Pasha is the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.

As reported Thursday, December 23, 2010 by the Economic Times of India:

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani today said that no force could pressurise the ISI chief Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to appear in a US court to face a lawsuit filed by relatives of victims of the Mumbai attacks.

“The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)… is an extremely important (and) sensitive institution of this country. If they do not agree to go to the American court, then no one can send them,” Gilani said.

His remarks came as media reports from New York said the plaintiffs in two US lawsuits accusing Pakistan’s spy chief of nurturing terrorists involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks are hoping for a historic outcome recalling the Lockerbie settlement.

The lawsuit against the ISI and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was filed before a Federal court in Brooklyn, NY on November 19, 2010 by relatives of Rabbi Gavriel Noah Holtzberg and his wife Rivka, who were both brutally gunned down by Islamist vermin while at the Chhabad House in Mumbai. The court promptly issued summons to Lt. Gen. Pasha along with other key leaders in the ISI and LeT.

The 26-page lawsuit accusing ISI of aiding and abetting LeT in the slaughter of 166 people was filed before a New York Court on November 19, following which the Brooklyn court issued summons to Major Samir Ali, Azam Cheema, Inter-Services Intelligence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Major Iqbal, Lakhvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sajid Majid, Pasha, Saeed and Nadeem Taj.

“The ISI has long nurtured and used international terrorist groups, including LeT, to accomplish its goals and has provided material support to LeT and other international terrorist groups,” said the lawsuit filed by relatives of the slain Rabbi. Pasha, who has been director general of the ISI since September 2008, has been summoned, so is Nadeem Taj, the director general of ISI from September 2007 to September 2008.

From what evidence we have, including testimony by Pakistani-American Muslim Terrorist David Headley, the case has definite merit. It is very likely that Pasha and others in Pakistan’s ISI are Islamist terrorists and it’s even more certain that they’ve been waging a war of terrorism against India due to the long dispute over Kashmir.

I wholeheartedly sympathize with the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. These Muslim vermin need to be made to pay in any way that mankind can make them pay.

Then, when we’ve punished them fully, we can shove pork chops down their vile throats and shoot them in their respective heads – unto their last misborn crotch-dropping.

Unfortunately, irrespective of the merits of the lawsuit or mankind’s sentiments, restitution as dictated by the court will not be forthcoming and no member of what passes for Pakistan’s government will ever stand before a US court. It is delusional or foolish to believe, think, or hope otherwise.

Failed state or not, never should have been created out of whole cloth or not, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations rarely allow their citizens to be summoned to stand before foreign courts in matters of tort, nor due they make any effort to enforce any judgments rendered by such foreign courts. This is even more true when the defendant is a senior member of the nation’s ruling body.

In point of fact, the US behaves in exactly the same manner and protects its citizens and officials the same way. It’s – at best – ridiculous to expect any other nation to behave otherwise. That’s why retribution in such cases is most often best handled outside of the judicial system and by experts in the field of bringing wrongdoers before the highest bar for judgment.

If in an “Absolut World” Atzlan has completed it Reconquista of the American Southwest, or even if they just thought that such an ad was appropriate to use in Mexico then they are the enemies of America.

Since I do not lend aid and comfort to the enemy, I do not purchase their products and encourage all other Americans to do the same.

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

– Edmund Burke
The Yale Book of Quotations

Treason takes many forms, not all of which are obvious. One of the worst and easiest to commit is lending tacit support to America’s foreign or domestic enemies by doing any form of business with them whatsoever or lending them any aid or support even by proxy.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down.

I all honesty their postulate is not entirely fallacious; Mankind and our near-kin are, at a base level, more alike than we are different. We laugh, we cry, we love, we hate – and, if we are sufficiently provoked by people’s deeds, we become outraged.

Muslims Just have Differing Priorities

It really just boils down to a culture’s or population’s priorities, but you can tell a great deal about a culture’s or population’s worth and validity by those priorities – especially what outrages them enough that they will act upon that outrage.

The Liberals have called Arizona’s new illegal immigrations as being equivalent apartheid, Nazi Germany, and the old Jim Crow laws. Various Leftists have advocated punitively boycotting Arizona and the race-baiting filth, Al Sharpton, ever eager for the self-aggrandizement, has promised to lead riots across Arizona if SB 1070 isn’t revoked.

Of course few, if any, of these sorts have bothered to read Arizona’s SB 1070 – the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act - or compare to current federal immigration laws and their supposed enforcement. Those that have likely don’t care; they’re too steeped in hatred of America, racism vs. Whites, and their own political agendas to worry overmuch about facts that contradict their views.

