No, that's Babar...
Fletch: I don't know... I don't have any.
Doc: No children?
Fletch: No elephant books.
... WHICH BRINGS US TO THE FIRST OF TWO significant challenges facing the Democrats as they seek to win the votes of believers: the crisis of credibility. Outside of Kaine and Casey, most of the Democrats' rhetoric has betrayed signs of the same overreach with which they have approached the war in Iraq. When House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) cast her vote against the Republican budget resolution, she claimed to have done so as "an act of worship." Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has invoked the Prophet Isaiah on the House floor to agitate for higher taxes. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) voiced her opposition to a Republican immigration reform measure because, she said, "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because the bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself." ...Religion of convenience.
... This kind of over-the-topness calls into question the Democrats' sincerity. Rob Boston from Americans United for Separation of Church and State told me some of the Democrats' appeals stink like old school political pandering. "Sometimes it's hard to tell if they mean it or if they are just trying to get votes," he says. "It is both sincere and calculated," adds Professor Green. "Some in the party are informed by their faith and others just think it is a way to win."
And is talk enough? No major presidential candidate in American history used the word "values" more often than Senator John Kerry did in 2004. It earned him 18 percent of the "values vote." The question remains: Why should it be any different this year?
MEANWHILE, A SLUICE OF LIBERAL anti-Christian tracts has opened up. The tracts deride increased religion in public life as hints of a looming "theocracy." Conservative Christians consider this a deeply offensive charge and it has the potential to diminish appeals from religious liberals to find common ground. "The two messages might cancel each other out. It is hard to appeal to religious voters if one does not respect religion. All this talk of 'theocracy' could easily appear as hostility toward religion," Green says.
The second challenge for religious-left Democrats is to avoid cross-pressuring their secular base with all this new "God talk." Green believes the Democrats' increased public religiosity has the potential to turn off secular voters. Boston agrees. "If the Democrats continue going down the road of introducing more religion into their proposals, sooner or later congressional debates are going to evolve into proof text contests," he says.
Waldman argues, "If the Democrats decide to become a secular party, they will have decided to become a minority party." This might be a matter of simple math, but the fact remains that approximately 11 percent of the electorate describes itself as "secular" and this cohort votes overwhelmingly in favor of Democrat candidates. Will these voters stay with the Democrats if the party continues to posture itself as the party of Jesus?
The question may not find its answer in 2006. Waldman believes the Democrats' "God talk" will not have a significant impact on the off-year elections in November. "I don't think they [the religious left] are organized in enough local races," he says.
But despite all the reasons to suspect the Democrats of a cynical play for votes, they nevertheless are for the first time in three decades telling Americans of faith that they are willing to talk. This is a remarkable transformation and a powerful testament to the enormous growth in the number of religiously motivated voters.
Liberals regularly discredit themselves by their refusal to recognize the existence of evil in this world, and with their notorious reluctance to call that evil by its proper name. As conservatives, on the other hand, we occasionally undermine our cause by crying wolf on evil – imputing wickedness and malevolence to those with whom we merely disagree in ongoing debates on government policy. ...Introspection.
Labels: Cox and Forkum
... In a thoroughly opaque process - not greatly dissimilar to the selection of a new pope - some of the fifteen countries on the UN Security Council have already put forward candidates for consideration. In late July 2006, the council held its first straw poll. Each government signaled its preferences by marking on secret ballots whether it would "encourage" or "discourage" a candidate or offer "no opinion". The second straw poll - seen as hugely significant in terms of the final outcome - is likely to be held very shortly.No one on the list of "contenders" is from the U.S., U.K., or Australia... other than Tony Blair and Bill Clinton at the bottom as "Populist Long Shots". Shocking.
Although many of the proposed candidates have impressive records of political and diplomatic service behind them, none of them is widely known beyond their home countries or outside of the UN system. The four main contenders are from Asia, a reflection of an existing unwritten rule that the top UN job should rotate and that this time is Asia's turn.
The marginal frontrunner to succeed Annan is Ban Ki-Moon, minister of foreign affairs and trade in South Korea. In the July straw poll he received more "encouragements" and fewer "discouragements" than any other candidate. He has good relations with the United States (having served twice in the Korean embassy in Washington) and with China. Ki-Moon has been deeply involved in trying to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula, including a major role in attempting to defuse the North Korean nuclear issue at the fifth round of the six-party talks on Korea, held in Beijing in November 2005. But ironically this may work against him. There are few people who appear to have the trust of the Chinese, the North Koreans and the other parties to this process, and there may be pressure to keep him in post.
