Alvi, directed by Eddie Moretti and Suroosh Alvi, VBS/Vice Films (148 minutes).

Another shot was fired in the Middle East a year ago and the echoes to that shot are exploding like wildfire.

That intensely patriotic shot forced an extraordinary and extraordinarily  American Army officer to be entirely relieved of further duty.

This termination of his employment was, I believe, one of America’s greatest blessings in disguise.

It is now August of 2010, exactly one year after the incident, and Col. Allen West is just making his entrance on the political stage of Florida … but … well … we all know it won’t stop there.

Col. Allen West’s warning shot over the head of a profoundly suspect Iraqi police officer has been interpreted in many different ways.

The best interpretation so far, ironically and unexpectedly, can be found in the increasingly far Left NY Times, in an article by Deborah Sontag:

Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, a Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who has pressed for accountability in the Abu Ghraib affair, expressed empathy for the colonel in a letter to constituents. “As a former Marine Corps officer, I support Colonel West’s judgment,” he wrote. “I understand the colonel was well-intentioned and his efforts appear solely intended to protect the lives of troops under his command.”

In his letter, Senator Warner stated that one potential attacker was apprehended and potential ambush sites were identified and avoided as a result of Mr. Hamoodi’s interrogation. Colonel West notes that there were no further attacks on him or his men after the interrogation.  

Hmmm … what if such clarity and depth of purpose, the protection of men under his command, were extended in a Presidential declaration to all Jihadists and their intent to destroy the Free World?

Or, indeed, to all Communists who are still intent upon ruling the whole world?

“Cease and desist!”

“If not, there will be serious consequences!!”

Hmmm, indeed.

If we had a President who took the oath to protect the citizens of the United States and did so with the depth and clarity of Col. Allen West, I do, indeed, think that the enemies of America might actually take him seriously.

Therefore they would have to take America and Americans seriously.

We now have our first black President, Barack Hussein Obama, and the end of the color ceiling in America is great cause for our rejoicing.

However, we just ended up with the wrong black President.

President Obama’s character, as a perennial Harvard graduate, and indelibly Marxist, Oval Office philosopher, is the antithesis of what is required to lead and protect the citizens of the United States.

Col. Allen West, on the other hand, is the perfect President for these, oh so perilous times.

We continue the American triumph over racism!

We do so with an American hero who just happens to be black.

Col. Allen West is profoundly American!

Certainly more American than most of us.

Why is that?

He, more than most, has had to ponder, to the bottom of his soul, what it really means to be an American.

He has seen the answer not just through the eyes of the Founding Fathers, their Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not just through the tortured history of American slavery and a Civil War, the seemingly endless nightmares of American assassinations, from Lincoln to Kennedy to Rev. Martin Luther King, he has seen this all through the eyes of Biblical Saviors and Prophets.

From Moses to David to Elijah to Christ.

In short, he is not just walking with America. He carries the entire history of the Judeo Christian Civilization within his soul.

The Communist Jihadist movement, or Red Islam as I call it, will, indeed, roll over America.

It already has!

With a President Barack Hussein Obama?!

Red Islam has literally invaded our Holy of Holies!!

God, our God, Jehovah, let them do it!

Why?

How can we, as Judeo-Christians, possibly know how Great, indeed, is our God!

How can the rest of the World know?!

How Great, Indeed, IS our God?

Unless our God’s enemies are given the run of The House?!

His House!

There’s a very militant reason that our Lord Christ said, when dealing with either friend or enemy, “Give them even the shirts off of your backs!”

None of those possessions, none of them, will bring them one ounce of the eternal power and peace that the Almighty would give them, if only they would honor Him, and his Judeo-Christian Family.

But they don’t.

In addition to wanting the Judeo-Christian world destroyed, the Islamo-Fascists, with great help from both Red China and neo-Soviet Russia, belittle all of Western Civilization.

Look down on it.

These elitists’ attitudes were best summed up by Voltaire!

He called the Elitists, “Enlightened Despots!”

For “The Revolutionaries”,  it has been “Us and Them!” for over two hundred years!

These Despotic Revolutionaries – and their now, unavoidable desperation – have been on a War-footing, a Combat-ready alert condition, since their spiritual forefathers started beheading the bourgeoisie in the French Revolution of the 18^th Century!

