Friday, September 29, 2006

Is "Wonkette" French for "Stupid Cow?"

Evidently, the slouches at Wonkette are unable to carry on conversations that don't involve genitalia, Michelle Malkin-bashing, or sewer-level humor.

The funny thing is, I never even heard of Wonkette until after I heard of Michelle Malkin. Malkin says something, Wonkette throws a rock and posts some made-up picture with the trademark racial slur that can only come from a puerile liberal cybertramp like Wonkette, and round and round, forever and ever amen.

Seems that with all the Malkin-bashing, Wonkette must not be able to live without Malkin. They must all be Democrats over at Wonkette, because parisitism just comes so naturally to them.

That's all the bandwidth I'm going to waste on the stupid cow.

Democrats Show True Colors in House/Senate Vote

The Dissociated Press brings us a story that describes the debate between Republicans and Democrats that will determine the ability of the United States to defend ourselves against a ruthless, unorthodox, and brutal enemy.

At long last, we are seeing the congealing of opposing ideas in the halls of our government regarding the prosecution of our war against Islamic murderers. One idea is to give our President every tool possible to command a changing military in a highly fluid and unstable battlefield, with the oversight of Congress.

The other idea is to elevate the civil rights of our enemy over the civil rights of American citizens- an idea that motivates Democrats to oppose every meaningful and effective strategy at our disposal in this war; to demand immediate withdrawal from regions in which the enemy is being killed wholesale and democracy is being established; to put forward no plan whatsoever as an alternative to the current one; and to push legislation that would further erode America's ability to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigrants from insinuating themselves into our society without penalty.

The Democrats have abandoned all pretense at long last. The protestations are still there for the media to propagate, but at this point the cards are all on the table and America stands at the threshold of one of the most important elections in her history. We can choose to press on in the fight, or to capitulate to the terrorists. While there are other issues to consider in the upcoming election, if our ability to defend ourselves is forfeited then none of the other issues will matter all that much.

The passage of House Bill H.R. 5825 and Senate Bill S. 3931 will go far to uphold our ability to prosecute the most unorthodox war in our history. Yet the Democrats, in their usual fashion, vehemently oppose them. Patrick Leahy, who singlehandedly caused the deaths of CIA agents by exposing them to our enemies, called the senate bill "bad" and "dangerous." And Leahy knows all about being bad and dangerous.

AP Reporter Laurie Kellman cites House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R- Illinois) as saying that "Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists... So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Iran) shot back, "Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?"

Well, there's a rhetorical question if ever I saw one.

As a matter of fact, Nancy, Americans do think that there are people in our country want to coddle terrorists. We call them Democrats, and the Democrats themselves convince of of this fact through their obstinate and consistent obstruction of America's capacity to wage war against our enemies, through their scorn of American citizens' rights in favor of defending terrorist murderers, through their continued enablement of extraordinary dispensation for illegal aliens (driver's licenses, ocllege scholarships, health insurance, etc.) , and through their constant assault on the Constitution regarding the rights of Americans to defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As Ted Kennedy (D- Chappaquiddick) declared, "In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense". Of course, Ted Kennedy was referring to the "nonsense" of defending ourselves against a determined enemy in favor of outright capitulation and a return to the Clinton Dark Ages.

In a rare flash of truth, Pelosi and the Democrats who voted with her in lockstep clearly articulated the single most defining characteristic of the modern Democrat Party, to wit: an abiding hatred of America that drives them to assault our national security in time of war in hopes that our defeat by a foreign enemy will at last force our submission to the United Nations and do away with our Republic once and for all.


Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Bill Clinton, Failure

Bill Clinton passionately vented his wrath at Chris Wallace earlier this week, defending his policy of selling national security wholesale while looking good doing it. He summed up his eight years of turning the White House into a trailer park in five little words: "I tried, and I failed."

But that's the problem. He did not try. He confessed on tape that he was offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese, and Clinton turned them down. The self-serving creampuff displayed that rare audacity reserved only for the morally bankrupt when he told the American people that he tried. Can a person be any more bereft of moral direction than Bill Clinton?

And he follows with the accusation that the Bush administration had eight whole months to do something about bin Laden, and did nothing.

Mr. Clinton, you had eight years and you had bin Laden offered to you. And you did nothing. You could have saved 3,000 Americans. You turned down a chance to actually do something good during your administration because you were afraid of looking bad.

Well, you sure look bad now, Billy boy.

