to Main Page

Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Profile
Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge



to Main Page
Opposing Views Heinlein Centennial web site This site is Gunny Approved
Heard the
Word of Blog?

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Open Trackback Alliance

Check out our Frappr!

Patterico's Pledge

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues,

I will not obey those rules.

« September 2006 »
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

View blog reactions

Who Links Here

Free counter and web stats

eXTReMe Tracker

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

Listed on BlogShares

Thursday, 28 September 2006
Not In His Own Land or Halfway Between Possum Trot and Monkey's Eyebrow,

Out of the Mystic Hills of Kentucky,
From the Holy City of Paducah,
Which lies halfway between
Possum Trot and Monkey's Eyebrow,

There arose a Prophet.

Now it is often said that No Prophet is Honored in their own country.

But today we have GOOGLE!

I sometimes check my sitemeter account to see the referral links used to get to my blog.

I was quite surprised today to see that the keywords put into Google, which led to my website were

prophets in kentucky

Who am I to argue with the world's preeminent disseminator of information.

The elevation of some prophets have been signaled by flights of white doves.

The sign for Daniel of Old was his being delivered from the Lion's Den.

I seem to have been anointed by Google,

but it is after all the 21st Century.

So here I am,

Chosen of the Oracle Google,


Cyber Prophet.

I am not unique, as it turns out Kentucky may very well be some sort of Spiritual Nexus.

Other prophets the search pulled up were.

The Great Mad Farmer, Poet and Prophet of Kentucky, Wendell Berry.

Out of the Mystic Hills of Kentucky,
from the Holy City of Paducah,
which lies halfway between
Possum Trot and Monkey's Eyebrow,

there arose a Prophet.

See? I Even Have An Aura

Technorati Tags:***

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 5:55 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Thursday, 28 September 2006 8:54 PM CDT
Wednesday, 27 September 2006
How to Save the Planet
From to my email in box to you.

How to Save the Planet

The Boston Globe articulates the obvious:

Israelis Reassess Territory Strategy

A year of violent clashes has reshaped Israel's strategic picture. Calls by the government to give up territory and redraw Israel's borders have given way to a less ambitious agenda that will seek to bolster the country's military, lower expectations about making further unilateral moves, and dampen hopes for a quick resolution with Palestinians. Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, said, "We have two concrete examples where Israel redeployed behind internationally recognized frontiers, in Lebanon and in Gaza, and did not create the peace people predicted. Obviously, that affects our thinking about the West Bank."
After every speech I get the question "so what's the solution?" The answer is "peace through strength squared." Weakness and concessions embolden all aggressors as a matter of human nature, but its impact on jihad is greatly magnified because of the centrality of one of Muhammed's teachings on jihad. He forbade attack from a position of weakness, but mandated it from strength. Every show of strength, therefore, pushes back the jihad. To destroy the jihad, all one needs to do is turn to history. The fall of the Ottoman Empire essentially pacified Muslims globally without the need for much bloodshed.

Specfically, the only significant debate in the Muslim world is whether the West's strength is real or not. Islamists argue that there is no value to nuclear weapons, for example, when infidels won't ever use them. When entire populations demonstrate their enmity, such as the Palestinians, infidels refuse to use their strength to strike back at the group. Therefore there is no real strength, because Muslims can always be shielded by paralysis over "civilian casualties."

This single, simple lesson, however, is not at all understood. It can prevent the death of billions and the enslavement of all humanity. Would you please be so kind as to help us spread it?

Technorati Tags:***

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 6:59 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Friday, 29 September 2006 8:20 AM CDT
Listen To The Scary Theme Music Playing!
It is surprising these days, considering the negative slant the Mainstream Media seems to delight in to read something about the War in the MidEast that is welcome.

As War Over Leak Grips Washington, Al Qaeda Quails

By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 27, 2006

WASHINGTON ? On a day when much of the capital's attention was focused on leaked excerpts of an
intelligence estimate report that suggested the Iraq war was creating more jihadists, the military
quietly released an intercepted letter from Al Qaeda complaining that the terrorist organization
was losing ground in Iraq.

The letter, found in the headquarters of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, after he
was killed on June 7, was sent to Zarqawi by a senior Al Qaeda leader who signs his name simply
"Atiyah." He complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and in

A former jihadist who fought in Algeria in the 1990s, Atiyah appears from the text to be speaking
for Al Qaeda's Shura Council ? the group's decision-making panel chaired by Osama bin Laden. In
the letter, he sharply criticizes Zarqawi's leadership, saying he alienated key allies necessary
for the implementation of jihad in Iraq.