... Observing the events of today—the hesitation and uncertainty, the stubborn clinging to the fantasy that the enemy can be appeased if we just keep talking and find the right diplomatic solution—I now feel that, for the first time, I really understand the leaders of the 1930s. Their illusion that Hitler could be appeased has always seemed, in historical hindsight, to be such a willful evasion of the facts that I have never grasped how it was possible for those men to deceive themselves. But I can now see how they clung to their evasions because they could not imagine anything worse than a return to the mass slaughter of the First World War. They wanted to believe that something, anything could prevent a return to war. What they refused to imagine is that, in trying to avoid the horrors of the previous war, they were allowing Hitler to unleash the much greater horrors of a new war.War for oil... or for freedom? Who is the enemy?
Today's leaders and commentators have less excuse. The "horror" they are afraid of repeating is the insurgency we're fighting in Iraq—a war whose cost in lives, dollars, and resolve is among the smallest America has ever had to pay. And it takes no great feat of imagination to project how much more horrible the coming conflict will be if we wait on events long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear technology. Among the horrific consequences is the specter of a new Holocaust, courtesy of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
The good news, such as it is, is that the air of foreboding about this new war is somewhat exaggerated. Yes, the conflict will become larger and bloodier—far bloodier than it would have been had we acted earlier. But Iran is not Nazi Germany—a large, united, economically and technologically advanced nation that could nearly equal our military capability. Iran is a poor, backward nation with a large, restive dissident movement. Its military bluster is a hollow shell hiding its underlying weakness. It's time to break that shell and kill the monster inside—before it grows any bigger and more powerful.
We can all sense that the war is coming. It is vital for America to seize the initiative and fight it on our terms, when we have the maximum advantage.
It's five minutes to midnight. The time to strike Iran is now.
... The West better decide on the answers to the questions or be prepared to live under Shariah Law in a totalitarian Islamic state. The question that has to be answered is: Would you choose appeasement and wind up as a lampshade in a palace or fight for Western democracy, freedom and liberty? ...Help.
... Here's the kind of information the "scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the "shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming - but they also might not.The article concludes...
"We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as "the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," "the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and "Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why." ...
... "We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did," says ED attorney Jim Marston. If Marston has a scintilla of evidence that Lindzen has been trafficking in fake science, he should present it to the MIT provost's office. Otherwise, he should shut up.Why let the truth get in the way of a good story.
"This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming," says Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved in the lawsuit. Of course Lindzen isn't a fake scientist, he's an inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not supposed to listen to him.
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.Ughhh.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.
Labels: George W. Bush
The same man said all of the following things. Can you guess who it was?Agonizing.
"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs."
"Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits, often without paying taxes."
"Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world."
"Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."
Who said all these things? Pat Buchanan? Bill O'Reilly? Lou Dobbs?
Not even close. These statements were all made by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, and currently Senate Minority Leader fighting fiercely to protect illegal immigrants from the restrictions proposed in Republican bills in Congress.
When Senator Reid said all those other things, it was 1993. There was no congressional or presidential election that year and it was not the Republicans who were trying to pass an immigration bill. It was Senator Reid who introduced his own immigration bill.
In short, the immigration bill is not just about immigration. It is about politics -- and the stakes are high. Under such conditions, it is not unusual for a politician to rise above principles.
Immigration represents a golden political opportunity for the Democrats to regain power. It is an ideal issue for the Democrats because it unites them and divides the Republicans.
The Republican majority in Congress is split between supporters of President Bush's "guest worker" proposal and those who are serious about controlling our borders and upholding our laws. Meanwhile, the Democrats are united for legalizing illegality.
Under these conditions, the chances that Congress will solve the nation's problem, rather than the politicians' problem, seem slight -- unless the voting public's anger is expressed so clearly and so massively as to outweigh the political intimidation of the pro-illegal immigrant marches.
If the Republicans wimp out, that could so demoralize their base that Republican turnout in the fall elections could decline to the point where Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives.