The Clinton legacy that Bill and Hillary have lied, cheated, stolen, and killed to prop up for themselves is falling to pieces around their ears. And that is a good thing.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Some Simple Realities about Your ED Wait

I hear many, many people complaining about how long they have to wait to be seen in the Emergency department. Here is the simple reality about the reasons you might wait, straight from an ER nurse:

1. We can only go as fast as the number of available beds allows. You may not know this, but state-of-the-art emergency rooms happen to be just a skosh expensive to build and equip, and they also take a little time to build. Then you have to staff them. My bedroom-community ER is operating at over 200% capacity because of the massive exodus of people out of the metro area. On a positive note, we are getting a new ER with twice the capacity of our present ER and with a better patient flow design. But that means that when it opens, we will start at 100% capacity. Why did we not build a bigger ER when we knew this? Behold, the simple economics of public funding: The taxpayers demand we build a new ER, but they'll be damned if they spend one dime for it. We can only build what we can afford. Sorry about that.

2. I don't care if a person is from Mexico, China, Haiti, Canada, Pakistan, or Lower Slobovia. I don't care if they are legal or not. I know full well how much it costs to provide healthcare to people who won't pay for it. It pisses me off too. But if they are sicker than you, they get in first. Sorry about that. Does treating illegals make things more expensive for us? Yes, it does. But they are also human beings. That takes precedence over legal status when a person is blue and pulseless. Turning deathly ill persons away because they are of questionable legal status or uninsured ain't in my job description, pal. And think about it: would you want to face me in triage if it was?

3. People using the ER as a family clinic is not a practice exclusive to the uninsured or to Mexican immigrants. More caucasian, English-speaking, insured families follow that practice in my ER than any other demographic. Why? Because they seem to think that if they come to an ER with a toothache or a head cold, they will be seen sooner. After all, we're an ER- right? We must assume that anyone who comes into an ER must certainly have a real emergency- right? Wrong. Take your headcold to the local drug store, buy some Nyquil, some Vick's Vapor Rub, some saline nose spray, and some chicken soup and deal with it. Don't clutter my ER if you aren't bleeding, puking your everlovin' guts out, convulsing, febrile over 102 degrees, or if you don't have a bone sticking out, don't have a kidney stone that feels like it's the size of a cinder block, have not been in a car accident or have not been or are not now blue and pulseless. Those are emergencies. Your ingrown toenail is not. Sorry about that. And no, I will not look at your little Jimmy's splinter or your mother's corns since they are in the room with you anyway. They'll have to go through triage just like everyone else. You can find family price packages at the Ballpark, not in my ER.

4. I am a highly trained medical professional with years of state-of-the-art education (graduated Magna cum Laude) and further years of ER experience behind me. When you come into my ER, you will get the best I have to give, no exceptions. So please do not come ditty-bopping into my ER and tell me you are having a stroke, a heart attack , or kidney stones. I ruled all three of those out when I watched you get out of your car and briskly walk the 100 yards between your car and my door smoking that cigarette and putting it out in the faux-marble birdbath that I put out there with my own frigging money. I ain't buying. Sorry about that.

5. I try to get you in as fast as I can. I really do. Sometimes things happen that make you wait a little longer- a five-car pileup on the interstate; a barbecue explosion; a father of three whose heart has the gall to stop beating while he is playing ball with his kids; a pregnant woman who starts hemorrhaging and goes through six pads in a half hour. If those come through my door, you may have to wait a while longer. Please do not stomp up to the triage station and ask me if I know just how frigging long you have been waiting. Yes, I know how frigging long you have been waiting. I wrote down the time you came in. And when I apologize and tell you that you will have to wait just a little longer, please do not call me whatever filthy name strikes your fancy. Please do not threaten to wait for me outside the ER and beat me to death with a tire iron or cut my throat when I leave. It's been done. Believe me, pal- I have heard them all, even from upper middle-class people who speak marvelous English. I really do care. I wish I could get you in faster, but I can't. On that note:

6. If you can stomp up to my triage station after two or more hours of waiting and be loud and belligerent, then I can instantly deduce that you have the lung capacity and the cardiac capacity to keep that brain of yours perfused for a little while longer. I keep an eye on my triage patients, and I make a point of coming out to the waiting area and checking on folks who have to wait, just to let them know I have not forgotten about them and to recheck a blood pressure or temperature or two. In my ER, if you are really sick, you can bet your ass I will move heaven and earth to get you in. It's like that in almost every other ER in this country. Not all, unfortunately, but nearly all. But you don't hear about those. You only hear about the bad ones. They are not all bad. Most are pretty damn good. I know- I have been a customer in more than one of them.