"Know that we, like all the Mujahidin, are still weak," he wrote in the letter dated December 11,
2005. "We are in the stage of weakness and a state of paucity. We have not yet reached a level of
stability. We have no alternative but to not squander any element of the foundations of strength,
or any helper or supporter."

This does tally with some of the manifestos issued by Abu Musab Zarqawi, before his quite timely end.

This is the English translation of a document found in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?s safe house. It was provided by the Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie.

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi?a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance?s financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance?s assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance?s mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Truth be told we are more accustomed to News like this.
Sobering Conclusions On Why Jihad Has Spread
By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A21

In announcing yesterday that he would release the key judgments of a controversial National
Intelligence Estimate, President Bush said he agreed with the document's conclusion "that because
of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and

But the estimate itself posits no such cause and effect. Instead, while it notes that
counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged and disrupted al-Qaeda's leadership, it describes
the spreading "global jihadist movement" as fueled largely by forces that al-Qaeda exploits but is
not actively directing. They include Iraq, corrupt and unjust governments in Muslim-majority
countries, and "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims."

The overall estimate is bleak, with minor notes of optimism. It depicts a movement that is likely
to grow more quickly than the West's ability to counter it over the next five years, as the Iraq
war continues to breed "deep resentment" throughout the Muslim world, shaping a new generation of
terrorist leaders and cultivating new supporters for their ideology.

In describing Iraq as "the 'cause celebre' for jihadists," the document judges that real and
perceived insurgent successes there will "inspire more fighters to continue the struggle
elsewhere," while losses would have the opposite effect. It predicts that the elimination of
al-Qaeda leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who
was killed after the estimate was completed in April, would probably leave that organization
splintered into disparate groups that "for at least a time, pose a less serious threat to U.S.
interests" than the current al-Qaeda structure.

Yes they like bleak news, the revel in terms like quagmire. Shows how little they know or they will admit, to advance their own political agendas.

In Southern Sudan, almost 3 million Black African Pagan Animist and Christian peasants have been slaughtered. The government has termed it Jihad. In Dafur another half million dead in Algeria hundreds of thousand brutally murdered for not submitting to Sharia. Now that is what bleak looks like. Do they know? Do they even care?

So a small selected filtered portion of the National Intelligence Estimate has been leaked. As a result a more complete version has been declassified, I hope they choke on it.

Political' Leaks of Paper Led to Decision, Bush Says

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration yesterday released portions of a classified intelligence estimate that
says the global jihadist movement is growing and being fueled by the war in Iraq even as it
becomes more decentralized, making it harder to identify potential terrorists and prevent attacks.

The war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding resentment of U.S.
involvement in the Muslim world and drawing new adherents to the movement, the assessment says.
The growth in the number of potential terrorists is also being fed by corruption, slow-moving
political reform in many Muslim countries and "pervasive" anti-American sentiment, according to
the report.

President Bush said he ordered the partial release of the newly leaked intelligence report to
"stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq." (By
Gerald Herbert -- Associated Press)
VIDEO | During a press conference Tuesday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, President Bush said
it is a mistake to think that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism, disputing a national
intelligence assessment compiled in April.

The jihadist movement is potentially limited by its ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam and
could be slowed by democratic reforms in the Muslim world, says the document, which reflects the
collective judgment of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies. In addition, it asserts that if
jihadists are perceived to be defeated in Iraq, "fewer fighters would be inspired to carry on the

Still, terrorists with experience constructing roadside bombs and other deadly devices in Iraq
"are a potential source" of leadership in attacks elsewhere, the report says

So why don't we see for our selves what the National Intelligence Estimate says?

Key Declassified Intelligence Judgments (pdf)

Because all we will get from the Media is something like this

Technorati Tags:************

Linked to
It's The Weekend Already? OTA Time from The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 6:41 AM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Saturday, 30 September 2006 10:53 AM CDT
Tuesday, 26 September 2006
Therefore, If We Want To Do Battle

Chapter Six: Weakness and Strength

Sun-tzu said:
Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy.

Therefore, if the enemy is at ease, be able to exhaust him;

if the enemy is well fed, be able to starve him;

if the enemy is settled, be able to move him

Therefore, if we want to do battle, even if the enemy is protected by high walls and deep moats, he cannot but do battle, because we attack what he must rescue

Provoke him, to know his patterns of movement.

Those who are able to adapt and change in accord with the enemy and achieve victory are called divine.

I understand parts of the NIE have been declassified by President Bush, and will be made available tonight, because parts of it have been leaked to create a distorted picture of the War in Iraq.

Like that has not happened before?