With California's ultra-liberal Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as the new Speaker of the House, Democrats would be in hog heaven. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, so even the wild Republican spending of the past few years could be escalated to new heights with Democrats in the majority.
Impeachment charges also originate in the House of Representatives, so Democrats could deal the Republicans another blow by impeaching President Bush. It doesn't matter that he would never be convicted in the Senate.
What matters is that the Republicans would be forced on the defensive and bogged down politically.
Even if a bill of impeachment did not get a majority vote in the House of Representatives, it would get major coverage in the media, which would accomplish the same purpose of damaging the Republicans before the 2008 presidential elections.
In short, the Democrats' goal is not immigration reform but recapturing the White House in 2008. This is clearly demonstrated by the way Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has gone all-out in opposing the kinds of immigration crackdowns that he himself advocated back in 1993, when the political situation was different.
It is all a political charade. At the heart of this charade is a package deal that will allow Washington politicians to be on both sides of the issue -- in favor of the appearance of border control, while making it easier than ever for existing illegal aliens to stay and get citizenship, and allowing more people to cross our borders for their own benefit, rather than ours.
... I believe the American people would applaud such action. I think the reason many Americans are losing heart over the effort in Iraq is that they see us playing games with our enemies while they blow up our troops. A declaration of war would put the world on notice that the United States of America will never again accept a cease-fire from the U.N., and that nothing short of total victory will ever be acceptable again. ...That's what you call "all-in".
... No Muslim country treats non-Muslims and their religions anywhere nearly as decently as any Western non-Muslim country (including Israel) treats Muslims. That is why tens of millions of Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim societies and virtually no non-Muslim immigrates to any Muslim society. In every Muslim country, non-Muslims are either systematically persecuted at worst or treated as inferiors at best. ...Many examples...
... Does all this suggest that we are fighting a billion Muslims? Of course not.
Does all this suggest that all or even most Muslims are bad people? Of course not.
It does suggest, however, that the dominant forces within Islam are bad at this time; that Muslims who see this evil in their midst have not mobilized any counterforce either out of fear for their lives or for some other reason; and that decent men and women around the world -- Hindu, Christian, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist and Muslim -- are threatened by this powerful, death-loving force.
Muslims who do not acknowledge the threat to civilization from within the Muslim world at least have two excuses -- fear for their lives or group solidarity. What excuses do non-Muslims have who deny this threat?
With the exception of Brit Hume, there has been a near blackout from the mainstream media on Zombie's investigation of the Red Cross Ambulance Incident in Cana. Last week, I wrote the Associated Press, ITV, the New York Times, MSNBC, The Age, Time magazine, Cox News, the Guardian, and the Boston Globe asking for a response to doubts raised over the incident. So far, I have received non-response auto-replies from ITV and the NY Times....and the must-watch Vent here:
If you read no other article from this web site ever again, I urge you to read this one.Read it all... here.
If you read this one and cannot decisively conclude for yourself that the ACLU is not an arm or a front for the Communist Party or for Communism itself, I have to conclude that you are likely either a Communist sympathizer or gasp, a Communist itself.
The Congressional Record - Appendix, pages A34-35, as posted on this page, is the source by which we will cite and for sake of time, briefly but clearly make our compelling case. In 1963, a constituent of Florida Democrat Congressman A.S. Herlong urged the entry of 45 goals of Communism as identified in the book The Naked Communist.
So how many of these objectives would it take to convince you that ACLU backers are Communist sympathizers? Would 1-3 do it? Probably not. 4-6? Likely no but keep talking. 7-9? OK, Kareiva, you’re starting to get warm. 10-12? Now you’re beginning to make your case. 13-15? I can’t take the heat!
What if I laid out at least half of these 45 goals (22 to be exact) and did so using links from the ACLU’s web site? Would that convince you? I think it would convince all but those who intentionally want to continue their association with them. ...
Bottom line, the ACLU and their Communist conspirators target the uninformed. They want you in the dark. They don’t want you to think. They want you to just believe what they say and be happy that they are doing your will. But I’ll tell you, they are not doing my will. And if you have the capacity to think for yourself, take an objective look at the organization. Do the research with an open mind. And if you do, you will be joining our fight.Thanks Jay and Nedd.