7. I have studied in hospitals from here to Taiwan and have performed comparative research on the healthcare systems in dozens of countries incoluding America; and I can tell you that all this talk about socialized medicine being superior to American healthcare is by and large a trainload of horsefeathers. They are most certainly not any better than what we have to offer. And the wait is at least as long. There are exceptions, but that's all they are. American healthcare is flawed, but I'd still take my kid to an American hospital first.

I mean no disrespect to anyone when I say this, but it must be said because it is the absolute bottom line, and there is no getting around it: If you want bigger, better, faster, sexier hospitals, then you will have to accept the unsavory fact that you are going to have to pay for them. Ours is a consumer-driven society, and our healthcare reflects that. If you expect Bugatti quality for the price of a Yugo, you are going to be very, very disappointed. That may not be palatable, but it is the truth. Sorry about that.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Illinois ER Death Ruled as Homicide

Being an ER nurse, I tend to fasten my attention onto cases such as this one.

According the the AP story, a 49-year-old woman came into the ER complaining of chest pain, nausea, and shortness of breath. (Okay, all you nurses out there: pipe down and let the laypersons catch up.) She is triaged, classified "semi-emergent," and instructed to wait for her name to be called. Two hours later, when the woman's turn to be seen had arrived and her name was called by the triage nurse, the woman did not respond, The nurse approached the woman and found her unresponsive and pulseless. (That's medical-ese for "dead.")

The ensuing coroner's inquest ruled the woman's death a homicide. No details are available at this time regarding exactly who is to be charged with this woman's death.

Here is my view of the matter.

At the emergency department in which I am employed, there is a simple standard of practice that governs the treatment of any person who complains of chest pain, shortness of breath, and nausea, whether the person is 18 or 90 years old, and it is as follows: Treat it as a heart attack. That means get them into a treatment room, Give them oxygen, stick a large-bore (20 gauge or larger) IV needle into them, draw labs including troponin I (a marker for cardiac injury), slap cardiac monitor leads onto them and perform a 12-lead electrocardiogram. If their blood pressure is stable, we may also give a spray of sublingual nitroglycerine and four baby aspirin.

(One may say that 18 years old is a bit young to be having a heart attack, and it is. But it happens; not very often, mind you, but just often enough to cause us to keep our guard up. So we don't take any chances.)

The rationale for all of these drastic measures (all of which occur within minutes of admission) is that if we act on the assumption of the worst-case, we will already be ahead of the curve. We can always back off on treatment strategies if it turns out to be something other than cardiac-related. But if it turns out to be a heart attack, then time is of the essence. And if the ER staff was caught flatfooted, the patient can die and the staff can be in a lot of trouble, as is the case with this Illinois ER.

Now, I was obviously not there to see all that went on in this woman's case, and therefore I will not point fingers. But I suspect that the error occurred because of an inexperienced triage nurse. On the other hand, triage nurses as a rule have to be experienced nurses before given that duty, in order to avoid this kind of tragedy. I think that in such a case, the only thing that could throw off the triage nurse's assessment would be whether or not the patient drove herself (or was driven by a friend or loved one) versus calling 911 and being transported by ambulance. Even then, given the victim's symptomology and the fact that she showed up in an ER in the first place, I am having a very hard time giving this staff the benefit of the doubt.

The moral of this story for the nurses who read this is: chest pain + shortness of breath + nausea = heart attack until proven otherwise.

And the moral of the story for my non-nursing readers out there is: chest pain + shortness of breath + nausea = heart attack until proven otherwise. So if you have these symptoms, don't be stupid. Do not drive yourself to the hospital or even ask a friend or loved one to do it. Call 911 and sit tight. You will get there faster, and you'll be taken a lot more seriously than if you were to walk in under your own power like so many frequent flyers with anxiety attacks do. We are skilled and trained, but you have to help us out here.

Somebody in the Illinois ER is going to pay with his/her license and maybe even some jail time before this is over. The hospital will likely be out millions of dollars. I can't really defend that, and I won't even try. In my heart of hearts, I know that there is no excuse for allowing a chest pain patient to sit for two hours when an EKG and labs can be done on a stretcher in the ER hallway in five minutes and the patient can at least be monitored.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Washington State Public Schools SUCK.

And here is the report that proves it. This is the second year in a row that Washington Schools have gotten a big fat "F" and yet hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being pumped into what is clearly a thoroughly rotten and corrupt system. But like any other Washington State government-funded institution, reality is not the point. It isn't about giving the children a good education, after all. It's about pumping the raw sewage of "inclusiveness," "tolerance," and the creation of dumbed-down drones who are incapable of conjuring up an independent, coherent thought.