It seems that some wish to make the point that Terrorist activity has increased in Iraq. What a concept, an enemy counter-attacking where they have been attacked? Who would ever have thought it?

A enemy who is using terrorist tactics in a region where before they had sanctuary? Astonishing never before the the Military History of the world---, but wait just a minute.

Did German military action increase or decrease France after the Normandy Invasion?

But they say, we are creating a whole new generation of Jihadis, flocking to Iraq!

Like the Jihadis were not already creating and training generations of Jihadis before Iraq, even before Afghanistan, even before 9/11.

Did German military recruitment of troop increase or decrease after the Normandy Invasion?

So it would appear that Al Qaedar has been attacked in their former Sanctuaries, Afghanistan and Iraq and have responding and they have even Gasppossibly increased their recruiting efforts.

That has never happened before in all the long History of Military Conflict?

Another illustration that the Democratic Party does not need to be trusted with the Security of the Nation. They are absolutely clueless.

I am looking forward to seeing a more complete version of the NIE and the analysis of it.

Again let me reinterate, "I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you to find out that Al Qaedar is counterattacking us where we have been attacking them!

For much more detailed information go see

What Else Was In the NIE Report? at Powerline
Weak Leak Soup at Big Lizards
More of What You Won't Read in the NYT at In From the Cold

Technorati Tags:************

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 10:20 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 10:28 PM CDT
The Triple Alliance's Limits
By Peter Zeihan

French President Jacques Chirac met with
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Paris on Sept. 22 before being joined the
next day by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Three years ago, the meeting of
the three powers would have signaled a nightmare scenario for U.S. foreign

How times change.

If anything, the meeting might have
been hostile, as the logic for the trilateral alliance that once existed has
failed. Though the three obviously still have much to discuss, their
relations now are of little more significance than those between nations of
similar standing.

The Triumvirate

In the early days of
the Iraq war, a diplomatic alliance spearheaded by Chirac, former German
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Putin regularly met, consulted and spoke out
against the United States' Iraq effort. The three formed a powerful
diplomatic force rooted in friendly personal relationships and a worldview of
a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis that could stand on its own as a global power.

The primary goal of this alliance was to counter and, if possible,
contain American power. Solid geopolitical reasons underpinned this strategy
in Paris, Berlin and Moscow. Paris has long played second fiddle to the
respective global hegemon of the day, whether Hapsburg Spain, Imperial
Britain or Imperial and then Nazi Germany. Currently, that hegemon is the
United States. Thus, France, in particular the France of Charles de Gaulle of
which Chirac sees himself as the custodian, naturally seeks an alliance
capable of countering the global power of the day.

Germany's logic
under Schroeder was different. Germany had been divided and occupied by the
Cold War superpowers for two generations, and had the idea beaten into it
that Germany could not have a foreign policy (and certainly not a security
policy) independent from or hostile to Europe. Within that limited envelope,
Germany for the most part chose to be the European Union's yes-man and

But after Germany's 1990 reunification, Berlin began to
think of itself as a country again, and under Schroeder it started developing
a foreign policy within the confines of its internationally imposed envelope.
If Germany would be allowed to think of itself as European, then Germany
should -- in Schroeder's mind -- treat European sovereignty with the same
respect and care a normal state would reserve for its own sovereignty. A
partnership with Chirac's view of Europe -- which envisaged Europe as a
global, if French-led, power -- was a natural fit.

Putin's logic also
was different. During the Cold War, Moscow did everything under the sun to
drive a wedge between Europe and the United States, believing (probably
correctly) that so long as the West remained united, it could wait out and
ultimately overpower the Soviet Union. A divided West, however, would be much
more susceptible to Soviet economic, political and/or military power.

This view re-emerged after the heady days of the early 1990s, when it
(briefly and inaccurately) seemed Washington and Moscow were going to become
best pals. As American power waxed and Russian power waned, Russia under
Putin was forced to confront the uncomfortable revelation that if Russia were
ever going to be secure, it had to have a European friend -- and a powerful
one. The logical choice was Germany, which, in addition to being the closest
major European state, boasted the largest economy, and as Schroeder was
discovering, a rather malleable foreign policy. Schroeder was already cozy
with Chirac, so Putin made the duet a trio.

And thus the
Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis was born.