... the Democrats' version of Tom DeLay, minus the ethical and legal problems of the former Republican House leader.Things are going to get worse before they get better. Pelosi leading the House will all but guarantee the first part of that statement.
On the face of it, conversion to Islam would appear to provide a painless escape device for any hostage who happens to fall into fundamentalist terrorist hands. After all, once free, the hostage can always revert to his real faith or non-faith. It is hard to blame the two Fox News journalists, the American Steve Centanni, 60, and the New Zealander, Olaf Wiig, 36, for taking that path on to buy their way out of an uncertain fate at the hands of Palestinian terrorists – especially as they later reported they were forced to make the gesture at gunpoint.Here's the videa of their conversion:
And, indeed the two journalists were released from 13 days of captivity in Gaza three hours after announcing their conversion on a new videotape released by the kidnappers in Gaza.
Relief over the two journalists’ coming safely out of their ordeal is quite apart from considerations of the consequences for the war on terrorism. It must be said that the Palestinian kidnappers also walked away without suffering any harm and can keep on snatching victims without fear – exactly as the same terrorist gang got away with murdering three Americans in Gaza in 2003. In fact, the prime minister Ismail Haniya, who belongs to an Islamist terror group, was allowed to take credit for the release after winning a face saver in the form of the conversions and an anti-American diatribe.
Labels: George W. Bush
DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.From Jed Babbin:
UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and material, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.
Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got. ...
The U.N.'s years-long record on the Israel-Lebanon border makes mockery of the term "peacekeeping." On page 155 of my book, "Inside the Asylum," is a picture of a U.N. outpost on that border. The U.N. flag and the Hezbollah flag fly side by side. Observers told me the U.N. and Hezbollah personnel share water and telephones, and that the U.N. presence serves as a shield against Israeli strikes against the terrorists.So "peacekeeping" means aiding the side you're friendly with. Interesting. Some might argue that it's just a case of siding with the "little guy", but that's a load of #!@%. The U.N. is on the side of the terrorists / Islamic fascists. Whose side are you on?
"Actually she's not equine looking atI don't think so. This stuff is just mean-spirited and pointless. Jerks.
all...she's serpentine. Who hasn't beheld her grotesque visage without thinking of a hypothyroid garden snake? But think of all the hours she's spends over the toilet vomiting to make herself look that way. Give her some credit for hard work."
Dear Martin,Jay Homnick thinks people feeling like I do should take it out in the primaries:
I wanted to send you a personal note with this must-read news from our RNC Political Director, Michael DuHaime. Our grassroots efforts are already making a huge difference - moving voters into the Republican column for the critical midterm elections just 74 days from today.
Because of this great news, I have set a goal of funding 3 million additional voter contacts for the final stretch - by the Labor Day start of the campaign. Martin, your support will make a critical difference to this effort. Your contribution of just $50 will enable our volunteers to personally call over 600 voters. A contribution of $250 enables us to reach over 4,000 voters - the margin of victory in a close election.
Please visit our special web site to contribute to this effort and track how many more voters we will reach because of your efforts:
Thank you again for everything that you do for our Party and our President.
Chairman, Republican National Committee
email@example.com - www.GOP.com
Once upon a time, electing a Democrat was a viable alternative. It cost you a few dollars extra but at least you were trading in hypocrisy for honesty. Those days are long gone. In today’s Democratic Party, left-winger extraordinaire Joseph Lieberman has been marginalized as a hawk whose talons are no longer required. Howard Dean, a screechy bit player from Vermont, is their national spokesman. Extremists like John Conyers and Charlie Rangel are in line to chair committees. Their majority would be a major catastrophe.I'll certainly give him that.
So what recourse do we have against errant Republicans who are untrue to their charge? The primary answer is primaries. Every representative who strays the course instead of staying it should be met by a challenger in a primary. That way, Republicans who need to be banished will be replaced in the ranks by their peers. But to let the bad guys win because the good guys are a tad adrift is to really lose sight of priorities. If they filmed High Noon in Chelm, would the sheriff lose because his watch was slow?
