Tuesday, February 27, 2007

I Finally Got An Answer From the Carter Center:

Letters From Carter/An Answer To Him:

(Here's the answer I got to the letters I've sent to Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center--and my reply back to him:)

To Whom It May Concern,

Thank you for your e-mail to Habitat for Humanity International. We are sorry you feel that you can no longer support the work of Habitat for Humanity due to disagreements with President Carter's political views. Habitat for Humanity is apolitical in its mission, principles and values and works for two outcomes: to make simple and affordable housing a matter of conscience and action for everyone everywhere and to eliminate substandard and poverty housing from the face of the earth.

President Jimmy Carter is, it is true, Habitat’s most recognized and noted volunteer. Beyond volunteering, he holds no Habitat position or office. His support and participation in the annual Jimmy Carter Work Project have helped raise the ministry’s profile significantly around the world, and has brought people of many nations and all abilities, all faiths, all beliefs, all backgrounds to our work.

Just as we get complaints about his political views and his involvement with us, we also get complaints about President Bush's political views and his involvement with us. Both are still welcomed volunteers. At a time when our country is so politically polarized, it seems more important than ever for there to be opportunities for people to lay aside their differences and work together toward a common goal of helping people in need. Habitat for Humanity continues to provide such opportunities.

Habitat for Humanity and its global network of affiliates welcome to their work any and all people dedicated to the cause of eliminating poverty housing. Operating under that principle, Habitat has built more than 200,000 houses in nearly 100 countries, providing simple, decent and affordable shelter for more than one million people.

Please know that we sincerely appreciate the support you have given our work.

Alan Anderson Partner Service Center

The little dab of good your organization may have done in the world--financed by Arab-anti-Semitic money--will NEVER counteract the tremendous harm you have done, and the great evil you represent, Sir. Please convey these sentiments to Mr. Carter--and let him know, for us, that it is indelicate and ungracious of him to try and malign President Bush while refusing to take responsibility for the enormous anti-Semitism that lies within his own diminished, corrupt soul.

This man has MUCH to make up for--and there is NO excuse that will serve him. I will NEVER support him--no matter what goodwill gloss of Saudi-financed good works projects that underwrite and disguise the anti-Jew hatred that lies in his heart and is so apparent--and his lack of character and true humanity. Sir, the days when he has fooled America into believing he is on the side of good is OVER.

I will spend every waking breath I have left making sure the world and the blogosphere--and anyone else I can--know of his hatred and calumny.


And, let it be known, I am PROUD AS HELL of this letter I sent him. Yes, ma'am! Of ALL the letters I have sent him...

Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos.

Report on My Visit Yesterday with Border Patrol Agent Ramos in Yazoo Federal Prison:
by Rep.Tom Tancredo

I want to give you a first-hand report of my trip yesterday to Yazoo Federal Prison in Jackson, Mississippi yesterday, to visit with persecuted Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos.

As you know, Agent Ramos and his partner, Jose Alonso Compean, are serving long prison sentences for a border incident in which they wounded a illegal alien drug dealer they testified as being armed.

You've probably heard that Agent Ramos was badly beaten Saturday night in his prison cell.
I traveled to Jackson, Mississippi, yesterday to see for myself. And I learned many new horrifying details.

For one thing, his injuries were much more serious than have been reported. When I saw Ramos, I was literally astonished at the extent of the injuries on his body. Prison officials have been describing his injuries all week as "minor," but that clearly is not true.

In fact, Agent Ramos' bruises are deep and severe. His arm, chest and back are black and blue with broken blood vessels on his arm. Truthfully, it was a terrible sight.

Here's what Ramos told me directly. He was assaulted Saturday night by roughly a half-dozen inmates who recognized him from an episode of a TV show that aired shortly before 10 p.m. He was pulled from his cell, which remains unlocked until midnight. The attackers, who were wearing steel-toed boots, kicked Ramos repeatedly. He did not get to see a doctor until WEDNESDAY, FOUR DAYS AFTER THE BEATING!

Prison official moved Ramos to a special cell in near-solitary confinement, and I am working to get him transferred to a safer facility. Representatives of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, of California, visited Yazoo Prison with me yesterday. When we asked to see photographs of Ramos as he appeared immediately after the beating, prison officials refused.

Federal prosecutors threw these Border Agents in prison while a Illegal Alien drug dealer walks free. And now, one of the agents is attacked viciously. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE!

My friends, I want to challenge you to do something in response to the report you're reading here.
I want you to go consider writing a card or letter of encouragement to Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos, now trying to recover in Yazoo Federal Prison. It's truly the very least we can do for him.