Ungrateful Dissenters,
Meddlesome Americans, French Relics

And it immediately ran into

The first and most critical flaw in the trilateral
relationship was that, though speaking on behalf of France, Germany and
Russia, made for powerful rhetoric, the trio presumed to speak as if it
represented the entire swathe of European and former Soviet states. Bulgaria,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the
United Kingdom, etc. in fact only have one thing in common, aside from their
location on the European continent: In the past 200 years, all of them have
either been at war with or occupied by France, Germany and Russia. Even for
states such as Norway or Greece, which strongly opposed Washington's Iraq
policies, the idea that Paris, Berlin and Moscow could speak for them without
even consulting them grated. And for those that relied on U.S. military power
to guarantee their independence -- particularly the "new" European states of
Central Europe -- the very thought the triumvirate could speak for them was
perceived as somewhere between horrifying and comic.

Beyond internal
European opposition, the Americans did not feel too hot about a grouping that
in theory contained allies that were in fact actively working to undermine
its policies. Luckily for the United States, certain things were fairly
firmly hardwired into the international system, giving Washington a great
deal of inertia that the triumvirate was simply unable to dislodge. The U.S.
dollar's dominance meant that even energy trade between Russia and France was
dollar-denominated. And France and Germany's budget shortfalls meant neither
state was willing to underwrite the expense of setting up an alternative
international system. A triumvirate effort to repeal the European Union's
Chinese arms embargo that would have ended most American-European defense
technology sharing -- something that ensured that other European states would
bring down the idea -- similarly failed to get off the ground. Such a deal
would have put weapons in the hands of the authors of the Tiananmen massacre,
something all German political parties -- even Schroeder's Social Democratic
Party, though not Schroeder himself -- opposed.

In time, however, it
was France that proved to be the alliance's undoing. In May 2004, Europhilic
France -- not the Euroskeptic United Kingdom -- defeated the European
constitution. Chirac's worldview -- and, by extension, Schroeder's and
Putin's as well -- required a Paris able to stand on the European platform
(perhaps sharing that platform with trusted partners that knew enough not to
block the spotlight) and use Europe's strength to influence the globe.
Without the unifying effect of a common constitution, however, the European
Union remains hobbled by a decision-making structure that allows individual
states to veto policies on issues of critical importance, such as how to
label cheese. That national veto also exists for less-interesting topics,
ranging from tax and judicial to foreign and military policies. Suddenly, the
political and economic assumptions upon which the triumvirate was built had
been sabotaged by none other than one of its own members.

Since that
decision, the rest of the world has been readjusting. Though Paris, Berlin
and Moscow were certainly at the forefront of the ideal of a world in which
the United States did not dictate policy, they were hardly the only ones with
a stake. Secondary powers the world over -- Brazil, China and India come to
mind -- also fancied the idea of a world in which they might form regional
groupings perhaps able to counter American hegemony.

But strategic
planners in all of these states have long realized that a multipolar system
is only possible with opposing political and economic poles. That means a
multipolar world would require an economically vibrant, politically distinct
and organizationally coherent Europe. When the constitution died -- and
sporadic European rhetoric to the contrary, the constitution is dead -- that
idea, and thus the multipolar dream, died with it too.

The past 16
months have seen the rest of the world unconsciously coming to grips with
this reality. Some states, such as India, have decided to experiment (albeit
warily) with a sort of alignment with the United States rather than to
attempt to play (nonexistent) poles off each other. Others, such as Brazil,
are viewing their own backyard in a new light, as years of mindless
commitment to an anti-American system rooted in the ideal of multipolarity
has begun to generate undesirable effects (in Brasilia's thinking) in
Venezuela and Bolivia.

And so the flaws in the
Chirac-Schroeder-Putin triumvirate's thinking have led to the triumvirate's
faltering -- as did Schroeder's electoral ejection in September 2005.

His replacement, Angela Merkel, cleaves to a worldview shaped by her
background in the former East Germany. For Merkel, American influence is not
necessarily a negative, and more important, her ideological envelope for
German policy is far wider. Whereas Schroeder operated under the constraints
the West imposed on Germany after World War II -- constraints that nearly all
West Germans consider justified -- Merkel and most East Germans consider
similar restraints imposed by the Soviet Union illegitimate. This freed up
German foreign policy to espouse and advocate German national interests
independent of Europe, empowering Berlin to craft a foreign policy free from
French hip-attachment. For example, within the European Union, Germany has
gone from an engine for greater integration to a force arguing as vehemently
as Denmark and the United Kingdom for the preservation of national vetoes in
key decision-making processes.

And of course, Schroeder's once-sturdy
French conjoined twin, Jacques Chirac, is not as dependable as before.
Chirac's term expires in May 2007, and barring an unexpected resurgence in
his fortunes, the French third of the triumvirate will also vanish.

