By
Twenty-three years ago, today, on October 23, 1983, Hezbollah with the help of the Syrians, Yasser Arafat & his PLO, and assorted others, murdered at least 241 U.S. Marines–by other counts, it was over 300 Marines and U.S. civilians (the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon was bombed on April 18th of that year). The names of the slain U.S. servicemen are listed here.
As our Marines slept in Beirut, they were blown up. They were there to protect the P.L.O. and their sympathizers in Beirut from the Israelis who could have crushed them. They came in peace. For this–for protecting these people–our Marines were blown to bits.
A few of the Marines managed to escape. A trucker friend of mine from Michigan was among them. He told me that Palestinian and Syrian gunman with machine guns surrounded the perimeter of the Marine barracks, showering those few who managed to escape the fiery explosion with bullets.

As we see now, this is always the way American liberators are treated by the Muslim world–with death and destruction as a form of “appreciation.”
While I admire Ronald Reagan greatly, he made a great mistake after this attack. Not long after, he pulled up the stakes and sent our Marines home. There’s an old saying from Stalin or Lenin:

And you shall probe with bayonets. If you find steel, retreat. But if you find mush, keep digging.

Islamists found mush in America, when they drove us out of Beirut. Then, in 1985, they murdered and after him, there were the torture deaths of Colonel William R. “Rich” Higgins and CIA Attache William Buckley–actions they would not likely have perpetrated, had we shown the Hezbos who’s boss. But we didn’t. Then they found mush in Somalia, and a cornucopia of other places. Bin Laden and others saw this. And they don’t forget. “The Marines fled after two explosions,” Bin Laden once said of the U.S. in Lebanon.
That’s why we can’t forget the Marines who gave their lives on October 23, 2006 to the thugs of Hezbollah–25,000 of whose supporters we gave tax-funded, free transport to America’s shores, this summer.
The slain Marines probably turned over in their graves over that. They probably turned over in their graves that Hezbollah now has a large Amen corner in Dearbornistan, and it’s growing. May those 241 plus U.S. Marines Rest In Peace.
****
Read about Armando Ybarra, who lived but is seriously disabled in his right leg. He was awarded a Purple Heart.
Beirut Attack Survivor, Marine Armando Ybarra, Then . . .

Armando Ybarra, Now . . .

There is a memorial to the Marines, the Beirut Memorial in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Also check out the Beirut Stamp initiative site, the goal of which is to get a stamp memorializing these slain American peacekeepers before the 25th anniversary in 2008.
Read the story of the memorial and the family of one of the murdered Marines. “They Came in Peace” is carved on the wall–something you can never say about our Islamist enemies.
Others remember the murdered Marines, today.
More on the anniversary and what happened on that fateful day of October 23, 1983, at No Pasaran.

By
Yesterday, “undocumented workers” a/k/a illegal aliens in the Detroit area held a protest rally, at which the featured speaker was professional rabble rouser/race merchant, Jesse Jackson (who also was there to oppose the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which gets rid of unfair affirmative action in hiring, promotions, and college admissions).
They practiced skits against employers for the rally. What struck us is what the illegal aliens are complaining about. From yesterday’s Detroit Free Press:

A group of political and religious activists gathered at Fellowship Chapel on Detroit’s west side last week to practice a skit showing ways undocumented workers are mistreated. It depicted workers being belittled, fired without cause and having no access to shift breaks or paid time off.

The thing is most American workers, including the aliens’ fellow legal workers in Michigan, do not have a right to these things. Michigan–like most states in the Union–is an at-will state. That means workers can be fired for any reason or no reason at all (other than for religion, race, disability, and other similar civil rights categories). That means they can be fired without cause. Many American workers are belittled by their boss and also don’t have paid time off or breaks.
These illegal aliens are here illegally. They have a lot of chutzpah as it is. But now they want rights above and beyond American citizens.
You’d think the Free Press reporter would notice that. But she didn’t. We do.