Got kids? Stay the hell out of Washington State.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Frist Announces Unanimous Passage of Coburn-Obama Bill!

Senator Bill Frist has announced from his VOLPAC blog:
"Tonight I’m proud to report that the Senate unanimously passed S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. The passage of this legislation is a triumph for transparency in government, for fiscal discipline, and for the bipartisan citizen journalism of the blogosphere. Without the efforts of ordinary Americans empowered by the Internet, including many hardworking members of the iFrist Volunteers, this legislation might easily have been successfully obstructed. Instead, the unprecedented synergy between online grassroots activists and Senate leadership provides a new model for participatory democracy in action."

This may not be the end of pork-mongering, but Hastert, Stevens, Byrd, and other hilltop slimedogs will have a helluva lot of highly-interested citizens breathing down their necks from now on. This is a great victory for the citizens of this country, and a huge hat tip goes out to all the grassroots blogosphere activists who made life miserable for Byrd and Stevens. Those rotten pukes ought to be unemployed at the first opportunity.

The people of this nation have spoken. It's about damned time these bums listened.

Next on the agenda: closing our borders.

Clintonistas Don't Need 9/11 Miniseries to Make Them Look Bad

Deepti Hajela of the Dissociated Press reports that in a classic demonstration of hypocrisy, high-profile former Clinton administration officials have come out against Disney/ABC regarding their upcoming miniseries, "The Path to 9/11".

Madeline Albright (Clinton's incompetent Secretary of State), Sandy Berger (Clinton's treasonous National Security Advisor), Bruce Lindsay (head of the revisionist Clinton Foundation) and Douglas Band (vacuous Clinton advisor) have expressed their concern over inaccuracies that they say were found in the movie.

Lindsey and Band complain that, "By ABC's own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong." (Well, come on, dudes. This is Disney/ABC we're talking about. What did you expect?) Jay Carson, spokesman for the Clinton Foundation, said:

"ABC/Disney acknowledges this show is fiction and in direct contradiction of the 9-11 commission report and the facts, and it is despicable that ABC/Disney would insist on airing a fictional version of what is a serious and emotional event for our country..."

The reader will not fail to note the supreme irony of Mr. Carson's statement. One need only recall the extreme maneuvering by these same members of the Clinton administration in their efforts to cover their own criminally-negligent and treasonous asses during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Yet in all fairness, they do have a point. Disney is not accurately portraying the Clinton Administration's feckless actions which ultimately caused the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans five years ago. The Clinton administration was far more criminally negligent than the movie relates.

Carter further declares in faux outrage,

"It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

(Mr. Carter fails to note that the people whom he represents are guilty of the same thing.)

Let us start with the two principle operators in this drama: Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger.

While Madeline Albright insisted in her statement to the 9/11 Commission that the State Department made counterterrorism their centerpiece, the record shows that when Paul Bremer suggested adding Afghanistan to the list of recognized state sponsors of terrorism Albright refused on the grounds that such a move would be tantamount to recognizing the Taliban as a legitimate government. Albright stated that recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate government was a carrot she dangled in front of Afghanistan in hopes that the Taliban would cooperate with the Clinton administration's policy on terrorism. History relates that the Clinton administration's policy in dealing with nations who sponsored terrorism consistently fell short of taking effective action against those nations. Albright's role in shaping the State Department's toothless policy regarding Afghanistan effectively provided the time that bin Laden needed to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks.

Furthermore, Albright refused to support military action against Afghanistan after the USS Cole bombing, because she placed world opinion about a proposed retaliatory strike as more important than defending the security of the United States. So while Afghanistan continued to support bin Laden with real estate and materiel, the Clinton administration continued to fritter away its security for the sake of looking good to the very Muslim nations who hated America and supported al Qaeda.

Sandy Berger is the other chief rogue in our gallery. Berger forbade the exchange of information from military intelligence gathered by the Able Danger team to law enforcement officials that, had it been allowed, could have led to the arrests of the al Qaeda team that was responsible for the 9/11 outrage. His obstruction of an effective counterterrorist action was probably motivated by the prevailing attitude within the administration at that time. Remember, the Clinton administration was roundly and venomously blamed for Janet Reno's criminal overreaction to and the horrifying end of the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas, and for Reno's inexcusable approval use of paramilitary force to remove a young Cuban boy from his unarmed relatives. After these two disasters, the Clinton administration was not about to pull another paramilitary operation against a group of religious zealots. This fear of "looking bad" is probably what motivated Berger to scotch the efforts of the DOD to share vital information with the DOJ. Because of Berger's actions, the al Qaeda attacks were pulled off when it is very likely that they could have been stopped. This effectively makes Berger an accomplice to the murders of 3,000 Americans.

And it was Sandy Berger who was caught sneaking incriminating documents, probably referring to the Able Danger operation, out of the National Archives just after DOD officials began to increase the 9/11 Commission's interest in counterterrorist intelligence-gathering activities during the Clinton administration. Without the introduction of those documents, Madeline Albright was free to make all the claims about the effectiveness of the Clinton administration that she wanted. Thanks to Berger, there was no evidence available to refute her claims, and the Clinton administration got a free pass when the 9/11 Commission released its report with no mention of the Able Danger operations that subsequently were proven to have taken place.

Clinton Foundation spokesman Jay Carson writes that "No reputable organization should dramatize 9-11 for a profit at the expense of the truth." Let the reader note Mr. Carson's use of the word "reputable." The clever addition of that word evidently excuses anyone in the Clinton administration from such accountability and restraint. Nice loophole there, Mr. Carson. But given all that we now know about the Clinton administration's criminal neglect in refusing to neutralize a known threat to American citizens, Albright and Berger certainly don't need Disney/ABC's help with looking bad. Along with Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno, Albright and Berger will be forever remembered as the four people most responsible for allowing the al Qaeda attack to proceed from planning to horrific execution.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

The Media Never Changes

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- William Tecumseh Sherman

Well, how about that. There's one hundred and fifty years of proud media tradition going on there. Hat tip to Mamabear!

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Mexican Leftists/ American Leftists: A Coincidental Resemblance, or Common Strategy?

The story goes like this:

A man is elected the nation's president by a narrow margin. The loser of the election, who is a leftist, demands a recount. The recount also goes in favor of the winner. The high court of the land is called in to rule. The judgment upholds the nation's constitution and rules in favor of the winner of the recount. The loser's leftist supporters are stunned; many openly weep, rant and curse, and the leftist's supporters vow to leave their country for the country to the north. The leftist loser also vows to oppose the newly-elected government at every turn by disrupting the political process and attacking the new president's supporters. The leftists threaten to take to the streets and disrupt the nation's economy and derail progress at every opportunity.

Politics in Mexico? Or politics in America?

The answer is yes to both.

The resemblance that Obrador's leftist movement bears to its American counterpart in the Democrat Party is astounding. When President Bush was re-elected, hundreds of thousands of leftists threatened to pack their bags and make a run for Canada. Of course, they didn't, while Mexicans flee to the north every day by the thousands. (So I guess Mexican leftists at least can be trusted to keep their promises.)

But now here in America, we have the Code Pinks, the Sheehan Circus, the Deaniacs, every tie-dye-sporting hemphead that hasn't recovered from the Summer of Love, and Ivy-league Ph.D weenies (including some whose credentials are fraudulent) doing everything they can to subvert the will of the people and the security of a nation by any means at their disposal- written, recorded, spray-painted on the sides of houses, keyed into the sides of cars, burned onto lawns, and soon to be slyly insinuated with grave feminine intonations on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.

One should perceive an obvious and dated pattern to the Leftist Art of Global War, and it is this: as a rule, when leftists do not get what they want through conventional means (which they rarely do in a society that can see through their lies), they will either simply circumvent the law or do all they can to destroy the good things that law-abiding citizens own, value, and aspire to in order to vent their irrational and nihilistic rage. It is the toddler's temper tantrum on a massive scale, save that the leftist toddlers are often college-educated, upper-class, and utterly bereft of any genuine moral platform for their anger. These people make it up as they go along, or they get stuck in the rut of "No War!" or other such vacuous and futile slogans that world events have left in the dust long ago. And they have to have a slogan, don't they? Always, there is some kind of slogan, forever and ever, amen:

"All we are saaaaaaaayinnnnnng, is giiiive peace a chaaaaaaaaaaance,"

"No blood for oil!"

"Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Soap and Water's Gotta Go."

(Okay, I made that last one up, but having had to walk through some of these groups when they blocked the way into a government building, it seems that while they did not actually chant such a creed, they certainly lived by it. But I digress.)

Indeed, I think that if one looks at leftist organizations throughout the world, one will see exactly the same pattern. Their playbook consists of one page, and three words: "Deceive, Disrupt, Destroy."

Deceive the public into giving you what you want.

Disrupt the daily life of the society if they do not give you what you want.

Destroy everything that the society values- property, reputations, and lives- if you still don't get what you want.

In America, leftists call their tactic "civil disobedience," and their disobedience is anything but civil. "Civil" to American leftists means blocking rush hour traffic; keying cars; encouraging illegal aliens to vote; trashing the offices of opposing politicians; threatening opposition campaign workers with physical violence and their children with death; spray painting their houses, their cars, their sidewalks; handcuffing themselves to doors and gates of government buildings; burning crosses on the lawns of Jewish public figures; giving secrets to our enemies; spitting on our servicemen; blowing up botany laboratories; killing lumberjacks by spiking trees; blowing up police stations; robbing armored cars.

I'm not kidding. They really call it "civil." But around the world, by any name the leftists give it, the behavior is all the same. Deceitful, disruptive, and destructive.

Look, this is not complex stuff, folks. If you don't believe me, simply take some more time and look for yourselves. I invite you to test this theorem. It will stand up to your scrutiny, as it has stood up to the scrutiny of critical thinkers for generations.

The strategy of leftists is not the stuff of which truly great men are made. Leftism is the blueprint for thuggery. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were all punk thugs on whose hands was smeared the blood of millions of innocent victims. Castro and Guevara deceived and murdered their way into the leadership of Cuba. Now look at what Cuba has become. The fruit of leftism is death and waste. It is the work of an infantile, selfish, parasitic, and inherently poisonous ideology. It is preoperational egocentrism with a gun.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that incorrigible morons like Obrador and his American counterparts should seek remedy outside the ragged fringes of the law. There is no other way for leftists to exist.


American or Mexican, the threat to the progress of civilized society leans distinctly to the left.

Monday, September 04, 2006

Unlike Seattle, Jordanians Know Terrorism When They See It

In Amman, Jordan, a Muslim male (surprise, surprise) shot one British tourist dead and wounded five others, including a Jordanian police officer. As the Muslim male opened fire, he shouted (surprise surprise) "Allahu Akhbar" (Muslim for "I'm going to kill you").

Jordan's Interior Minister Eid al-Fayez told reporters at the scene, "This is a cowardly terrorist attack, which we regret took place on Jordanian soil," [italics mine]. Al Fayez continued, "This operation is considered a terrorist act unless the man is found to be deranged."

Well, how about that. When a Muslim male opens fire on non-Muslims anywhere in the world except Seattle, it is a terrorist act. But in Seattle, where a Muslim male (surprise, surprise) opened fire on Jewish women after identifying himself as a Muslim, Police Chief Gil Kerlikowski refused to call it a terrorist act. He was even reluctant to call it a "hate crime." Seattle's city council and police department went through some shocking verbal gyrations in their attempts to avoid calling a terrorist act what it indeed was. Kerlikowski even went so far as to post police cruisers around Seattle-area mosques in order to prevent retaliatory assaults against Muslims.

Now let me ask you this: when was the last time a retaliatory attack against Muslim males or mosques occurred in the continental United States? I can't think of a single incident. Now why would that be? Could it be that Americans are above that sort of thing? I certainly think so.

But deranged liberals like SPD Chief Gil Kerlikowski and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels live in a world where everything is upside down. The perpetrators become the victims, and the victims are to blame for tempting the criminals. Shame on us.

(Then again, when was the last time you heard Muslims in America renouncing the heinous acts of their religious brethren? Their silence on this issue speaks volumes about their underlying support of what these animals are doing.)

Now let me be perfectly clear here. I am not advocating retaliation against mosques or anywhere else where these hateful Muslims hang out. Unlike Muslims, the vast majority of Americans conduct themselves in a civilized manner and don't murder people for making off-handed comments about their religion. (I guess the Muslims are a little sensitive about the fact that Mohammed was a thief and a pedophile.)

But I will say this: Kerlikowski is such an inept leader, and his police department so utterly castrated by his limpwristed and effeminate command, that if someone really wanted to strike back at Seattle-area Muslims for their treachery, there wouldn't be much Kerlikowski and company could do to stop it. (Seattle's style of governance is not conducive to promoting law and order, after all. They know that if they cleaned up the town, they would lose their primary voter base.) Yet Americans don't do that because we are better than that. And that is a good thing. That is also what separates civilized human beings from Muslims.

But I bet if- God forbid- retaliation against Muslims occurred, Kerlikowski and Nickels would fall over each other to call it terrorism.