That is because while Chirac's foreign policy is indeed rooted in
geography, that geography is not of today, but of the de Gaulle era. After
World War II, France found itself in a miniaturized Europe composed of only
France, the Low Countries and occupied Germany and Italy. The United Kingdom
was nursing its wounds and wanted little to do with the mainland, Spain was
languishing in Franco-imposed isolation and the Soviet advance had completely
cut off the eastern half of the Continent. For the first time in more than
1,000 years of French history, no major European powers were scheming,
maneuvering or marching to halt a French rise. France's first move? Begin to
band its near abroad into the European Economic Community, the forerunner of
today's European Union.

But the world of the de Gaulle era no longer
exists. Not only did "Europe" expand to include major European powers such as
Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom, but the Cold War's end introduced a
host of new players that did not see eye to eye with France. Paris could
orchestrate and perhaps even control a Europe of six, but in a Europe of
(going on) 27, the best France can hope for is to avoid being drowned in
euromush. Like the rest of the world's geography, France's geography

But French foreign policy did not change with it.

Future French presidents, whether Nicolas Sarkozy, Segolene Royal or some
other figure, will have one critical characteristic separating them from the
incumbent: They will not worship at the altar of de Gaulle. A leadership
transition will not necessarily make France a fast friend of the United
States, but it will result in a foreign policy more rooted in the geography
of today rather than the geography of yesteryear.

The implications
are potentially devastating. De Gaulle's world was one in which the French
could control Europe, and that security encouraged the ambition that created
the European Union. Now, the French no longer believe that; the union is no
longer something to be embraced without hesitation. If France, the architect
of and -- to large degree -- the engine behind European unification, were to
reduce its support for the European project, and if Germany is increasingly
looking out for its own national interests, why shouldn't Paris do the same?

Beyond the Triumvirate

Which leaves Russia's Putin all
alone in the night.

Unlike Chirac, Putin's polices are not airy
dreams. Unlike Schroeder's, they are not about muscle flexing. Putin is
quietly terrified his country and culture are in terminal decline; an
alliance with France and Germany was one of the few things that might stave
of that unfortunate fate. As such, Putin was the most desperate of the three
to make the alliance work. But since he also has the most to lose if the
alliance failed, Putin would naturally be the player to move away from the
triumvirate the most quickly when he realized it was doomed.

And he

Part of Russian foreign policy during the triumvirate period was
to treat its two friends as well as possible and to leave some of Russia's
blunt policy tools, such as energy cutoffs and military rumbling, for
countries less willing to want things Moscow's way. But with Schroeder gone
(so much was his commitment to the triumvirate that he now works for Russia's
state-energy firm Gazprom) and Chirac's star fading, Putin has no reason to
cater to French and German interests aside from a desire to be polite.

And Russians have a reputation for brusqueness absent a reason to be

Putin's new program is to look out for Russia's interests
using traditional Russian methods that have not been directed against core
Europe since Soviet times.

The January decision to slash natural gas
exports to Ukraine in the full knowledge that the resultant shortages would
be felt farther west (e.g., in France and Germany) was perhaps the first
large-scale application of this new/old policy. And it demonstrated Russia's
willingness to hurt its former allies in order to press home a critical
point: Our problems are still your problems.

In September, Russian
state-owned Vneshtorgbank purchased 5 percent of the European Aeronautic
Defense and Space Co. (EADS). Shortly thereafter, Kremlin officials leaked
that they intended to acquire a full blocking stake (typically 25 percent
plus one share). EADS, designed in order to empower Europe to compete
head-to-head with U.S. aerospace and defense contractors, has been the baby
of the Franco-German partnership going back a generation. Efforts to keep
that baby in the family know no bounds, and the French in particular are
rumored to be furious at the Russian intrusion. For Putin, French wrath is
immaterial. A Russian grip on EADS not only will secure more Western
technology for Moscow than Putin ever gathered as a KGB operative during the
Cold War; it also will allow Putin legitimately to demand meetings with core
European players -- up to and including the leadership of France, Germany and
Spain -- at a moment's notice.

In September, the Russian Natural
Resources Ministry revoked the license for Royal Dutch/Shell's Sakhalin-2
liquefied natural gas project and has threatened the same for Total's
Kharyaga oil project on the mainland. Technically, both projects are
protected by production-sharing agreements, but in Russia, the rule of law is
hardly firm. The message is clear: Investment and partnership with European
firms is all well and good, but it will occur on Russian terms. These
include, among other things, a European commitment to spread the wealth and
share technology liberally.