It has not stopped since then.

Now these “Know-it-alls”, these “Enlightened Despots” are the graduates and professors of Harvard. They are throughout the entire Ivy League; and are now rampant within the American Public Educational System.

Oh, these several generations of “Liberated Americans,” Marxists, Free Thinkers … have an over-two hundred year, unendingly revolutionary, curriculum vitae that has filled them with the very Communist Certainty that “They will bury us!”

The only man to tell them to “cease and desist”?

The only man they are forced to listen to?

The man before which they have no other choice but to listen to?

Col. Allen West … President Allen West!

You do know that we are back in the Cold War.

We need a President Eisenhower … this time, a black President Eisenhower.

Beyond just defending ourselves, however, and because the enemy has so infiltrated America that not even the White House, Congress, The Supreme Court and the Press are sacred anymore. Those checks and balances are gone. The Marxist Majority hold sway over everything!

Therefore, our Great American Counter-Revolution has begun.

The World without a traditional America is worse than the Universe without Suns.

It is a humanity without the solid foundations of the Earth.

The plain-talking, simple common sense of America is the only salvation Humanity has left.

Israel, despite its often patronizing attitude towards us?

Israel, of all nations in the World, knows that.

With a President West, who also knows that, we cannot lose.

No matter what Red Islam chooses to throw at us, we shall not lose.

It is humanly and inhumanly impossible for a Reborn, Counter-Revolutionary America to fail.

We’ve already had our Revolution … and we won!

The French Revolution and its unending and eternal desire to bring America to the knees of a Marxist World Empire?

We had the greatest, single and most successful Revolution in the History of Mankind … and now we must institute the most successful Counter-Revolution that Mankind will ever witness.

Col. Allen West rises out of American history as the triumph we actually thought President Obama might be … but … well … this experience with the Obama Nation has, indeed, been an eye-opener for all of us.

Col. Allen West is a proven leader and, most importantly these days, protector of American men, women and children.

Beyond even that, he is one of the few American politicians who understands what the following words actually mean: “One nation under God”.

Some of the criticism is fair. Some of it is not. But we begin with a sentence I never thought I’d write:  “Sex and the City 2” is a subversively patriotic, anti-Islamist fairy tale that ultimately comes down on the side of traditional values, and its creator, Michael Patrick King, has more guts than most everyone working at his level in the film industry today.

***BIG SPOILERS COMING***

Samantha (Kim Cattrell) has always been my least favorite SATC character. She’s obsessed with sexuality, specifically her own, and the only thing more tedious than exploring human sexuality are those obsessed with doing so. This boorish preoccupation with all things getting laid is really nothing more than self-indulgence, but with an ick factor.

Today, however, the proudly promiscuous Samantha is my new hero. And so is director King.

One of the film’s better plotlines (there are four and only two really work) involves the brazenly sexual Samantha having to deal with a cultural environment that frowns upon and feels threatened by a woman unafraid to admit she enjoys sex and eager to troll for it by showing off her admirably toned figure.  In cowardly hands, the fish-out-of-water tension necessary to pay this idea off would’ve been set in some beautiful southern city like Savannah, where the old trope of stuffy fundamentalist Christians would’ve been trotted out without so much as an eyebrow arch of outrage from the progressive press. King not only avoids this tired, unfair cliché, he goes so far as to take his fashionable foursome to the Middle East where he intends to make an effectively damning statement about the oppression of women at the hands of Islamic Nazis.

Director Michael Patrick King

Samantha has spent the better part of her working vacation in Abu Dhabi being told by her PC friends, especially the uptight Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), to cover up her body – even by the pool – and to behave appropriately so as not to offend a culture that keeps their women firmly in place under heavy black burqas. Eventually her lusty needs get the best of her and she’s arrested for openly kissing a man on the beach. Upon release, her male Arab hosts add insult to humiliation by pulling the hospitality rug out from under her. This results in a mad dash to find a lost passport. But Samantha, who’s dressed reasonably by Western standards in a modest pair of shorts, halter top and blouse, is too uncomfortable to cover herself due to hot flashes (long story) and is soon surrounded by a menacing, hostile crowd of at least fifty outraged men.