Please Cick Here For Instructions on how to send them a letter of support.

When Agents Ramos and Campeon were thrown into prison for over a decade apiece, what were the other Republican Presidential hopefuls doing?

This was thankfully brought to us by dear Batya!

We also need to write our representatives, folks. This is nothing but damned nonsense--this man, and perhaps Jose Alonso Compean, is in grave danger and is just being sacrificed. We need to do all we can!

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Thank You, Australia!

We Pick Dick!

Supporters of US Vice President Dick Cheney hold a banner outside the hotel where he delivered his Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Sydney. Cheney on Saturday met Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of Washington's staunchest allies, for talks likely to focus on troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Alan M. Dershowitz's Noble Tome

Ex-President For Sale
by Alan M. Dershowitz

Jimmy Carter is making more money selling integrity than peanuts. I have known Jimmy Carter for more than 30 years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice.

I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign. Shortly thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election. When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out.

I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East. Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights. Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity.

When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School -- Rachael Lea Fish -- showed me the facts. They were staggering. I was amazed that in the 21st century there were still foundations that espoused these views.

The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up - a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son - hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.

In reading Carter's statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the 1930s, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler's government became clear. Harvard of the 1930s was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the 21st century has become complicit in evil.

The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed.

Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects." Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank-ostensibly the source of his funding-"the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."

BCCI isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center- "in 1993 alone...$7.6 million" as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.

It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center's Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price.

The bought quality of the Center's activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center's human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center's website The Carter Center's mission statement claims that "The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities."

How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel's far less serious ones? No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money? Ask Carter.

The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks. It is Carter-not me-who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves. It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter's own standards, it would be almost economically "suicidal" for Carter "to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."

By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).

If money determines political and public views-as Carter insists "Jewish money" does-then Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters.

It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.

Well, that's as elegant and efficient way of calling a man a whore about as many different ways as it can be done. Good for you, Counselor. 'Complicit in evil' IS evil; you can't do it without being it.

Jimmy Carter Is A Presumptuous Sonuvabitch

Jimmy Carter: Most Americans Agree With Me

Jimmy Carter defended his new book on the Middle East on Thursday against sharp criticism from Jewish groups and said a majority of U.S. citizens including many Jews supported its main proposals.

Letters he received since the publication in November of "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" were largely supportive and included support from many readers who described themselves as U.S. Jews, said the former president.


Dear Mr. Carter,

Mr. Carter, I am OUTRAGED that you'd have the arrogance to presume to think for me, the nerve to assume you know what I believe WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO ASK ME FIRST. You are the most egregious American I have ever had the misfortune to know. On my worst day I couldn't IMAGINE the bigotry you manage habitually, religiously, ritually with every breath you draw.

I am appalled, sir, APPALLED at your ignorance regarding the Jews, your lack of character in regards to their situation, your absolute refusal to bear one moment of shame for your intolerant views--and for the lying, racist book you tried to foist off on the public. (And those that were dumb enough to buy it were stupid enough to deserve to lose their money.)

Don't you ever presume to think I'd ever agree with one single anti-Semitic, lousy, racist word you've ever said. Sir, I would not agree with you if you said the sun was shining. Don't you EVER again say 'most of the people in America agree with you'. Most emphatically, we do NOT.

cc: carterweb@emory.edu, carter.library@nara.gov, webmaster@habitat.org, Info@CensureCarter.Com

Monday, February 19, 2007

Rescuers Take 8 Off Mt. Hood--ALIVE

Rescuers Take 8 Off Mt. Hood--ALIVE

Those brave, wonderful men and women who work so tirelessly up here to rescue stranded hikers have just saved 8 lives--with a new front moving in. Please, take a minute and give thanks to God for such great, good people!

Friday, February 16, 2007

Congress's Non-Binding Resolution:

Obamaria--"I Feel Pretty!"


Obamaria--"I Feel Pretty"
By VerityINK

We are watching the rise-to-fame-flame that is Obama. Like a rocket newly launched, we can't help but crane our necks as it leaps into the sky, better to see if it will flame out and burn up, and fall back into the ashes. But the thing that will bring Obama down is the same thing that has always brought the gods down--their own hubris.

Obama has made a fateful mistake--one that few understand he's made: He has shown the world that he believes his own advanced billing, he reads his own press notices, he is swayed by the publics' opinion of him.