The Sept. 23 triumvirate meeting was a
testament to the past power of the threesome -- the key word being past. No
new initiatives were announced, no grand joint statements were released. The
biggest news -- if it can be called that -- was the announcement that the
three powers were forming a study group to examine the issue of Russian
participation in EADS, and that some natural gas from a stalled Russian
offshore project might go to Europe instead of the United States. The French
Foreign Ministry, denied even the mildest assurance from Putin that Total
would not be ejected from its Russian production-sharing agreement, was
reduced to issuing a statement of hope that all would eventually work

Though this will not likely be the last trilateral summit of the
three -- European meetings have a tendency to continue rescheduling
themselves long after the meat of a relationship has rotted -- it clearly
illustrates how the special relationship the powers once enjoyed has been
relegated to history. Exposed to simple geography, rising strategic
competition among the three is nearly a foregone conclusion. France and
Germany will fight over, rather than cooperatively plan, the future of
European unification. Germany and Russia will discover that overlapping
economic interests in Central Europe are less a reason for common ground and
more an issue of winner takes all. France, looking to wring the last bits of
usefulness out of the European Union, will likely back a free trade deal with
Ukraine -- something that will rankle Russian sensitivities.

The one
player missing from this, of course, is the one player who will benefit the
most from the triumvirate's demise: the United States. While Washington would
likely greatly enjoy maneuvering Europe's various powers into more mutually
antagonistic positions, the current administration will not be the one to
take such steps. The Bush administration is simply too occupied with Iraq and
the Iranian complications that go with it to take advantage of anyone. Until
the White House can find more foreign policy bandwidth, it will be sitting
this one out.

Or at least, it will as long as the European powers
allow it to. Traditionally, when European powers maneuver against each other,
they tend to seek the assistance of an outside power, one that can serve as
an ally to help them balance their threats. With Moscow, Paris, and Berlin no
longer seeing eye to eye, one -- and perhaps all -- will ultimately seek out
Washington's helping hand.

Send questions or comments on this article to

Was this forwarded to you? Sign up to start receiving your own copy – it’s always thought-provoking, insightful and free.  

Go to to register

Technorati Tags:*********

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:42 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 7:49 PM CDT
Gente contra Corriente
A very interesting website I discovered because the owner linked to a post I had about the USO

USO Sends 800,000th Care Package to Troops Serving Overseas!
In addition toCongressmen and Senators, celebrity guests at this stuffing party included Sherri Saum, James Avery, Brian Littrell, and Leann Tweeden.

The scenery on the site is usually very nice I rather like the purpose relayed to me

Dear Mr. Kauffman:

Thank you so much for you support. However, I shoul clarify that this blog's target is not to support the troops. This is a blog made from Spain, and my intention is to fight against the false belief that every celebrity holds leftish ideas. I know that happens in the US, and believe me, it's much worse in Europe. So I'm trying to bring famous people from the show bussiness, culture world, sports, fashion, etc, who have made statements holding libertarian or conservative beliefs, or, at least, against que ruling leftish beliefs. Certainly, someone who supports the troops is against that ruling flow, and so deserves to appear in this blog, though it is not the main target itself.

Anyway, thank you so much for your comments, and you`re a guest here anytime you feel like collaborating.

Here is just one of the sites Non-Left Celebrities.

Yes they not only linked to me they put my URL right next to LeAnn Tweeden

I think under the circumstances we need not stand on formalities, if you are reading this, please, just call me Dan? I would say we think alike. Allies can be allowed a less "proper" form of address. ;-)
Technorati Tags:************

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 10:31 AM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 10:42 AM CDT
Monday, 25 September 2006
Submit or Die
From to my email in box to you.

Submit or Die

Finally, a columnist has echoed my sentiments from last week that rarely has a facile opinion been so widely repeated. Here is how I explained it:

The conventional wisdom about the Papal Intifada is clever ("we'll protest your charge that we're violent with violence") but facile. Islam is not the slightest bit interested in fairness toward infidels. The entire point of the laws regarding insulting Islam and dhimmitude in sharia in general is to inflict humiliation on non-Muslims to pressure them into converting or accepting subjugation. "Submission," after all, not "peace," is the definition of "Islam."

See here and here, for some of the hundreds of pundits pontificating that the violent reaction to the Pope's implication that Islam is violent is hypocritical and ironic. (My favorite headline in this group, by the way, is this one: Many Missed Pope's Point)

Of course, this is precisely the point that was missed regarding the Danish Cartoon Intifada. Here is how I explained it then:

Outrage Over Danish Cartoons is Not "Hypocritical"

This controversy has nothing to do with fairness or sensitivity. It has to do with the insistence of Islamists on the principle of the primacy of Islam, and a second-class status (dhimmi) for others. We do not understand this because the West cannot conceive that anyone could openly espouse inequality as a principle.
Precisely as I have been explaining for months, Clifford May explains the reaction in the terms I used, dhimmitude and submission:

Many commentators have noted the apparent irony: The pope suggests Islam encourages violence — and Muslims riot in protest.