This moment isn’t played for comedy. Violence is in the air and when Samantha’s purse spills and condom packages splay everywhere, something’s got to give, and God bless her, it’s Samantha who gives it. In a rousing and hilarious act of truly courageous, feminist defiance, with one hand Samantha waves her condoms like the flag of liberty and with the other lifts the “Fuck you” finger high in the air and lets that putrid gang of Islamist thugs have it:

“That’s right, I enjoy sex! Fuck you, I like it!”

A little later, back in America and with red, white and blue fireworks exploding overhead, Samantha’s getting her brains screwed out on the hood of a jeep as Carrie’s (Sarah Jessica Parker) voice-over mentions with no small amount of appreciation, “the land of the free.”

Yes, I get misty eyed just thinking about.

You’ll never hear me argue that the Samanthas of our popular culture — women forever in search of loveless sex — are healthy role models; quite the opposite, in fact. What I will argue, however, is that in a just society Samantha has a God-given right to have as much sex as she wants with whomever she wants. You can throw hot wax, trapezes and midgets into the equation and it’s still a system infinitely morally superior to suffocating her beneath a burqa at the hands of an unjust ideology enabled by a misguided American media more concerned with offending other cultures than human rights.

For his single moment of righteous cinematic protest, director King now finds himself under fire from, among others, the USA Today for “mocking religious beliefs” and  The Hollywood Reporter for being “blatantly anti-Muslim,” even though the rest of the film goes out of its way to treat the Arab world with a dignity few American Southerners receive at the hands of our Tinseltown betters these days.  For starters, and most importantly, each and every Middle Eastern character – male and female — is given their humanity. Furthermore, at one point Carrie wears a star and crescent necklace. At another point she says “Thank God” to an Arab merchant and then sweetly corrects herself with “I mean, thank Allah.”

This attack on King is nothing more than a smear job, and yet another example of the entertainment media’s unholy agenda to punish and make an example of those who dare stray from Hollywood’s PC liberal orthodoxy.  Would anyone like to bet more than a nickel that had King used Mormons instead of Muslims all the criticism about his being “anti-Muslim” would’ve been replaced with phrases like, “brave,” “bold,” “courageous” and “cutting edge”?  I didn’t think so.

Another criticism is that the main characters wallow in shallow, crass materialism. That’s fair enough, but only half true, and as far as the other half goes, so what? We are talking about a fairy tale here. The whole idea is to live vicariously as our foursome enjoys charmed lives filled with luxurious $22,000-a-night suites, massive wardrobes, and girlish squealing over ugly shoes and gaudy jewelry. But like Cinderella’s castle this is nothing more than silly, wish-fulfilling eye candy for a story with a surprisingly traditional message.  

After two years of marriage, Carrie and Big (Chris Noth) are starting to feel the cracks. She’s either nudging or outright badgering him to play dress up and hit the fancy restaurants when all he wants is to put his feet on the couch, hold her close, and watch an old movie. She whines and mopes and cajoles and bitches about his lack of “sparkle.” He bristles and suggests they take a two day vacation from each other each week. Until the final moments, the story keeps you guessing as to how this dilemma will resolve itself. Because this will be the answer to what the film is about.

What “Sex and the City 2” is about is Carrie growing-the-hell-up and coming to realize that when a marriage is firing on all cylinders it’s the simple things like take-out food and an old movie that matter most. In other words, the clothes and jewelry are fun but ultimately mean nothing if you can’t appreciate what costs the least. There’s also a final touch about the importance of fidelity and traditional diamond wedding rings that I won’t spoil. You’re welcome.

Don’t get me wrong, the film is far from perfect. At 143 minutes, it’s longish in more than a few spots and there are some off-key, cringe-worthy moments like a contrived karaoke “I Am Woman” musical number with its heart in the right place that still should’ve been cut. The story also opens rather clumsily with an overlong same-sex marriage sequence so over-the-top gay Liza Minelli makes an appearance. (For the record, anyone with the guts to take on Islamists and their apologists in the media can flack for gay marriage all he wants.)