Before this 2008 election season warmed up, before the MSM started playing it's elaborate game of "oh-you-so-wonderful!", Obama was in no mind to run for the presidency. No, he, quite rightly concluded in 2004, it was, I think, that he was 'too young', too 'inexperienced'; he, himself, proclaimed he 'did not know the ways of Washington'. That soon changed however, and he showed the public a fateful thing; we could tell him who he was--and he'd believe us!

One of the things the Left hates George W. Bush for--probably the most egregious thing he's done--has been to show the public that he is impervious to their demands, their influence. He is guided by a wholly different template. President Bush has shown that he does not read a lot of the press about himself, he doesn't listen to the MSM--he's even told them that 'their opinions don't inform his political thoughts'! LOL! That why he pisses them off so completely.

The public-at-large would much better like a flipflopper like Kerry (before it before he was against it), or a lip-biter like Clinton (not sure what 'is' is), or a ditherer like Edwards (hiring/firing/rehiring staffers) than someone over whom they have no influence.

The only real power the people have (apart from our collective power at the polls) is the power to bulldoze public opinion. How delicious it evidently is to get a Joe Biden on the dais, gabbling out one 'clean black' apology after another, while Hillary backs up and continually reparks her position on Iraq hoping for a better n' better space, and Edwards can't even handle hiring a non-sewer derivative blog staff! The public loves to see the contradictions in such things. It loves to see the power it has in influencing how politicians act--even how they feel about themselves!

And so it is with Obama. We have taken this young man and brought him from a position of not wanting, or feeling ready for the presidency, to completely over-estimating himself. We've shown him who has the real power when you're in the public eye. We've let him know that as long as he listens to us, we will make or break him--and unfortunately, he has acquiesced. Like a marionette, we hold his strings. He doesn't know it yet, but he will find out, that those strings can quickly move from one hand to the other.

The shame of it is is that we need a man to be president who already knows who he is and does not listen to the media, public opinion, or games of "gosh-he's-great!" Oh, such a man will be hated for that characteristic--as they always are--but that is what America needs. Audacity and hope are just other words for the brash wishful thinking that is Barack Hussein Obama.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Who Does This Idiot Think He's Fooling?

Malaysian Islamic Cleric Proposes Chastity Belts To Stop Rape

Kuala Lumpur - A leading Malaysian Muslim cleric has suggested that all women should be fitted with chastity belts as a deterrent to rape and incest, a news report said Friday.

Abu Hassan Al-Hafiz, an influential cleric from the northeastern Terengganu state, said that women were most safe from sexual predators if they donned some form of barrier to their sexual organs.

'We have even come across a number of unusual sex cases, where even senior citizens and children are not spared. The best way to avert sex perpetrators is to wear protection,' Abu Hassan said in a sermon late Thursday, quoted by the Star daily.

'My intention is not to offend women but to safeguard them from sex maniacs. Besides, husbands could also feel more secure, if you know what I mean.'

Abu Hassan said that the practise of women wearing chastity belts in Malaysia could be traced to as recent as the mid-1960s.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1264557.php/Malaysian_Islamic _cleric_proposes_chastity_belts_to_stop_rape

This wouldn't stop anal rape, or forced oral sex, so I think it's clear what it's meant to stop--and nothing else. These animals will do anything they can to control a woman's sexual life--and use any damned excuse they can dream up with which to do it. It's particularly egregious when the men try to sell the idea that they are doing it to 'protect' the women! The last solution they'd ever reach for would be for the men to control themselves and treat their women well!

Liberal Emotion vs. Conservative Logic

Liberal Emotion vs. Conservative Logic
By John Hawkins

It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That's because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.

Going to war is mean, so we shouldn't do it. That person is poor and it would be nice to give him money, so the government should do it. Somebody wants to have an abortion, have a gay marriage, or wants to come into the U.S. illegally and it would be mean to say, "no," so we should let them. I am nice because I care about global warming! Those people want to kill us? But, don't they know we're nice? If they did, they would like us! Bill has more toys, money than Harry, so take half of Bill's money and give it to Harry.

The only exception to this rule is for people who aren't liberals. They're racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc., etc., etc. They might as well just say that conservatives have "cooties" for disagreeing with them, because there really isn't any more thought or reasoning that goes into it than that.

Now, that's not to say that conservatives never make emotion based arguments or that emotion based arguments are always wrong. But, when you try to deal with complex, real world issues, using little more than simplistic emotionalism that's primarily designed to make the people advocating it feel good rather than to deal with problems, it can, and often has had disastrous consequences. Liberals never seem to learn from this.

Why don't they learn anything from failed liberal policies? Because there is nothing underpinning them other than feelings and so even when they don't work, their good intentions are treated, by other liberals at least, as more important than the results of their actions.