President Obama claims the law is misguided and his Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has parroted her boss’s assessment and added that this is a Homeland Security matter best left to the federal government to solve.

What I find far worse than “misguided” is the fact that no federal administration in decades, irrespective of political party, has done anything except ignore or exacerbate the threat to America posed by our porous and ever more dangerous southern border. They’re ongoing outright refusal to even enforce the laws currently on the books is worse than misguided; it’s criminal and a dereliction of the duties of the POTUS and has been based solely upon political expediency and pandering.

America’s Southern Front

Arizona is literally on the front lines of a war raging across America’s border with Mexico. The people of Arizona and the other border states are in the middle of war that is far more brutal and violent than anything that Al-Qaeda or the Taliban are involved in. In all the world, only the ongoing genocide in Darfur can match it.

Despite Janet Napolitano’s lies or delusional fantasies that the violence of the Mexican drug cartels had not spread like a plague north of the border into Arizona, in 2007 Phoenix, AZ suffered from 359 reported for-ransom kidnappings. In 2008 that number rose to 366. Police estimate twice that number go unreported.

Currently Phoenix, AZ is the “kidnapping capital” of America and is ranked #2 in the world, behind Mexico City, in this particular crime.

Torture, murder, and mutilation of the victim are commonplace when the victims’ families are either slow to pay the ransom or when the police are involved in the situation.

Commonplace Brutality Of The Mexican Drug Cartels

SB 1070 is the Arizona legislature’s attempt to make it possible for Arizona law enforcement to step in and do the job that federal agencies such as the ICE, Homeland Security, and the Border Patrol are either unable or unwilling to properly undertake.

Will SB 1070 be enough to protect the Americans in Arizona? No, of course not. It is, however, a needed step in right direction for the state to take since the federal government has consistently failed to uphold it duties to the People and protect the citizens of our border states from incursions and depredations by alien invaders.

Many Americans claim to believe that the answer to all these questions is yes, all men are equal.

Indeed, answer is contained within the single most quoted line from our Declaration of Independence and has been used many times as a rationale for changing our nation’s laws.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

The very wording of this declaration, combined with what we know of the Founding Fathers’ theologies and philosophies, sets forth the inherent equality of all of Man as a matter of Natural Law.

But, if this is case, one would be forced to accept the bad along with good. Whether it is merely people’s belief that all men are inherently equal or a fact of Natural Law that they are, in fact, equal in both propensity for nobility and for ignominy then one should expect roughly similar results and responses any stimulus that is applied to a group people, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, or creed.

That being the case, why do so many people in America believe that “domestic aid” programs will achieve any better results than the bulk of both private (NGO) and governmental foreign aid programs have achieved in the many decades of their existence?

Foreign Aid Failure

Truly, if the aim of aid was and is to better the lot in life of its recipients, then the trillions of dollars Americans have given in aid to the impoverished of countless nations has been largely a failure. With the fewest of exceptions it has not achieved that goal. It may have kept a great many from dying but it has not let them live, but merely to exist dependent upon the largess of Americans.

Does anyone reading this post have an example of a circumstance when foreign aid has had a long-term positive effect that resulted in the recipients no longer needing the aid?

In some cases, such as AIDS relief in Uganda, foreign aid actually made things far worse. Foreign aid, focused on treatment instead of prevention and containment has actually ended up killing more people than would have died without it.

Domestic Corollary

There are, of course, obvious direct corollaries between foreign aid and domestic social programs, both in methodology and in efficacy. This stands to reason; people in America who are interested in such things have found a singular premise and formula for providing aid to the poor, and have applied it to both foreign and domestic targets.

Welfare, Medicaid, SCHIP, WIC, Food Stamps, and a plethora of other “Social Programs” are essentially domestic variations of the same programs we deploy as part of foreign aid. They are all based solely upon keeping people alive and do not make provisions for actually improving the recipients’ situation.

American Exceptionalism

Do people truly believe that our domestic aid programs will have  different and better outcomes than our foreign aid programs have had? Wouldn’t such a belief just be an example of the philosophy of American Exceptionalism – something which so many of the people who favor the continuance of these programs describe as self-serving, jingoistic, and based upon a myth?

Aside from some thought or belief that America’s poor are somehow different and better than the poor of other countries, how can people expect subsistence aid to have any long-term positive effect and remediation of the recipients’ situations when it has failed to do  so in other  countries time after time?

Conclusion & Opinion

I’m left with having to choose between two disparate conclusions – either the proponents and supporters of America’s various subsidies for the poor base their support on something other than actually improving the lives and situations of those poor, or the proponents and supporters of America’s various subsidies for the poor believe in American Exceptionalism and, therefor, do not believe that a man is man and that all men were created equal.