As I mentioned in my “Kick-Ass” review, I’m not a content guy. Whatever violence, language, nudity or what-have-you a storyteller uses to tell his story is of little concern to me. These are the paints. My interest is only in the painting. Sure, shield the kids from certain kinds of content. But ultimately what matters is what a story is trying to say, not the tools used to say it with. I’ll admit to settling into “Sex and the City 2” rooting for it, just to stick it to those lowlifes in the snark-media who couldn’t wait to launch their cruel air-brushing jokes as soon as the first posters appeared. But that only gets you so far. Ultimately, for all its flaws and bad puns and draggy moments, the film’s heart, high spirits and, yes, morality, won me over.

And the fact that it isn’t in 3D.

Hanks does seem to be a genuinely nice man and the work he’s done to bring American history to life on film is impressive, especially during a time when the singling out of America’s exceptionalism is more and more frowned upon in artistic and academic circles. ”From the Earth to the Moon,” “Band of Brothers,” and “John Adams” are not only artistic achievements, but in this MTV-addled culture, might be the best hope of teaching America’s youth about the unique history and greatness of this nation. And I suspect ”The Pacific,” the 10-part miniseries premiering this Sunday on HBO (which Big Hollywood’s Michael Broderick will cover extensively) will be a worthy addition to what came before.

But when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross: [emphasis mine]

[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

There’s no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He’s a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.

No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.

Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as “yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?” I thought it was due to the fact that “we viewed them” as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.

But there’s no reason to speculate about America’s motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these “different” people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the “yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods.” Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies.

And to answer Hanks’s question: No — annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what’s going on today.

This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of  people who are “different” — those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don’t and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million “different” people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we all know that had we practiced a more selfish and barbaric form of war the enemy would’ve been destroyed faster, American lives would’ve been saved, and the financial cost would not have been nearly as high. 

But that’s not who we are.

Whether they’re “yellow, slanty-eyed dogs that worship different gods” or the people of the Middle East who share the same language and religion as those pledged to murder us, America selflessly protects the innocent who are “different” and as humanely as possible seeks to “annihilate” only those — even if they’re not “different” (like, say, Germans and Italians) – who practice an ideology that actually does believe in annihilating those who are different.

You almost get the sense that Hanks suddenly felt uncomfortable talking about America so extensively without throwing a bone to his MSNBC fanbase. Or maybe he misspoke, or maybe he really does believe it. Douglas Brinkley, the man who wrote the Time profile, sure found those words important. Important enough that the excerpt above is what closes the piece – the thought Brinkley chose to leave us with.

Olaf in Combat.

03 November 2009

British soldiers at war are an incredible group.  Courageous, competent, and committed in very difficult conditions.  An email came today from London, from a BBC correspondent who has been to Afghanistan saying that Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid had been killed.

To see the article in the BBC was deeply saddening: Soldier Killed While Defusing 65th Bomb.

On a side note, the British soldiers are conservative.  Though this is not very important, it’s difficult to imagine that Olaf had only destroyed 64 bombs before being killed.  Just on this single mission, during which all these photos were taken, and during the surrounding few days, his crew must have destroyed several dozen bombs.  You had to be there.  By the time the mission in these photos happened, the crew was very experienced.

Courage is as common as boots among these soldiers, but Olaf stood out even in that company.  You could tell that Olaf knew his business from mean experience, and that he was ready for battle.  His mind was very quick.

His crew was competent and confident, and worked faster to clear bombs than any I had seen.  If not, the soldiers could never have completed this mission, because there simply were too many bombs.  They say all beekeepers get stung, but these are not bees.  These soldiers were facing an extraordinary number of bombs and booby-traps that are designed to kill the team.

According to the Oxford Mail:

During the course of his tour, he attended 41 tasks, rendered safe 64 IEDs and attended 11 finds of bomb-making equipment.

The married father-of-one lived with his family in Winchester. His wife Christina said: “Oz was a phenomenal husband and loving father who was cruelly murdered on his last day of a relentless five-month tour.”

Olaf was lost on his last mission.  The enemy are blowing up civilians everywhere, and taking a toll on our folks.

According to the BBC:

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Thomson, commanding officer of 2 Rifles Battle Group, said: “Staff Sgt Oz Schmid was simply the bravest and most courageous man I have ever met.”

“No matter how difficult or lethal the task which lay in front of us, he was the man who only saw solutions.”

“He saved lives in 2 Rifles time after time and for that he will retain a very special place in every heart of every rifleman in our extraordinary battle group.”