[T]he dangerous argument is the lazy line pedalled by too many politicians that in an Australia or a Canada of evolving immigration patterns, an immigrant from Moldova or China or Brazil or Saudi Arabia can’t be expected to relate to the Queen, to the existing constitutional system. Now try this line the next time you’re in Saudi Arabia: if you immigrate to Saudi Arabia and say ‘hey man, I just can’t relate to the House of Saud, and what’s with this Wahhabism, can’t we get a couple of sports bars with wet t-shirt nights every Thursday’? The Saudis would have a grand old laugh about it and then behead you. So when we accept that argument, in essence we’re explicitly promoting the principle of reverse assimilation; that immigration imposes not the obligation that the immigrant assimilate to his new land, but that his new land assimilate to him. And thereby lies great peril, not for the Queen, she’ll get by, but for a whole bunch of the rest of us… [I]n the superb summation of the American writer James C. Bennett, ‘democracy, immigration multiculturalism … pick any two’.
... I'd like to submit an alternative explanation for Bush's linguistic deficit.By Kathleen Parker.
This theory occurred to me not long ago at an off-the-record luncheon with Bush and a hundred or so of his supporters. I was the guest of a guest, and welcomed the opportunity to observe the president in his natural habitat.
What I witnessed was revealing. Not only was the man fluent in the English language and intellectually agile, he was knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects raised during a 90-minute Q&A. Someone apparently had been slipping intellectual-curiosity tablets into Bush's cola.
Toward the end, one of the guests said, ``Mr. President, I think if Americans could hear you speak the way you have today, you'd have a 95 percent approval rating.''
I think that's almost true. Not 95 percent, obviously, but he'd surely have a higher than 30 percent approval rating were he better able to explain what he's thinking. Bush does know; he just can't seem to say. ...
Labels: George W. Bush
“To begin something and be unable to stick with it to the finish is far more damaging to your reputation than if you’d never begun it in the first place. Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality—a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted—it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment.”Another:
“The most geriatric jurisdiction on the planet, Nippon’s rising sun has now passed into the next phase of its long sunset: net population loss. 2005 was the first year since records began with more deaths than births. The world’s other elderly societies have complicating factors: In Europe, the successor population is already in place—Islam—and the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be. But Japan offers the chance to observe the demographic death spiral in its purest form. It’s a country with no immigration, no significant minorities and no desire for any: just the Japanese, aging and dwindling.”
"Our brother, Steve Centanni, was kidnapped on August 14th, last Monday. I would like his captors to know that Steve is an honorable man who always tries to do what is right. Steve has strong respect for the Palestinian people and their culture. Steve was in Gaza with Olaf Wiig to report the truth. He is far more valuable to the Palestinian people free as a journalist than as a captive. We love Steve very much and now his health, his safety and his life is your responsibility. Please, contact our family. Let us know that he is alive and unharmed."His sister Gina:
"We deeply believe that all human beings share a common longing for peace. Even when we are driven by desperation or fear or rage, the most authentic part of any human being is our ability to access our humanity. Remember how to love and how to tolerate and understand.Wiig's wife, Anita McNaught:
Nobody believes this more than Steve. So, in that sense, he’s our brother but he is your brother too. And to Steve we want to say that we love you and that we’re thinking about you every minute of every day. We’re feeling lots of emotions right now but the one thing we’re not feeling is despair. You are a man of courage, compassion, integrity and hope. We’ve taken comfort in the absolute knowledge that if anybody can hang in there in a situation like this, you can. We feel sure that you’re going to be OK. See you soon."
"The bottom line is, there is no good reason for these two men to be held. They are friends of the Palestinians. They are here telling the Palestinian story for weeks now, when the rest of the world’s media has not been here."Why so little coverage? Is Centanni not well-known enough? Would the coverage be different if they were CNN employees?
Directing her words to her husband in the on-camera interview and choking back tears, McNaught said: "It’s going to be all right. You are going to come home to me."
1. Mr. President, you are telling colleagues in Iran that you believe the end of the world is rapidly approaching. Why do you believe this? How are these views shaping your foreign policy?Bernard Goldberg captures it well...
2. Could you tell us more in the West about your belief that the "Twelfth Imam" (or "Hidden Imam") will soon reappear and why you believe that the way to hasten the coming of this Islamic messiah is to launch a global jihad against Israel and the U.S.?