Just to name one example of many, look at Vietnam. South Vietnam was policing its own country and holding off aggression from the North with the help of the United States. But, people get hurt in wars, so wars are bad. As a result of thinking that went no deeper than that, liberals in Congress cut off the aid and air support we promised the South Vietnamese. The result?

The conquest of South Vietnam, a holocaust in Cambodia, millions dead and in prison camps, another million boat people, a crisis of confidence in America, and our country's reputation around the world was left in tatters, which led to a revolution in Nicaragua, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and a lack of faith in the U.S. military which wasn't truly restored until Operation Desert Storm.

So, we're talking about one of the most shameful and damaging mistakes in American history. Yet, the left is pushing to do the same thing in Iraq, despite the fact that catastrophic consequences would surely also follow a U.S. retreat in that country.

But, this isn't just about foreign policy. Look at Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty," which did nothing to reduce the poverty rate despite the trillions that were spent; however, it did help drive the illegitimacy rate among black Americans from 22 percent in 1960 to 70% in 2005.

You could go on and on with these sort of examples -- rent control, which causes housing shortages, the minimum wage, which costs poor people jobs, the liberal insistence on putting “making nice at the U.N.” above looking out for American interests. That's what happens when you make decisions based on emotion and wanting people to like you, rather than using logic and doing the right thing.

Unlike liberals, conservatives tend to be primarily concerned with pragmatism, not niceties. This is one of the biggest reasons that conservatives have such a healthy respect for the traditions and institutions that have been proven to work over time and such contempt for those that don't, like the United Nations and the federal government.

Does that mean conservatives are opposed to change? No, not at all, but there is a great reluctance to tinker with ideas and concepts that have proven successful time and time again throughout history, because the more they’re changed, the more likely they are not to work.
Moreover, in Thomas Sowell's immortal words, conservatives believe that, "There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs." Because of this, conservatives regularly do something that liberals seldom do: they consider the long-term consequences of their policies.

Sometimes in politics, that's a tough duty. It's always easier to say, "We're going to use someone else's tax money to give you this right now," than it is to say, "We're going to keep government out of your way and let you do this for yourself." But, that's the path conservatives have chosen for themselves. They’re willing to be attacked and called, in some form or fashion, "mean" in order to advocate policies that are good for the country.

In the end, that's what liberalism versus conservatism all comes down to: sappy, feel good emotionalism that sounds appealing, but doesn't work versus doing things the right way, even when it's not easy.


Unthinking Senators:

Unthinking Senators

Q. Unthinking Senators: What exactly does John Kerry think a think tank does?

A. Silly question, Dr. Sowell: Jon Carry was in Viet Nam--he's a military man--he, quite naturally, thinks those in a think tank sit around thinking about ...tanks!

Neither can environmental crusaders, whose whole sense of themselves as saviors of the planet is at stake, as they try to stamp out any views to the contrary.A recent and revealing example of the ruthless attempts to silence anyone who dares question the global-warming crusade began with a “news” story in the British newspaper the Guardian. It quickly found an echo among American senators on the Left — Bernard Sanders, an avowed socialist, and John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein, who are unavowed.


They Don't Support the Mission, Troops, OR AMERICA:

Pelosi Says Victory Is "Ethnic Cleansing"

RUSH: Pelosi was on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer last night, and Jim Lehrer said, "Ms. Pelosi, what would your position be if in fact the Petraeus plan worked?" What if it actually worked, the Baghdad security plan?

PELOSI: I pray that it does. But the fact is we know that it would increase the odds of it working if there were some sincere efforts to engage the other countries in the region in the diplomatic solutions that are necessary to stabilize the region, and do the political work, do the political work -- that is to say, amend the constitution, include the Sunnis and others into the civic life of Iraq. That's where you go. You don't go into ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and say, "Now we're going to referee."

RUSH: Hooool-eee! She was totally blindsided by this question, and gets into, "(Stumbling) Well, uh, uh, wuh, eh, we pray that it does." We know we would increase the odds of it working if there were sincere efforts to engage other countries in diplomacy?

CALLER: It's incredibly silly.

RUSH: Well, it's naïve!

CALLER: It leaves me speechless. It is so silly.

RUSH: Now it's "ethnic cleansing," by the way.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: The United States Military is engaged in ethnic cleansing. Of course, she won't be called on this because she's Madam Pelosi, and they're not criticized. But, anyway, she was totally caught blindsided by the whole concept of victory, of this thing working. I'm going to tell you: When she said, by the way, "pray that it does"?