According to the Oxford Mail,

Lt Col Robert Thomson, the commanding officer of the 2 Rifles Battle Group, said: “Staff Sgt Oz Schmid was simply the bravest and most courageous man I have ever met.”

“Under relentless IED and small arms attacks, he stood taller than the tallest. He opened the Pharmacy Road and 24 hours later, found 31 IEDs in one go on route Sparta. Every single company in 2 Rifles adored working with him.”

They really did.  Everybody liked to see not just Olaf, but his entire great team.  The mission succeeded that day.  For more about the lives, and missions of these excellent soldiers, please read Bad Medicine.

Please give the gift of independent reporting. Your gift goes far and is used for transport, lodging, living expenses, satellite communications and for repairing and replacing gear that fails due to the rigors of the battlefields.  Millions of people, in more than a hundred countries, see these photos and words.  Your generosity goes very far, and is greatly appreciated.

“Soraya” epitomizes a woman’s plight in the Islamic world and reaches across the globe into communities which welcomed Muslim immigrants into their secular societies.  But the question left unasked by these societies – face to face – is this:  Will you accept the strictures of our society based upon Freedom and mutual respect?

Some Muslim immigrants (not all) refuse to embrace their adopted country’s mores and behaviors. They choose isolated communities.  In France, a friend told me that many third-generation Algerians still don’t speak French.  News reports about “disaffected youth” riots veil the source of burning cars in Paris – radicalized Islamist youth.  Herein lies the question about enforced societal acceptance of multiculturalism and freedom.

Freedom is a tough concept to sell. You know it when you have it. You can see when it’s absent, i.e., Iran, Zimbabwe, socialist left-wing dictatorships like China, etc.,  But it’s taken for granted in America.   Unfortunately in our ADD, media-centric world of flash, celebrity and shock, the world’s impression of freedom is excessive violence, sexuality and degradation. Freedom is confused with approval. The best definition I ever heard for Freedom was “The right to do what you want and the responsibility to take the right course of action.”

The left’s misguided sense of multiculturalism is part of the problem. Ask somebody to define “Social Justice.” You won’t get specific policies but slogans and dogma.  To me, multiculturalism means living your life with acknowledgement and respect of your ethnic and religious heritage – learning the language, honoring holidays and remembering history. Irish history is not just drinking green beer once a year or getting tossed out of a bar on St. Paddy’s. It’s remembering the struggle for Irish rights and freedom, contributions to literature and the promises of opportunity and freedom in America.

Some of Europe’s Muslim immigrants (not all, but an influential number), hold fast to their “multiculturalism” as in Denmark’s immigrants experience:

• Muslims who left Islam have been murdered.
• Jewish leaders and citizens are openly threatened in a country that hid 7,000 Jewish citizens from the Nazis in World War II.
• Forced marriages with an unseen fiancee from the native country are common – and fulfilled upon pain of death.
• A $30,000 bounty for the death of prominent Danish Jews.

Denmark has taken steps to counter-act the isolated Muslim immigrant communities with welfare reform (Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.), language classes and restrictions on automatic family immigration and marriage.   Denmark’s Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj, paid the price for these reforms.  When a prominent Iman demanded that the Danish government pay blood money to stop a revenge-bent family, she refused. Her house was torched. She, her husband and children escaped. The Danes remember these tactics. They happened once before between 1940 to 1945.

I believe this could happen in America. In Britain, Sharia is now used in civil cases. The British stopped Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who speaks out against radical Islam, from showing his film there due to “security concerns.” AIG, the company receiving a massive government bailout, developed a Sharia compliant financial division. Remember: Shariah is not just a system of cultural or religious beliefs, but a religious and political structure. Some American politicians have no problem embracing Sharia Law.  No less than Yale Law School Dean, Harold Koh, suggested that Sharia law might be applicable in the U.S.

Would that include ‘Honor Killings,’ unimaginable horrors of electrocution, stabbings, rape and more?  They have happened in America:

• Atlanta: A Pakistani immigrant allegedly strangled his 25 year old daughter with a bungee cord because she wanted to end an arranged marriage.
• New York: A man stabbed his 19 year old sister because she went to clubs, wore immodest clothing and wanted to live in New York City.
• Texas: Two sisters, 17 and 18, were shot numerous times by their father upon him learning that they had boyfriends.