By
Remember–not too long ago–when gas was topping $3 per gallon? Remember how our “allies” in the War on Terror, the Saudis–and our other OPEC buds–told us how they couldn’t possibly change the price? Remember how they told us that even if they boosted production and supply that the Chinese are now such great consumers of gas, that it would never bring the price down?
We remember all of these things, all of these excuses, which is why we ask this logical question:
So, now that gas is hovering just over $2 per gallon, why do our “friends” the Saudis and our other OPEC nation buds suddenly think they can cut production and boost the price so quickly? Didn’t they tell us they couldn’t possibly affect the prices? Were they lying to us, then? Probably.
And is this the new logic of “What goes down must come up, but what goes up [in their bank accounts] must never come down”? Sure sounds like it.
Just asking.

****
In case you were wondering the OPEC member nations–some of which are supposed to be our “allies” (but all of whom act like our pushers)–are: Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

By
We give kudos to Judge Paul Paruk of Hamtramck District Court in Hamtramckstan, Michigan.
The Judge insisted a Muslim woman, Ginnah Muhammad (a Black woman who converted to Islam at age 10), remove her niqab (Islamic veil the covers the entire face, except the eyes), or lose her court entanglement with a rental car company. The Judge said he needed to see Paruk’s face to judge her truthfulness, a basic fact of life in court. Ms. Muhammad refused, opting to lose in court, instead.
As we’ve noted, an . It’s basically impossible to tell them apart, much less view facial expressions. (And try eating spaghetti while wearing a niqab.) Judge Paruk was correct in insisting that Ginnah Muhammad abide by the American court system’s customs, rather than opposing her religion’s customs on the court. Not that donning a niqab is a “custom” of Islam, per se. It’s a symbol of extremism that many in the religion have now decided (or been forced) to don.

Ginnah Muhammad
Contrary to the Detroit Free Press’ coverage of the matter, Judge Paruk has precedent in his favor. A court in Colorado made a similar move, and criminal defendant–now convict–. Both she and her Saudi husband, Homaidan Al-Turki, were tried and convicted for enslaving and beating their Indonesian housekeeper, forcing her to be Mr. Al-Turki’s sex slave in addition to other “duties.” Off came Mrs. Al-Turki’s niqab.
Judge Paruk’s courage is immense with this move because he made it in the most unlikely place in America to do so and survive politically. He’s probably written his career death sentence with his policy toward the niqab. He is a judge in Hamtramckstan, which is fast becoming a combination of Little Sana’a (Yemen’s capital), Little Pristina (Kosovo’s capital), and Little Bangladesh.
What was once a Polish Catholic-dominated town encompassed by the City of Detroit is fast becoming a tiny caliphate. Press accounts have documented the , violent Islamic attacks on non-Muslim, Black males at Hamtramck Public Schools, the first legally sanctioned Muslim call to prayer in the nation, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
The men of Michigan CAIR are upset that Judge Paruk took this reasonable step. They’ll likely campaign against him the next time he’s up for re-election. And voter fraud? Well, you can no longer challenge the illegal voter registrations of Muslims from all over the world who aren’t citizens, if they live in Hamtramck. The Justice Department put an end to that. They put election monitors in Hamtramckstan, every election, making sure that none of those offensive Americans concerned about voter fraud are doing any pollwatching in Hamtramckstan.
What you can do anywhere in America, you can no longer do in Hamtramck. And what you can’t do anywhere in America, that goes in Hamtramck.
Up is down. Right is left. Hamtramck is, like Dearbornistan, ground zero of IslAmerica. And we’re enabling it every step of the way.
**** UPDATE: Niqab Family Photo . . .

By
Today is part of the three-day feast ending Ramadan, known as Eid Al-Fitr. It started yesterday in some places, not until Tuesday for others, depending upon when your imam believes there was a “moon-sighting.”
And Muslims all around the world have their own unique ways of celebrating. In Dearbornistan, the kiddies have the day off from school. In Detroitistan, the Detroit Free Press told us that it’s now “hip” to don the hijab, in a cover story of its “Twist” women’s magazine insert in the Sunday paper (see pictures in the article). That’s right–symbols of oppression are now “hip” to a women’s mag that would never call a nun’s habit or religious Jewish and Christian garb “hip.” (The covermodel, Sarah Hekmati’s own Iranian-born family even felt she was regressing back to the stone age, donning the hijab as some sort of counter-rebellion.)