3. Mr. President, in Islam, Jesus Christ is considered a great prophet and teacher. In your lengthy letter to President Bush earlier this year, you talked a lot about Jesus Christ. You criticized the president for, in your view, not following the teachings of Jesus. What are some of your favorite teachings of Jesus? Do you believe Jesus was Jewish? Do you believe that He lived and taught and did His miracles in Israel? Do you believe Jesus wished for Israel to be wiped "off the map?" In the current crisis, what would Jesus do, in your opinion?
4. You have told colleagues that when you were speaking at the United Nations last fall, you were surrounded by a light from heaven and that for about 25 or 26 minutes everyone in the General Assembly was mesmerized by your speech - that not a single person blinked for that entire time. Would you describe that experience for us? Do you believe that God or an angel was with you at that moment? Do you believe Allah has chosen you to be the leader of Iran at this moment in history?
5. You say that the era of bombs is over. Why then did you sign a $1 billion deal with Moscow last December to buy Russian missiles and other arms? Why are you sending missiles, bombs and $100 million a year to Hezbollah? Why are you sending bombs and bombers into Iraq?
... In fact you got the impression that Mr. Ahmadinejad, unliAyatollahatollah, was talking right past Mike and straight to the American people. He had a message to deliver, and he was going to deliver it no matter what Mike wanted to talk about. So the president of Iran told us what a shame it was that 1% of the American people are in prison. And how unfortunate it was that 45 million Americans don't have health-care insurance. "That," he said, "is very sad to hear." You just know that every liberal tuned in to "60 Minutes" was nodding in agreement. "He's not such a bad guy, after all," they were probably thinking. "So much more reasonable - and intelligent - than Bush."The new brand of psychopathic, media-savy evildoers... don't we just love to hate 'em. But who are we to criticize?
In fact, instead of seeming like a modern Hitler (a not unreasonable comparison, given that one wanted to exterminate all the Jews while the other wants to wipe Israel off the map), Mr. Ahmadinejad came across as, well, a fairly typical, run-of-the-mill liberal. I listened carefully as he laid out his position on the war in Lebanon and on the Bush policy in Iraq, and I could not detect any significant difference between his views and those held by a lot of blue-state liberals, especially the liberal intellectuals on our college campuses. "Killing innocents is reprehensible," he told Mike Wallace. "Why are Americans killing Iraqis?" he asked. Hey, I just heard the same thing on Air America.
... For America, we are at present fighting two separate wars. One of them is taking place at and beyond our borders. It is composed of spying on terror funds, stopping (some would say 'failing to stop') terrorists from crossing our northern and southern borders. It involves attacking them preemptively where they live and are carrying out plans to attack us from caves and spider holes in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and in multiple places across the Middle East and Southeast Asia that we have never been told about. This war requires vigilance of each American at all times, in ever public place. It even requires us to take our shoes off, get wanded several times over, and sometimes even cause us to miss our flight. It has taken the lives of honorable men and women, who have felt the call of history, who for these years have protected our security, and yet served without complaint.Kevin McCullough is selling his book, but I agree with a lot in his message.
For people of common sense there is a second war that we are engaged in and like the first it was not a war that we started - but like unto the first it is one that we must fight, and more importantly one that we must win. It is a near daily assault on our sensibilities as people. It is an all out blitz-kreig on our families, faith, and value system. It is requiring that our 1st and 2nd graders identify their sexual organs and feelings to strangers who parade about as public educators. It mandates that we sacrifice our under-age daughters' wombs to the butchers of Planned Parenthood. It outlaws the ability of parents to teach their children the lessons of right from wrong as my parents did with me via a firm swat on my overly plump backside. And it is attempting to brainwash our youngest with the cursed idea - that men and women are not equal - but rather the same. It is an agenda that seeks to keep mankind from being treated equally regardless of the color of his skin - unless it can be manipulated to benefit a political party. ...
Malak Ghorbany was sentenced to death June 28 by a court in the Iranian city of Urmia after being found guilty of committing "adultery."The article goes on...
Under Iran's strict Sharia law, women sentenced to execution by stoning have their hands bound behind their back. They are wrapped from head to toe in sheets before being seated in a pit. The ditch is filled up to their breasts with dirt, and the soil is packed tightly before people assemble to execute the woman by pitching rocks at her head and upper body.