Immigrants deplore the hyper-sexualized exports of America. Decency and manners demonstrate that not all Americans support these abuses of freedom. But this is the image of our freedom, our human rights, our Constitution. Media trumps reality.

What can be done?

1. Realize that this entire business – Shariah, laws, media – is incremental. Tiny blips repeated a million times. Change it with your dollars, your votes, your conversation. Every day over and over.

2. Oppose the import of “trans-national” law from neurotically corrupt and pathetic organizations like the U.N., Sharia and any other international law. The law comes from democratically elected representatives and our Constitutions. Keep it that way.

3. Forget everything I’ve said. Don’t do a damn thing. Turn up “American Idol” and vote. Oh, and don’t  worry about  stones hitting your window. Your children and grandchildren will.   And just be honest enough when they ask, “Why are we slaves and why did you do nothing?” to look them in the eye and say, “It wasn’t my problem” or “I didn’t have the time” or “I was a coward.”

The fight is on. The fight is now. When you watch “Soraya,” imagine a loved one. Your sister. Your daughter. Your granddaughter. I hope that it’s painful for you. That’s usually when humans decide that enough is enough.

Soraya never had that chance.  You can give that chance to the next generation of Sorayas.

So Obama was right: he truly is the citizen of the world, even as his own country is left wandering and confused. I suppose it’s easy, however, for Jabrail in Azerbaijan to swoon over Obam, when he’s not faced with cap and trade, nationalized health care, and those new mandatory curly light bulbs. But then again, in Azerbaijan, I guess you’re just happy to have any kind of light bulb. Even if it’s a candle shaped like a light bulb.

But I digress. The poll looked at “confidence ratings” and found that while Obama had the highest, and would “do the right thing regarding world affairs,” Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had the lowest. Now, these standings might mean something, if Obama actually had the balls to take advantage of them. I mean, what’s the use of being loved if you can’t actually scare the crap out of those who love you? It’s what confuses me most about our President. He chose initially to sit on the sidelines – as the people of Iran cried out for help – preferring to see which dude wins. A true leader, however, would know that it’s not the leaders who matter, but the people caught in the middle.

Which is why Obama’s recent response to the Honduran mess is even more bizarre. Immediately after the coup – Obama raced to condemn it. So our President develops a spine over an abducted politician in pajamas – but not about widespread bloodshed of innocent folks in Iran? Where the heck are his priorities, or his sense of proportion?

Does Obama make a list of things that piss him off, and if so – what’s at the top? Fascism or poorly inflated tires? The murder of innocent protestors, or midtown bodegas that sell cigarettes to teens? Nukes pointed at Hawaii, or sugary sodas at school? Our nation’s prosperity or his abs?

I don’t know. Which is why – at least for now – I’m taking down my Obama poster from the ceiling above my bunk bed. I’m replacing it with a poster of Sarkozy. He’s got abs, and balls!

Tonight’s guests include Remi Spencer, Mike Baker, Greg Proops and actor Mike Doyle.

A few days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a speech in we he agreed for the first time to the possibility of a two state solution. To many countries in the world, this is considered a major breakthrough in the Palestinian conflict. For the first time in recent memory, Israel is ready to consider giving the Palestinians a homeland. The entire western world applauded the concessions. Of course, the Palestinians did not: they condemned them.

Why? Part of Netanyahu’s concessions consisted of two demands upon the Palestinians. Unfortunately, for the rest of the world, the Palestinian leaders refuse to accept them. For one, Palestine must accept that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. And two, the Arab World and particularly the Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist.

First, we will discuss the Jerusalem situation as this is the most complicated. Jerusalem is the natural homeland to all three of the major western religions. Christians, Moslems and Jews all consider it sacred. It has always been the natural center of Israel and the home of the original Jewish Temple built by David.

When Israel was created in 1948, all of Jerusalem was not within its borders. The city was completely taken by Israel in one of its many wars about forty years ago. The Moslem world has always felt that it should not remain part of Israel because of this and because it is the city in which one of the most sacred and important Mosques stands. Since the conflict in which Israel took Jerusalem, this has always been one of the major stumbling blocks in any peace accord.