And in Indonesia, the government is releasing terrorist mass-murderers in honor of Eid Al-Fitr. To repeat: in honor of Eid Al-Fitr, Indonesia–home to the world’s largest Muslim population–is releasing two of the Bali bombers to freedom. Happy Eid Al-Fitr, world! Yet again, the “Religion of Peace” is celebrating one of its holidays by freeing mass murderers. And not a peep from the “Islam is Peace” crowd.
If terrorists are just a lonely group that hijacked a “peaceful” religion, then why is the Muslim-dominated government of the globe’s largest Muslim population releasing those that “hijacked” their religion to freedom as a celebration of one of their religion’s most important–if not the most important–holidays?
Just asking. Not holding our breaths for an answer. We’ll never get one.

By
Check out the feature article about me in on the cover of the Weekend Section of today’s Wall Street Journal, “America’s Next Top Pundit.” I’m also featured on the Wall Street Journal Business & Law Blog.
Thanks to prolific, dedicated journalist and Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Zaslow for doing such an excellent piece that even gets kudos from my 2nd toughest critic’s (my dad’s) approval. (My toughest critic is me.) Thanks also to Zaslow for putting up with me and spending so much time to put together this piece. He did a good job.

By
Here are this week’s debut flicks, worthy of consideration (but not necessarily your attendance & 10 bucks):
* “Flags of Our Fathers“–Being brief here b/c I want you to read my full review, Slaps American patriotism in the face. Anti-war movie on the men who raised the flag in the Joe Rosenthal portrait at Iwo Jima. It’s the wrong message at the wrong time (and any other time). Attacking our patriotic icons in the name of attacking war sullies us all. Sometimes war is not only necessary, it is imperative. Ditto for the “mythical” images that symbolize it.
The story behind the photo is really not that important. The larger picture of why we needed to fight World War II, including the Battle at Iwo Jima, in order to survive is the story that apparently needs to be told again, judging from the gushing over this movie. We don’t need them to be dragged in the mud. Again, read my full review,

* “The Prestige“–Magnificent. This movie was excellent and has universal appeal to both the sexes. It’s a thriller about two rival turn of the century magicians (Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale) who take revenge on each other to learn the secrets of their acts. The magic acts in Vegas have nothing on these guys. I loved this film and recommend it highly. Though it is the second period magician thriller, this year–the first was the excellent “”–it is hardly second best.
“The Prestige” is equally as good as “The Illusionist,” and perhaps more exciting. Although the flashbacks and flashforwards and some of the tricks get occasionally confusing, in the end it is all tied together. “The Prestige” is the pay-off portion of a magic trick or illusion. It’s when the magician brings back the thing he made disappear. Blast from the past: David Bowie, with a weird accent, plays real-life, amazing scientist Nikola Tesla. Can’t wait to see him play Tesla in a bio-pic. Also stars Scarlett Johansson and Michael Caine.
Very cool and highly recommended. Along with “The Illusionist,” it is one of the best movies of the year. Very enjoyable. What going to the movies is supposed to be about.

By
Forty-one years from now, let’s hope there isn’t another Clint Eastwood making a movie based on a book about George Johnson, Dan McWilliams, and Billy Eisengrein.
Let’s hope there won’t be a melodramatic, anti-American movie about the “true story” of the “horrible lives” of those three firemen who raised the American flag in the famous photo at Ground Zero, just after America was attacked on 9/11.
That’s the way I see “Flags of Our Fathers,” the much-hyped Eastwood film, in theaters today. The movie–based on a book by James Bradley, whose father, Navy medic John Bradley, was one of the men raising the American flag in the famous photo of the Battle at Iwo Jima–is a mishmosh whose main point is to sully the patriotic image most Americans have of that War and what happened at the Marine Corp’s bloodiest battle ever. That’s done by questioning minutiae about the photo–minutiae that really aren’t of any consequence.