It seems that the renewable energy grants included in the Stimulus are stimulating other countries’ economies instead America’s and various Democrats in the Senate are rightfully angered by this.

From Politico:

Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jon Tester of Montana announced Wednesday a new initiative to require the “Buy America” provision of the stimulus to all programs, not just the government ones. A study done by the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 79 percent of the $2 billion in clean-energy grants allocated since Sept. 1, 2009, has gone to foreign wind companies.

“We are demanding the Obama administration suspend this program immediately … [and] indefinitely,” Schumer said. “We are sending a letter to Secretary [Timothy] Geithner asking him to halt all payouts for this program until we in Congress can go back and fix this law.”

The senators highlighted a wind farm project in west Texas, which received stimulus aid and is projected to create 3,000 jobs in China and a tenth as many in the United States.

“Some of us complained about this to the administration back in November when this project was first announced, so it’s not that they don’t know about it, but the Energy Department in their reply said they were powerless to stop it because projects like this are automatically eligible for the grants. That answer is not good enough,” Schumer said. “The goal of the stimulus is to strengthen the American economy, and that means creating jobs here in the U.S. not in China.”

That’s right; 79% of the $2 billion in clean-energy grants allocated through the Stimulus since Sept. 1, 2009, have gone to foreign wind companies. That’s $1.58 billion of the American taxpayers’ money going into the coffers of foreign companies.

It’s shockingly refreshing and somewhat heartening to see at least some of the Democrats in Congress not bowing and scraping to Obama and actually looking out for Americans.

At least it proves that President Obama’s claims that the Stimulus and renewable energy would each create jobs was true, at least in a Rovian sense; just the bulk of them won’t be American jobs.

Since I have friends in Pakistan this interested me on a more personal level than it did many of the viewers of the debate. My friends, who are fairly secular and educated would be placed in direct peril if the government of Pakistan collapsed due to the rising unrest, insurgency, and terrorism that could result from an increased and expanded US and / or NATO campaign within Pakistan.

So let us discuss Pakistan’s fate at the hands of each of the US presidential candidates. Each candidate has a different approach to the question. Each approach will have a different impact on the nation of Pakistan and its peoples.

The question:

Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Sen. John McCain’s answer:

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and — and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

McCain wants to work with the Pakistani government and military to remove Al-Qaeda. More importantly he seems to want to work with the people in Waziristani region to convince them to help remove Al-Qaeda. This means that Pakistan gets to keep its sovereignty – and probably its government – intact. It also probably means that the Pakistani military will bear the brunt of the attacks into the Waziristani region of Pakistan.

From a purely American-centric point of view I find Sen. McCain’s plan to be unsatisfying. I can also find several flaws with this methodology for dealing with Al-Qaeda.

Firstly, there’s no positive proof that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s regime is friendly enough towards the US to consider aiding us in this struggle. Secondly, McCain’s plan hinges on successfully winning “the hearts and minds” of the Waristanis.

Sen. Barack Obama’s answer:

What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Obama wants also wants to work with the Pakistani government and military to remove Al-Qaeda – when it suits our purposes to do so. He makes no mention of- or allusion to working with the people in the Waziristani region to further this effort. This means that US forces will bear the brunt of the attacks into the Waziristani region of Pakistan.

From a purely American-centric point of view I find Sen. Obama’s idea very emotionally appealing; our dead and bereaved from 9/11 deserve to be avenged. I can find several grievous flaws in his plan however.

Firstly, Zardari’s regime is already quite unfriendly to the US and Pakistani troops have already fired upon US / NATO forces within and near the borders of Pakistan; Obama’s plan would most likely escalate that violence into open warfare. Secondly, Obama’s plan would require that US forces launch unsupported attack into Waziristan. This is an action that the Soviets and the Pakistanis themselves have failed at accomplishing.

From Pakistan’s point of view…

I would have to say that Pakistan would fare better with Sen. McCain as President of the United States of America than with Sen. Obama in that role. In point of fact I think Pakistan would do much better with McCain than they would with Obama.

McCain’s plan is a cooperative effort with the Pakistani government and the people of the Waziristani region. By involving all parties it would mitigate the potential for disaster to be the Pakistani government and it’s people.

Obama’s plan seems to focus on using financial aid to convince Zardari’s regime to aid our forces, or at least ignore our encroachments into their territory.  This would likely result in an increase of violence and terrorism in Pakistan if Zardari’s regime could even be convinced in the first place.  Alternatively Obama’s plan could place Pakistan in open warfare against the US and at odds with Waziristan. Either is a recipe for disaster within Pakistan.