In my opinion Israel will never concede any of Jerusalem and it should not. As this is the home of Judaism, Israel must retain it within its borders. The Palestinians must concede on this issue. Jerusalem was never part of Palestine as Palestine would be a newly created state. This was not a stumbling block to peace with Egypt and it should not be a stumbling block to a resolution to the Palestinian situation.

As for the second issue, I simply cannot understand why the Palestinians would not recognize Israel’s right to exist. After all this time and after the majority of the entire world has accepted Israel, why would the Palestinians not concede on this point? The reason is very simple and gets to the heart of the whole conflict. The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world care more about the existence of a Jewish homeland than they care about the existence of a Palestinian homeland.

A quick review of the history of the region shows that every time the Palestinians were offered a homeland, they have always turned it down. This has been done at least four times since the creation of Israel. The Palestinians always say no because they do not really want a homeland, they want Israel to cease to exist, plain and simple. Until the Palestinians change their position on this, there will never be peace in the region.

President Obama should immediately put as much pressure on the Palestinians as he has put on Israel to change its position. He cannot continue to favor Palestine in this debate over Israel. He must change his viewpoint and take a firm stand. Netanyahu has made a major concession. Now, Obama must force the Palestinian leaders to do the same. If he does not, he is proving that he is not a true friend of Israel, which is still the only true democracy in the region.

Or, might that be changing?

Since the obviously fixed Iranian election last week, the people of Iran have been protesting by the thousands. In fact, the protests which started peacefully last week have now turned violent since the Supreme Commander of Iran has decided that they should be quashed in the same manner as the Chinese quashed the protests in Tiananmen Square. In fact, the bloodshed of the last few days actually is beginning to look exactly like the Chinese bloodshed 20 years ago.

It all started when the current President was declared the victor in the nationwide election in less than two days after the election took place. Considering that all of the ballots in Iran are handwritten, I simply do not understand how the current government of Iran would actually believe that the world would accept these results as being anything other than fixed. How is it possible to count 39 million ballots in a 48 hour period?

The opposition leader immediately declared the election a sham and told his supporters to take to the streets. And, they have! By the thousands! The protests which started in Tehran have spread to all sections of the country and most importantly, include women which in the Arab world is a major surprise.

At first the current regime allowed the protests. But, as they have become larger with each passing day, the dictators realized that their regime was in danger of collapsing. On Friday, the Supreme Leader, the current Ayatollah stated that any continued protests would be done at the peril of the demonstrators. Since this statement, the government has completely eliminated the press from the country and the bloodshed began. The only source of information from Iran is now coming from internet networking sites and Twitter of all places. Imagine Twitter is a proponent of a populist revolution.

And, what has our Supreme Leader Mr. Obama done while this was going on? a Absolutely nothing except to comment that the “The World is Watching You,” to the Iranian leaders. Of course, this plays well with dictators. Hitler listened very carefully when Mr. Chamberlain sold off a Czechoslovakia in 1938 and came back to the UK and said, “Peace in our time.”

President Obama must immediately put the same level of pressure on the Iranian government that he has put on the Israeli government. The Iranian election that was obviously a sham should be thrown out and a new election under the watch of the United Nations should be had.

Yet, President Obama does nothing except say our watchful eye is upon you. As of this writing, he has not, even so much as condemned the election results. The Iranians protest and lose their lives and President Obama just watches. In fact, a poll was recently released which shows only single digits of Americans approve of the President’s handling of this situation. Even approval among Democrats is in the single digits.

I guess Mr. Obama is just living up to his campaign promise of being a pragmatist in this situation. I just wish he would finally do something before something happens that he will woefully regret. Remember, Iran either has or is very close to having nuclear weapons. I’m quite sure the current dictator and the Supreme Leader will have no problem using them if necessary either against Israel or his own people to quell the uprising!

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be given freely upon request.

In the past few weeks, President Obama has told Israel that it must now accept a two state solution to the Palestinian problem, and just yesterday, he told Ehud Barak that Israel must stop all growth in the West Bank settlements. Further, the President has taken the position that Iran may continue its nuclear programs provided that it intends only to pursue nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons, in contravention of Israeli wishes.

What is going on here? Does the President believe that by kissing up to our enemies; i.e. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Radical Islam, that he is going to make all of the problems of the world go away? Does he believe that by allowing Israeli/US relations to go by the wayside, he is going to make Al Qaeda disappear? I think not.