Article 104 of the Iranian Penal Code states that the stones used for execution should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones."Here's a previous post on 16 year-old Atefah Sahaaleh:
Ironically, the court sentenced the woman's brother Abu Bakr Ghorbany and husband Mohammad Daneshfar to only six years in jail for killing her lover. According to Sharia law, murder carries a lesser penalty than "crimes against chastity." ...
... Mazahery translated a message written in Farsi from Ghorbany, which said: "I am not guilty of a crime. I have only committed an act that is the natural right of every human."
On August 15th, 2004 a 16-year-old girl was hanged in a public square in Neka, Iran, a small industrial town by the Caspian Sea. Her death sentence was for crimes against chastity. Her name was Atefah Sahaaleh. The only evidence against Atefah was her own forced confession.If you defer to relativism and tend to elevate "perspective" above a universal right vs. wrong, consider the articles and please comment below.
Ending Israel's Occupation of Palestine Ends Terrorism by Mohamed Khodr
Why do Muslims hate us? Despite the illogical monolithism of "they" and "us"; Muslims ONLY hate our foreign policy that blindly supports Israel. ...Israel wouldn't needs it's "fourth most powerful army" if it didn't have neighbors that wanted to exterminate it. Has Israel always been right? Of course not, there is no such thing as "always right", but what should it tell us if Israel has 1,000,000 Muslim residents yet Jewish residents are barely tolerated - if at all - by their adversarial neighbors? Hezbollah and Hamas state in their charters that Israel is to be eliminated for Christ's sake.
... Americans have only heard the one sided Israeli historical narrative that is emotionally moving, beginning with the Holocaust, movies (Exodus, the Swords of the Desert), and the powerful public relations and media onslaught that protects Israel at every turn, right or wrong, portraying itÂs "defensive" attacks to protect its survival despite its fourth most powerful army, with nuclear weapons, worldwide.
If our media portrayal of the Israeli Palestinian conflict was truly balanced, both peoples would enjoy independence and peace today. ...
Here's another one from Al-Ahram in Cairo written by a writer who "has a PhD in political science and Middle East studies from Oxford University" called "Rationality and Israeli violence":
... The Israeli self-image of rationality, self- confidence, restraint, pragmatism, and marshal moral superiority are delusions and myths, constructed to protect the Israeli psyche, manipulated by the state to keep alive the specter of existential terror in the Israeli public and to disguise the state's raison d'Ãªtre, expansion and ethnic cleansing in Palestine, and maintain the deeply sociologically and institutionally entrenched Israeli military nature, increasingly blurring the lines between a civilian and military state. ...It's a long piece, and worth reading if you want to get a glimpse into the delirium.
"We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas."Actors included: Michael Douglas, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton and William Hurt.
"If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die.
"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."
Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, sounded like the neighborhood Mafia don, offering money for “decent and suitable furniture” and a year’s rent on a house to any Lebanese who lost his home in the month-long war. It was his way of telling the people who their real friends are. It’s not the toothless Lebanese government, he was telling them, but your friendly neighborhood hit men who have your best interests at heartOf course, the NY Times would rather discuss Hezbollah's "Vast Social Services Network".
I think he may have learned the tactic from another mob boss, Al Capone, well known for handing out cash and other goodies to the folks in the neighborhood when he wasn’t beating people to death with a baseball bat or celebrating St. Valentine’s Day by having his enemies machine-gunned to death.
the silliest thing to emerge from the whole farce was President Bush’s comment that Israel had won the engagement with HezbollahI've got major Bush-fatigue... and Frist/McCain-fatigue too for that matter.
... a culture that leaves little baby girls to die in the ditch, while it values and cares for little baby boys, cannot possibly be judged superior to a society that cares for both equally. A culture that denies women education is simply "different" than one that provides educational opportunities for all. A culture whose government is based on graft, corruption, intimidation and violence is no better – or no worse – than one whose government is based on laws that treat all citizens equally and fairly, and which punishes graft and corruption.
And a culture that promises rewards to an individual who straps a vest laden with explosives, nails and ball bearings – then walks into a crowded public space and detonates it – is no better or worse than the culture being attacked. To judge one against the other violates the modern liberal conscience. (If you have any doubts about where this leads, examine the staged photos coming out of Reuters and the Associated Press.)