I have mixed feelings about this film. The scenes of the Marines–reaching the shores of Iwo Jima and their valiant, but long, bloody, and very deadly battle against the Japanese in World War II–are masterful, moving, and powerful. The dismembered limbs (and heads) of dead American soldiers are very real parts of what fighting the Japanese on this barren island involved. And they remind us of the validity of the trite saying that freedom isn’t free.
It’s the scenes outside of the island and Eastwood’s intense focus on the ugly about America–instead of the ugliness of its enemy on Iwo Jima–that are disgusting and offensive. And a huge exaggeration from reality.
Despite the focus of the book, Eastwood focuses on the misery that visits the three flag-raisers in the photo who survived the bloody battle. They are a drunken Indian (Ira Hayes)–who is a victim of horrible, racist America, a “runner/messenger” (Rene Gagnon) who never fought on Iwo Jima but tries to turn his flag-raising into lucrative career opportunities, and a courageous Navy medic (John “Doc” Bradley)–whose son wrote the book (so, of course, his father is the normal, heroic one).
I wonder what Gagnon’s family thinks about his portrayal as an opportunist who “never fought” at Iwo Jima. He joined the Marines and went to Iwo Jima, like everyone else who served there. That he was assigned to messenger-like duties behind the fighting at Iwo Jima doesn’t mean his service was any less worthy or heroic. He could have been killed by the Japanese at any time and performed duties needed by the troops. For this, he deserves to be defamed by Dirty Harry?
Ira Hayes as a drunken, boisterous Indian, against whom every American is a complete racist? Been there, seen that. He’s been similarly portrayed in other movies, long ago, like 1961’s “The Outsider.” This is hardly new ground. So why is it being revisited and America’s racism against him amplified by Clint?
Much is made, too, that this was the second raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi and that the battle was only five days old, lasting many more after the photo. But that’s not news either. It’s hardly a secret that the U.S. wanted a bigger flag in the photo atop the Mount. What’s so wrong with that? The picture, shown round the world, demoralized the Japanese. And there was nothing wrong with using the photo and flag-raisers to raise money for War Bonds. We wanted to win the war, after all–a war we were in because they (the Japanese) attacked us (Memo to Dirty Harry: Remember Pearl Harbor?). While the movie makes a big deal of who was actually in the photo and who wasn’t, why should that be important to anyone but immediate family members? The photo is the sum of all men serving at Iwo Jima.
While the book goes into extensive details about how American Marines at Iwo Jima were seized by Japanese and mutilated to death in the middle of the night (to demoralize the Marines and make the Japanese feel good about themselves), we’re hardly shown that on the silver screen. A friend of mine who served summarizes the book thusly:

It focused on how the son of one of the men who raised the flag went from being almost anti-American in the way he believed the Japanese post-war propaganda, to realizing the error of his ways and also his father’s patience with him when he shot his mouth off as a young man.

But that’s not the movie. Instead, Eastwood focuses on American evil–corrupt, racist politicians; chickenhawk government officials who parade the men around to raise war bond cash; general White anti-Indian racism in America; alcoholic Indians; and war “heroes” (like Gagnon) over there who can’t get a job over here (or work as janitors).
Does this sound like a Michael Moore movie to you? It seemed like I was watching one–in spades. “Support the Troops, Oppose the Government.” That was the message in this film. That’s the message of the left now.
Tom Brokaw confirms my view of the film’s agenda. He told USA Today he hopes it will make people question our efforts in Iraq (because he, somehow, thinks they aren’t doing that enough already?):

It will be interesting to me to see whether there’ll be any contemporary political fallout as a result of this film, whether people will think about the fog of war, the decisions that were made and the use of propaganda.

USA Today film critic Claudia Puig seconds that emotion:

The film is patriotic in the truest sense: honoring those who risked their lives in battle and questioning the motives of those in power who sought to use the soldiers as political pawns.
Though the film respects the heroes it depicts, it also takes a cynical look at the selling of war to the American people.

Propaganda? Selling of war? Do these people not remember that the Japanese attacked us? Memo to them, too: Remember Pearl Harbor?
And is that the kind of movie America really needs, right now?
To hear Eastwood, he sounds like an anti-war peacenik of the Moore/Cindy Sheehan ilk. He told USA Today:

World War I was there, and that was going to be the one to end all wars. And then World War II came along and that was going to be the war to end all wars. Then, five years later, Korea. Not too many years after that, Vietnam. And all the little skirmishes, Yugoslavia, Gulf War I, Gulf War II …
It doesn’t speak well for mankind. It seems like it’s just inevitable that they’ll go on forever. Is that the way it’s supposed to be? Is man most creative when he’s at war? I don’t know.