In fact, yesterday another tape of Osama bin Laden appeared condemning the United States for backing the Pakistani military in taking on the Taliban. The tape made it clear that President Obama was no different from President Bush in bin Laden’s eyes and that the blood of Muslims and retribution for their deaths would be on Obama’s hands. The War on Terror is not over regardless of what President Obama wants to call it, and based upon the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is about to escalate.

And, the Israel/Arab situation will not get any better as a result.

The situation with the Palestinians is multi-faceted. To begin with, the Palestinians believe they were wronged when their land was given by the UK at the end of WWII to create the Jewish homeland. They will not have full peace with Israel unless they are given land by Israel for the creation of Palestine. President Obama has taken the position that this so called Two-State Solution is the best solution for the problem. And, there are many Israelis that agree with him.

However, the far right wing in Israel is vehemently opposed to the Two State Solution. These right wing radicals will do everything in their power to oppose it. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, they have much power in the current Netanyahu Coalition Government. In fact, the first time Netanyahu was Prime Minister he lost power because he angered the far right.

This is Netanyahu’s problem again. The far right wants continued growth of the settlements in land that would become part of Palestine. And, if Netanyahu takes on the far right again, he will be ousted a second time as a result of his coalition collapsing. So, by forcing the issue on the settlements and the Two State solution, Obama is causing a thaw in Israeli relations. He is putting Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of the only democratic country in the region, into a no win situation.

And, to make matters worse this week, the Obama Administration declared that any negotiations over the Palestinian situation would have to include Hamas at the negotiating table. Hamas has been and always will be a terrorist organization. What is happening to our country’s declaration that we will never negotiate with terrorists? This has been our policy for well over twenty years. And, a damn good policy it is. Has President Obama decided that talking to a terrorist organization that advocates the dissolution of Israel is the best way to solve this problem or is he just further exhibiting his abandonment of Israel? I wonder how President Obama’s supporters in Hollywood feel about this turn of events.

Obama’s speech this morning in Egypt was very conciliatory to the Muslim World and, so it should be. However, the President must still remember, that we are at war with radical Islam. The Taliban and al Qaeda will do whatever they can to destroy the United States of America. The Hamas, and to a lesser extent Hezbollah, will do the same. And, all of these organizations have one thing in common. They all hate Israel and do not recognize its right to exist. If you add the extremist leader of Iran to this group, you have a very powerful group of radical Muslims that want to end the Israeli State.

Obama must keep this in mind when he is forming his foreign policy for the Middle East. These groups will not tolerate any existence of Israel and will become enemies of anyone that does. By kissing up to Iran and now accepting Hamas as a legitimate organization without either one of them recognizing Israel, he is snubbing his nose at one of our strongest allies. And, he is making the possibility of peace a further impossibility.

You may disagree with President Bush’s foreign policy, but you cannot disagree with its results. After 9/11, there was not one additional act of terrorism on US soil or against US assets abroad. Strength comes with fear. The Muslim dictators know this. It is the way of the Arab world. Do you think the Saudi leaders would be parading around the body of an executed be-headed man in the past week for any other reason? This is the way that Obama must build his foreign policy with the Arab world. The only way true peace can be achieved in the Middle East is through strength.

Unfortunately, this also seems to be the case in North Korea. Kim Jong-Il is showing, almost on a daily basis, that the Obama doctrine of conciliation is not working. Each day North Korea is boldly acting to make the world a more dangerous place and the President does nothing. Is he waiting for an all out war to break out in Asia or will he do something before that happens? Keep in mind, that this week North Korea started bragging about an ICBM that could reach Alaska.

I know my ranting on this topic will upset many on the left that believe in the Obama doctrine. I can only wish that I am wrong. In fact, there is nothing that I would like more than to say in this column that Obama was right and that the acts of conciliation and kindness towards our enemies have solved the problems of the world. But, what if I am correct? Would you want to be the one who has to tell the people of the United States that our safety had been compromised because you did not take the actions of a few rogue states seriously? Do you want to be the one to tell the electorate that you did not adequately protect American interests in the Middle East? I think not.

©2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to use excerpts will be freely given upon request.