Yet the modern liberal conscience is capable of judgment: It has judged that the war on terror is unnecessary and those prosecuting it are evil. Why? Because they have violated the liberal conscience. For this reason – violation of the liberal conscience – those defending the West against murderous Islamic assault and violent imposition of an Islamic theocracy must be prosecuted for their "crimes against humanity." Try Rumsfeld for war crimes; bow down five times a day to bin Laden and maybe he won't hate us so much.
Once again this summer, the number of global warming alarmists has risen with the temperatures. These environmental extremists blame heatwaves, droughts, hurricanes, floods, hot days, and just about any and every other weather related phenomenon you can imagine on global warming. Then, if you try to point out how hysterical they're getting, they tell you that you have no right to express a contrary opinion if you're not a scientist. Well, granted, I'm not a scientist. But, then again, neither is Al Gore. So, let me introduce a few counterpoints to the sort of unhinged doom mongering the former veep and his acolytes on the left have been spreading far and wide of late.Don't Fight the Terrorists - Fight the Weather! by Julia Gorin, August 16
No wonder that while Islamic terrorism claims lives by the thousands every year, Hollywood churns out movies about the menace of Joe McCarthy, the Crusaders, Israeli Mossad and Richard Nixon. Freud called it displacement.Four Questions for Global Warming Enthusiasts by Lloyd Brown, August 17
Let’s be honest: people fixate on the environment when they can’t deal with real threats. Combating the climate gives the non-hawks a chance to look tough. They figure, “Let’s flex our muscle with this Mother Nature thing. Let’s take a preemptive strike at an SUV. Let’s show ‘em we can be tough too.” So they play up climate change like it’s as urgent as terrorism, which they claim is overstated.
Hollywood has rushed into the debate over climate with one-sided movies that will scare a few people and enlighten no one. As much as I like popcorn, I'm not buying any tickets until the global warming alarmists can satisfy my Four-Part Test for Global Warming.Global-Warming Foes Fight Global-Warming Cures by Deroy Murdock, August 17
If Albert Gore, Jr. is right and global warming is genuine, grave, and the fault of mankind, why do he and so many environmentalists oppose measures that would reduce those pesky carbon-dioxide emissions? Power sources that could cut atmospheric CO2 rarely seem good enough to satisfy the greens.The Halcyon Days of Y2K by E. Ralph Hostetter, August 16
Unlike oil and coal, nuclear power does not generate CO2. It may be the most practical, atmosphere-friendly power source now available. And yet the former vice-president seems unimpressed.
The dominant media of the nation is the major source of all news. If the dominant media ignores the issue completely too few people learn about it to make a difference. The dominant media controlled the Y2K hoax completely. The dominant media will control the global warming hoax as well and it will prove to be far more costly than Y2K.Too Much Gore on TV by Dan Gainor, August 16
It was the summer of love all over again. Only this time we didn’t have hookah pipes, tie-dyed shirts and the Doors singing “People Are Strange.” All journalists had was their love for one man – Al Gore – and this summer he and the media both proved the song was right.
Yes, that Al Gore – the former vice president now turned into full-time global warming pitchman. The media couldn’t get enough of the Wonk-in-Chief. The newly crowned movie star and his type of documentary – cinema scare-ité – were discussed on at least 99 TV shows from network news to the SciFi Channel. This summer was hot, but Gore was smokin’ – enough to earn a cover photo on Entertainment Weekly.
"We don't care where people come from; we don't mind what religion they've got or what their particular view of the world is. But if you want to be in Australia, if you want to raise your children in Australia, we fully expect those children to be taught and to accept Australian values and beliefs"Treasurer Peter Costello:
"We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we believe in mateship and giving another person a hand up and a fair go. And basically, if people don't want to be Australians and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well basically they can clear off."
People thinking of coming to Australia who did not like Australian values and preferred a society that practised sharia law should go elsewhere.Accept Australian values or get out.
Want to move to Australia?
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on national television.
"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia : one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques: "Immigrants, NOT Australians, nust adapt. Take It Or Leave it. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali ,we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."
"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia."
"However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."
"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"
"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!"
"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right-wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."
"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."
"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like 'A Fair Go', then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others."
"This is our country, our land, and our lifestyle, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."
"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the BACKBONE to start speaking and voting the same truths!!
SEND THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW