So, Michael Graham was fired for calling Islam a terrorist organization. I have to be honest, I had never heard of Graham before this story broke, but he has an interesting (though overstated) point. The Council for American-Islamic Relations, itself accused of being a terrorist organization, was lightning quick to condemn Graham for his comments. Of course, CAIR very rarely, and never so vigorously condemns terrorism. This is an interesting case of “thou doth protest too much.” Graham’s point is certainly helped by the fact that CAIR was able to so quickly and effectively have him removed from his job, but still can’t seem to stop people from blowing themselves up (along with innocent men, women and children).

One important thing to take from all of this, however, is that this is not a First Amendment fight. Although I disagree with the ABC radio station’s firing of Graham, they are within their rights to do so. As is CAIR within it’s rights to criticize Graham, and Graham within his to criticize Islam. It makes me happy to see that Graham and his supporters are not calling this censorship, unlike the whiny, petty little man bill maher did.

From Drudge:

President Jonathan Klein implies ratings news leader FOXNEWS is mired in coverage of “meaningless nonsense,” claiming: “Fourteen Americans dead, and they have Natalee Holloway on,” Klein says.

“And they’re supposedly America’s news channel.”"It’s easy and it’s brainless,” Klein charges in a telephone interview set for publication at the NEW YORK TIMES, explaining why cable news outlets are gravitating to the Aruba story. “They’re looking for an ongoing drama” along the lines of the NBC crime show “Law & Order,” he said, adding, “Except ‘Law & Order’ doesn’t do the same plot every night.”

“There are an awful lot of things you can cover if you don’t have people tied up with this meaningless nonsense,” Klein says.

Funny, Bob Costas thought the same thing.

Is the war in Iraq another Vietnam? There are similarities: A tenacious enemy supported by foreign interests; a new kind of warfare that challenges (unsuccessfully) our commitment to fighting with honor. But dig a little deeper and you find compelling similarities.

In Iraq, we are fighting a war brought on by the inept foreign policy, the misuse and undermining of our military by and the sympathies of the Left. It is a war made more difficult by the aid and comfort given our enemy by the uneducated “celebrity” class. It is a war conducted against a savage and savvy enemy who knows that their victory on the battlefield is far less important than on the OpEd pages of the New York Times. But most of all, like Vietnam, it is a war worth fighting and one that we can win.

Failed Foreign Policy
There can be no rational doubt about who allowed al Qaeda to grow to the threat it was on September 10, 2001. Clinton’s misguided foreign policy had the military, underfunded and unsupported, losing battles to disorganized, drugged and untrained thugs in Somalia. His use of military force was unique, with the possible exception of the failed Presidency of Jimbo Carter, in undermining U.S. interests abroad. Got caught with you pants down? Launch a cruise missile at an aspirin factory. Got your nose bloodied because you sent troops in without armor? Pull out of Somalia before the midterm election. Why honor the fallen by pushing for victory when you can cut your losses and run back to the arms of a fat intern? Rogue states like Iran, Iraq and North Korea got you down? Redefine them as “States of Concern.” (http://www.fas.org/news/usa/2000/000619-rogue-usia1.htm)

Ask yourself, how many people were recruited to al Qaeda during the Clinton fiasco? How many lies did that hick from Arkansas tell us about how safe we were because Russian missiles weren’t pointed at our cities. (They were, of course, still “pointed” at our cities, and so were our own commercial airliners. Just like LBJ, Clinton had no idea how to lead the military. He had cut and run in the 60’s and found it comforting to do the same in the 90’s. The Left loves to forget who started Vietnam. It wasn’t Nixon, it wasn’t their bogeyman McCarthy or some vague, nameless “military-industrial complex,” it wasn’t even their darling LBJ, it was their knighted martyr, their holiest of holy, JFK. He sent troops into Vietnam and LBJ just followed along.

The Left constantly make the mistake of thinking that Iraq is not part of the global war on terror. Just like in Vietnam, where they didn’t see the fight as one against communism. They claim it’s blood for oil and American imperialism. Iraq is about terrorism. Let’s assume, for a moment, that the Left is correct: that Saddam posed no threat to the U.S. and was not harboring terrorists. Let’s also assume that it was not worth it to depose Saddam on general principles as a despot and a mass murderer. Even without those pillars, fighting in Iraq was a smart strategic move. Iraq is, literally, between the three centers of anti-western islamic bile: Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. As predicted, the floodgates have opened and foreign born terrorists pour into the country like Mexicans looking for work in Nogales. Over 90% of the suicide bombers in Iraq are NOT Iraqi.

The terrorists are bringing the battle to the “infidel” in Iraq. As an American living safely in New York City, I couldn’t be happier. For every GI we lose (and make no mistake, each one is a tragedy worthy of the national grief they inspire), we have killed or captured THOUSANDS of terrorists who would otherwise be killing Londoners, Parisians and New Yorkers. I would bet any amount of money that our men and women in Iraq wouldn’t have it any other way. They are protecting our way of life by keeping the battle over there.

Hanoi Jane and everyone else.
I can’t spend too much bile on these idiots, my therapist says it’s unhealthy. Suffice it to say they are woefully uneducated (not that a degree from an Ivy League school will teach you anything about the real world) and incredibly unintelligent. Their arguments against war, the economy and just about anything else are about as nuanced as “he bad. him lie. me go poopy now.” I mean, how can you respect the opinion of someone whose job description is “look pretty and play pretend”? From Sacco and Vanzetti to Mumia to Stalin, these people have been dupes for anyone claiming to be impoverished and populist. Of course, when it comes to poor Americans oppressed by high taxes and overburdensome government, it’s “viva la bureacration!” Just like in Vietnam, these people can be counted on to undermine public support for a just war.

Liberal media bias
Ralph Peters has a great column today about the stunning silence about Army recruitment. The Army’s recruiting goals may be off of expectations for the year, but reenlistment is above target and at record numbers for wartime. [Chirp, Chirp.] To be fair, the NY Times is busy not running stories on Air America’s defrauding children’s charities and playing sycophant to Cindy Sheehan’s media circus. What about Casey? Doesn’t he and his fellow soldiers deserve some positive airtime? Guess not.

No Backbone
This is a fundamental problem for the Left. They see difficulty as defeat. They see minor resistance as overwhelming force. In small setbacks, they despair. In victory, they count only the dead. In battle, they weep for the enemy. This is why, other than playing pretend, liberals will fail at anything worth doing. How many of these limp-wristed liberals are professional atheletes? How many liberals are truck drivers, steelworkers or miners? How many liberals farm the land with their own hands? How many liberals wake up at 5 am to do anything but read the latest Paul Krugman vomit? Why is it that Hollywood is so susceptible to Communist infiltration and pro-terrorist propaganda, but Curt Schilling isn’t? Maybe work ethic has something to do with it. Let’s face it, they are the weakest among us, with no fortitude, no new ideas and nothing to offer but criticism and despair.

The war on terror, the war in Iraq and the fight against tyranny and oppression are just battles that only a strong American can fight and win. The Left, in the likes of Ted “Killer” Kennedy and John “F. For President!” Kerry, will always undermine the appropriate use of military force. They will always go running back to their momma, the soft, cuddly embrace of isolationistic pacifism.

There is, however, one large and critical difference between Iraq and Vietnam: there’s a Republican in the Whitehouse–and he has a mandate. Four more years of lower taxes and dead terrorists.

The NY Times today did a piece on how the NY Post is attacking Jeannine Pirro. (Having never questioned the qualifications of any democrat, the NY Times sees this as newsworthy. I suppose it’s only human nature to presume your faults exist in others.)

The whole story appears here. As you can see, the lead in alludes to Hillary Clinton as a “skilled politician with some fairly progressive social views hopes to make the leap to the United States Senate representing New York.”

“Fairly progressive social policies”?!? That’s like calling bin Laden “fairly religious;” or Napoleon “fairly assertive.” That’s like saying Hitler had some “fairly anti-diverse social policies;” or Marx had some “fairly progressive social policies.”

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Hillary is progressive in the real sense of the word. I think “regressive” is a far more accurate term. But in the twisted liberal lexicon, “progressive” is taken to mean “Pro Choice, so long as your choice is to have an abortion;” in favor of women’s rights, so long as a woman doesn’t choose to raise a family. A “progressive,” you see, is someone who preaches tolerance (though not of conservative or religious ideals); diversity (though not of thought or speech should it offend them) and understanding (though only of mass murdering f**kheads, not simple, hard working Americans in “fly-over country.”).

Truly then, Hillary is a liberal “progressive.” But why downplay it? Surely she’s one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate…is the New York Times worried about that? Is the New York Times concerned that a liberal Hillary might not make it to the Whitehouse.

Of course, that would be a shame. Almost as much of a shame as being the party with the worst record on “minority hiring.” Who was the first African-American secretary of state? Colin Powell, a Republican. Who was the first female African-American secretary of state? Condi Rice, his successor and also a Republican. First African-American secretary of education? First Hispanic attorney general? In fact, Bush is the first American President to nominate any “person of color” to any of the top four cabinet posts of State, Defense, Treasury and Justice. Of course, wonderful things happen when people are judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin.

But “progressives” wouldn’t know anything about that, would they?

Everyone knows that Clinton spent the bulk of his years in office getting service from interns, friends’ widows, secretaries, and, I would hazard to guess, the occasional foreign diplomat. His virility was never in question. Sadly, though, they don’t make a little purple pill that cures the spinelessness of the modern democrat.

If they had, perhaps 3,000 New Yorkers would still be alive today. Finally, we have the evidence that the Clinton administration knew (1) who Mohammed Atta was; (2) where he was; and (3) what he intended to do. The answers of course are (1) a terrorist; (2) Brooklyn and (3) kill innocent Americans. And Clinton knew this a YEAR before 9/11. A YEAR. I will wait for the mainstream media to start screaming from the rooftops about how wrong they were and how, yes, Clinton was the man best in a position to stop Atta and the attacks of 9/11. (See http://www.gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html)

So what happened? A special Army team, called Able Danger, determines that Atta is a member of a Brooklyn based terrorist cell with ties to al Qeada. They recommend that the FBI roll up the cell. This request is ignored because Clinton lawyers don’t want the bad press that would come with arresting green card holders two months before a Presidential election. They were, according to the article, also reluctant to cause another Waco.

Once again, another piece of evidence proves Clinton to be the obedient servant of political expediency. He was the only person with the time and the information to stop 9/11, but he didn’t have the guts.

Caution, scandals that last more than 4 days are not normal. If such a scandal occurs, please consult your local New York Times editorial page, who will kill the story.

So Jon Corzine “loaned” his girlfriend, Carla Katz, who happens to be the president of a labor union, nearly $500,000. (I can’t seem to find anything on when the couple started dating, but they met in 2000; she divorced her husband in 2001, Corzine divorced his wife in 2003 and Corzine and Katz were done by mid-2004: not a lot of wiggle room.) It’s also worth noting that this loan occurs in 2002, before Corzine’s divorce, but after Katz’s. Months after the couple breaks up, Corzine “forgives” the loan because Katz’ couldn’t afford to repay it. (As an aside, I know a lot of people at Goldman Sachs, I’ve worked for Goldman Sachs, and I’ve never known one of them to forgive anything, much less a 1/2 million dollar loan.)

According to the NY Post, the loan was made so that Katz could afford to buy her husband’s share of their 10 acre estate in Hunterdon County. Her former husband was employed as a high school teacher.

Most of the media coverage (okay, most of the Fox News & Affiliates coverage) has centered around the obvious impropriety of a state Senator and a gubernatorial candidate giving a union leader a $500,000 gift. But there is a far more interesting question:

How can a union leader and a high school teacher afford an at least $1 million (second?) home?

According to the Post, she makes just under $100,000 per year. A high school teacher might make 1/2 to 2/3 of that, being generous, let’s assume they make a total of $200,000. In 2003, the New Jersey take-home pay on $200,000 (being generous and assuming $1200 per month in excludable income) is just over $9,000 per month. (See http://www.paycheckcity.com/netpaycalc/netpaycalculator.asp). The property taxes on such a home would be about $20,000 or about $1700 per month (assuming the property tax rate is 2% and the assessed value is $1M (see http://www.co.hunterdon.nj.us/depts/taxboard/taxrates.htm)) . It’s not clear from any of the news reporting whether this was a second home or their primary residence while they were married. Nor is it clear if the $500,000 buyout was the full value or if there was a mortgage that Katz assumed (meaning the house was worth more than $1 million).

Even now, the numbers don’t add up. According to the Post, she now lives in the Hudson Tea Building in Hoboken, where rents run from $2500 - $5000. Assuming she hasn’t sold the house (thus the “she can’t pay me back” defense), she still has to pay at least the $1700 per month for property taxes. That means her minimum outlay per month for housing alone is $4166.67. For 2005, the take-home pay on $100,000 (assuming a generous $900 in excluded income) is about $5200. That doesn’t leave a lot for car payments, insurance, cable (twice), electric (twice), water (twice), cell phone, food, internet provider, subscription to the New York Times, and the other essentials every hard working labor leader needs.

I mean, are you kidding me?!? Where are the hardball questions:
How did they come to own the house?
Did Katz and her husband buy it?
Was it another gift?
How much did they pay?
Who did they buy it from?
Was it an inheritance, if so, from whom?
What was it’s total value?
Is/was there a mortgage on the house?
If not, why couldn’t Katz take a mortgage from a third party and use the proceeds to repay Corzine?
Was this their home or a second home?
Why does Katz maintain two residences 50 miles apart?

There may be perfectly reasonable answers to these questions. I don’t come from money, but I hear it’s nice there. Maybe she inherited the house. Maybe her husband did. Maybe he made millions selling artwork on the side and was a high school teacher for the poop and giggles of it. Maybe big labor isn’t corrupt. Maybe there is a Santa Claus.

I seriously doubt that the New York Times will be asking any of these questions any time soon. After all, they’re too busy asking lawyers to unseal John Roberts’s kids adoption files. Clearly more important.