So, we should have raised the white flag in response to Pearl Harbor’s bombing and shouldn’t have fought the Nazis because it wasn’t “the last war” and man isn’t the “most creative” when he’s at war? Huh? Which ashram did he get that from?
One thing’s for sure. Had we not fought and won World War II, it certainly would have been our last war. And some of us would be saluting the Fuhrer. The rest, like me, would never have existed in the first place because the Nazis were at their “most creative” with the Final Solution.
Clint Eastwood made a movie that is possibly mostly true. The acting is excellent, especially that of star Ryan Phillippe (who plays “Doc” Bradley). It is a well executed film. But so what? We are at war, right now.
And this is not the right time for this movie. If there ever is one. Demoralizing America about a great victory over the partners of the Third Reich really isn’t something to celebrate. Even if you–like Eastwood–don’t like that America continues to celebrate a picture that stands for America’s heroism in that war.
Bradley, who wrote the “Flags” book, said he wrote it “to demythologize the flag raising.” But what was wrong with the myth?
And was it a myth at all? The picture doesn’t stand for the individuals in it or what happened in their lives. It stands for many, many men who fought and gave their lives so we could be free. So we wouldn’t live life under the Nazis and the Japanese.
And that’s not a myth. It’s a reality that doesn’t need to be “demystified” by Hollywood. Ever.

By
Looks like former Syracuse quarterback Don McPherson got one too many brain concussions on the field.
McPherson, executive director of the Sports Leadership Institute at Adelphi University, is blaming last Saturday’s on the War in Iraq! HUH?
Violent thugs who don’t belong in college beat each other, stomp on each other, etc., and this is somehow because of our being in Iraq. Puh-leeze. (And he blames it on masculinity. Actually, real masculinity would mean walking away.)
Here’s the pyschobabble quote from today’s USA Today Sports Section’s “Pooch Kicks and Pancakes” column, in which every excuse in the book is given for unbridled, unwarranted wilding and thuggery:

Absolute Nonsense: Iraq War Caused This?!

I think we’ve long talked about this generation and the impact of video games and film and the media and even the war. I think you’re looking at a generation of young men where violence is the norm. It’s seen as a way of maintaining your masculine stature. . . . It’s about winning the masculinity battle, the tough-guy battle.

I wonder how our men fighting in Iraq feel that they are being blamed for a violent fight between at least 31 over-privileged, coddled goons on a Miami football field.

By
A lot has been said and written about the ludicrously soft sentence lawyer Lynne Stewart got for distracting authorities and helping her terrorist client, Qaeda’s Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, spread his permission for murderous global jihad from his prison cell.
But not much has been made of her Arabic translator and co-convict/sentencee Mohammed Yousry. He also got a light sentence of less than two years, when he should have gotten 20.
He helped Stewart in distracting prison authorities and transmitting Sheikh Rahman’s jihadist fatwah. He translated the letter from Rahman that included the murderous fatwah. The FBI gave him a chance to cooperate and avoid prosecution, but Yousry refused.
More important is what his “day job” was. Yousry was a translator for ABC News and FOX News. How many documents did this jihad sympathizer translate with a slant to protect terrorists like Sheikh Rahman?

Mohamed Yousry: Helped Spread Sheikh Rahman’s Jihad
We’ll never know, but remember Yousry the next time you hear an Arabic translator on TV. They are often sympathizers with the global Islamic jihad. You can’t trust their slanted, sham translations.
Predictably, the mainstream media is trying to discount Yousry’s Muslim background, with UPI incorrectly claiming he’s a “non-Muslim” and the Washington Post saying he’s “not a practicing Muslim.” Both stress his born-again Christian wife.
But let that be a lesson in the dormancy of the jihad and the way it is ingrained into the Arab psyche to be awakened at some sudden point. Yousry knowingly translated a letter that he knew would spread Islamic violence and murder around the world. What he practiced is as relevant as the 9/11 hijackers patronizing prostitutes, bars, and casinos before the attacks.
It’s all about taqiyah (Muslim deception of Infidels), baby.