Many commentators have pointed out the apparent hypocrisy: Muslims are outraged by cartoons satirizing Islamic extremism while in Muslim countries Christianity and Judaism are attacked viciously and routinely.

Many commentators are missing the point: These protesters — and those who incite them — are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of a religion.” They are saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of our religion.” They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate “infidels” criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism — and much worse — from Muslims.

They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and “unbelievers” submit — or die. Call it an offer you can’t refuse.

If you don’t understand this, listen harder. In London, Anjem Choudary — a Muslim Fascist if ever there was one — told demonstrators that Pope Benedict XVI deserves to be killed — for daring to quote a Byzantine emperor’s description of Islam as a religion “spread by the sword.”

“The Muslims take their religion very seriously,” Choudary explained as if to a disobedient child, “and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the Prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.”

Iraqi insurgents — some Europeans admiringly call them “the resistance” — posted on the Internet a video of a scimitar, a symbol of Islam, slicing a cross in half. It would be a stretch to interpret this as a plea for interfaith understanding.

In Iran, the powerful imam Ahmad Khatami said the pope “should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric.” In no culture of which I am aware is that a posture from which brother addresses brother.

Imad Hamto, a Palestinian religious leader, said: “We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: ‘Aslim Taslam’” The Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh explained: “Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.”

It is not only those readily identified as extremists who voice such views. The prime minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, seemed to strike a conciliatory note, saying that the Pope’s expression of regret for his remarks was “acceptable.” But he added: “[W]e hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims.”

Similarly, on National Public Radio, a George Washington University professor, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, argued that statements such as those quoted by the pope — expressing sentiments some Muslims may find offensive — must be viewed as a form of violence.

Is the Western ideal of freedom of speech and of the press threatened? Of course but that’s only part of what is at work here. More significantly, Americans and Europeans are being relegated to the status of a dhimmi — the Arabic word applied to those conquered by Muslim armies between the 7th and 17th centuries. Based on shari’a law, dhimmis are meant to “feel themselves subdued,” to acknowledge their inferiority compared to Muslims.

In some ways, we already have done so. For example, Muslims are welcome in the Vatican, even as Christians are banned from setting foot in Mecca. We do not object to Saudis building mosques in America and Europe, even as they prohibit churches and synagogues on Arabian soil.

We pledge to abide by the Geneva Conventions when waging wars against Muslim combatants. We do expect those combatants to follow the same rules. They are engaged in a jihad and they will show no mercy to infidel soldiers or even to infidel journalists. The “international community” does not seriously protest. With our silence, we consent to inequality.

Most of the world’s Muslims are neither rioting nor calling for the death of the pontiff. But quite a few may reason that if Christians and Jews haven’t the confidence to reject dhimmitude and defend freedom, they would be foolish to stick their necks out. After all, a Muslim who challenges the Islamist Fascists brands himself as an apostate — as deserving of death as any uppity pope.

Technorati Tags:*********************

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 4:39 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 4:45 PM CDT
Sunday, 24 September 2006
The Open Trackback Alliance XLIII
For your listening pleasure while you browse

"Der er et yndigt land" (There Is A Lovely Land)

Words by: Adam Gottlob Oehlenschlager
Music by: Hans Ernst Kr?yer
Adopted: 1844

"Derer et yndigt land" was first performed for a large gathering of Danes in 1844, and became popular quickly with the Danish people. It was adopted later that year by the Danish government as a national anthem, but not the sole national anthem. This anthem is on equal status with "Kong Christian",which is both the national and royal anthem.

When the Danish anthem is usually performed or sung, the first verse is played in its entirety, then it is followed by the last four lines of the last verse. (This is true whether the lyrics are sung or not

Recentlty I have been posting music to Illustrate the Diversity of America, this week I have a different motive to express Solidarity with DENMARK

I maintain my Support of Denmark, and will later today, post links to and my thoughts about a Danish Editorial "We are being pissed upon by Per Nyholm "

I think I shall title my Post, "There is no "But" in "Freedom of Speech".

When I first started upon my journey through the blogverse I created a
Statement of Purpose
Now upon reading it, one can realize that I did not hold to every detail of that original statement, but from it's basic premise, I have never swayed, in my belief that the Blogs are in fact the Committees of Correspondence of the Second American Revolution.

And that it is a Revolution of Information, no longer can we afford and allow elite gateways to control what we can see, hear and discuss.

For I believe that those bloggers who find their way, here and in particular from the Blogs associated with Sam.


Some of us are more Serious, some of us are more lighthearted and some post the common ordinary things that make one smile and recall that Life without the simple things to treasure is meaningless.

And it is important that all have a platform from which to speak.

As I understand this process you can link to this post and trackback to this post on ANY subject or post you think important. It is open. I will repeat this every Monday.

The Committees of Correspondence welcomes your intelligent comments. And also welcomes you to join the


This week I also have shortened my usual introduction for a more inportant message.

In it's struggle for Freedom of Speech.

Sign the Petition NOW!

JEG opstille hos Danmark!

45127 Total Signatures 12:03 AM CDT September 25, 2006 We can do better pass the word~!

From Agora a call to Support the Manifesto online by signing another Petition, why not sign both?

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
Created by Mark Jefferson on March 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm AST

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. "

Open Trackback Alliance

Blogs that Trackback to this Post:

On Monday
Warning About Red Lobster Restaurants from planck's constant
Muslim Humor - Muslim Jokes from planck's constant

Y'al come back now, Y'heah? ;-)
Technorati Tag:******


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 10:57 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 6:41 PM CDT
Jihad Means Struggle
We have been told over and over again that the word Jihad means internal struggle

CAIR: The Council on American-Islamic Relations
Shora explained that the Arabic word "jihad" means "struggle," not "holy war," but the word has been hijacked by terrorists groups to justify attacking innocent civilians. "Lesser jihad" or "defensive jihad" refers to a military stand against the enemies of religion, but is meant to be a call to arms if the religion is under attack and threatened with annihilation.

The Canadian office of the Council on American-Islamic
"Islam respects the sacredness of life, and rejects any express statement or tacit insinuation that Muslims should harm innocent people. Despite our disagreement with certain American policies, we must never abuse the concept of Jihad to target innocent civilians.

"Jihad, which literally means 'struggle,' has an internal, societal and combative dimension. The internal dimension of Jihad encompasses the struggle against the evil inclinations of the self, and the spiritual project to adorn the self with virtues such as justice, mercy, generosity and gentleness. The societal dimension includes struggling against social injustice and creating a communal identity based on charity, respect and equality.

But I just finished viewing a daunting video presentation.

It would be hard to do justice to the message conveyed, one item stands out most strikingly.

A statement by Walid Shoebat a former Palestinian Terrorist (reformed)

I won't bother to source the statements by numerous Islamic Religious Leaders that Jihad also means Holy War to destroy the Jews, the Idolaters and the Polytheists.

Walid Shoebat summed it up perfectly.

Yes Jihad means struggle.

But so did


and as for the statement:

"we must never abuse the concept of Jihad to target innocent civilians'

I will close with the statement of one of the Muslim Clerics in Obsession,

No Kaffir is Innocent

Technorati Tags:************

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 9:07 AM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 24 September 2006 9:14 AM CDT
Friday, 22 September 2006
Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?
Saw a post at No Pasarn! called Where she belongs
On Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

Neither is she pessimistic about the West. It has, she says, "the drive to innovate.'' But Europe, she thinks, is invertebrate. After two generations without war, Europeans "have no idea what an enemy is.'' And they think, she says, that leadership is an antiquated notion because they believe that caring governments can socialize everyone to behave well, thereby erasing personal accountability and responsibility. "I can't even tell it without laughing,'' she says, laughing softly. Clearly she is where she belongs, at last.

Now I have some ancestors that walked here (On the Bering Land bridge during the end of the last Ice Age) and I have some ancestors that rode later, but they have all certain things in common. They went to a lotof trouble to get here.

Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?

Oh that's right because it was a lot better here, more Opportunities, more Freedom, more Liberty, more of an entire array of things that in the OLD world were often reserved for the elite.

Some people forget that. Some people make a big deal because they say the US stole what is now the Southern South West from Mexico, leave aside the fact that the Mexicans and Spanish stole that land from the First Nations, if that ares had stayed in Mexico, what makes anyone think it would be any different today than the rest of Mexico?

Would people be risking death in the desert to get to somewhere just like the place they were leaving?

Some people also forget that some of our ancestors went to a lot of trouble, to leave Europe.

Why should we go to a lot of trouble to duplicate the failed Socialist policies of Europe? Why should we wish to turn this country into a duplicate of what we spent so much effort to leave?

Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?
Technorati Tags:******

Linked to


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 6:02 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Friday, 22 September 2006 9:07 PM CDT

Newer | Latest | Older