I don't believe her. They don't have any political investment in victory. They can't share victory; they can't claim partial credit for victory. About all they would be able to do is to say, "We passed our resolution supporting the troops," and that wouldn't be much. We got a lot at stake here, folks, if we win. Stop to think about that.


Fax, Donate, Sign Petition to Save Our Guards!

Fax, Donate, Sign Petition to Save Our Guards!

Mexican Government Initiated U.S. Prosecution Of Ramos And Compean!

The Mexican government intimidated U.S. officials leading to the wrongful prosecution of Agents Ramos and Compean! In documents obtained by WorldNet Daily, it clearly shows that the U.S. Justice Department agreed to prosecute Ramos and Compean at the request of the Mexican Consulate! This bombshell comes on the heels of a Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Richard L. Skinner admitting under oath that the DHS did not have key evidence to back up claims that Ramos and Compean were “out to shoot some Mexicans” the day of the incident. In other words, it was made up!


Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) Rips Carter With Sword Of Truth

Kirk Rips Carter With Sword Of Truth

(I want to thank Ed Lasky for rushing this to Atlas readers. Mark Kirk is one of the greats. About an hour ago Mark delivered this special order speech on the floor of the US House. This is not a passionate attack on Carter; it merely shows the FACTS as opposed to the MYTHS in Carter's book. This is now a part of the Congressional Record.)

Congressman Mark Steven Kirk Special Order Peace Not Apartheid: More Fiction Than Facts—January 18, 2007

Madame Speaker: In today's Washington Post, former President Jimmy Carter defended his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." President Carter wrote: "...most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts..." After reading the book, I have become a critic, and today will only correct the facts purported in his book.

Regarding our policy towards Israel, there is little room for mistakes, let alone outright misstatements of fact. For that reason, I want to present to the House eight factual inaccuracies found in President Carter's book:

#1: On page 62, President Carter quotes Yasser Arafat as telling him, "The Palestine Liberation Organization has never advocated the annihilation of Israel." No evidence is provided and the book does not contain one footnote.

Fact check: Article 22 of the PLO's Charter stated that "the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence." Yasser Arafat supported this charter and lied to President Carter.

#2: On page 57, President Carter writes, "The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations."

Fact check: The "1949 armistice" lines were never accepted as official borders by Israel, the United States or the United Nations. This error reflects a poor attention to detail in the book.

#3: On page 127, President Carter writes that there was "a surprising exodus of Christians from the Holy Land."

Fact check: Israel is the only Middle East nation where the Christian population has grown in the last half century. Christian communities and other faith communities like Baha'is have dropped in size in many Muslim countries.

#4: On page 152, President Carter writes, "It was later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a 'generous offer' put forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel only keeping 5 percent of the West Bank. The fact is no such offers were ever made."

Fact check: According to President Clinton's lead negotiator, Ambassador Dennis Ross, Prime Minister Barak accepted Clinton's proposal-offering to withdraw from 97% of the West Bank, dismantle isolated settlements and accept a Palestinian state with part of Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat rejected the proposal. A quick call between Presidents Carter and Clinton would have corrected this error.

#5: On page 148, President Carter presents two maps he claims were considered at Camp David. One of them is labeled "Israel's interpretation of Clinton's proposal."

Fact check: There were no maps ever created at Camp David. The map President Carter labeled as "Israel's interpretation" is a copy of a map created by Dennis Ross for his later book, "The Missing Peace." Ambassador Ross' map is a representation of the final offer agreed to by Prime Minister Barak and rejected by Arafat. President Carter violated Ambassador Ross' copyright of this map.

#6: On page 197, President Carter writes, "Confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts."

Fact check: The Israeli Supreme Court banned the use of torture in interrogations in a decision handed down on September 6, 1999 by Supreme Court President Barak.

#7: On page 188, President Carter writes, "Kadima had been expected to gain 43 seats based on its pledge of a unilateral expansion of the 'great wall.'"

Fact check: Israel's Kadima Party ran on Prime Minister Sharon's platform of disengagement-a pledge to dismantle settlements and unilaterally withdraw from territory.

#8: On page 215, President Carter writes that one option for Israel is "withdrawal to the 1967 border as specified in U.N. Resolution 242."

Fact check: U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not define a border.

Madame Speaker, these errors diminish the credibility of President Carter's book. President Carter is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

The errors I present here are only a sampling of those included in the book. Now in the twilight of his career and with many at the Carter Center resigning their posts. President Carter should recall this book and hire competent assistants to ensure his future work does not reflect poor scholarship.

I want to thank Dr. Mitchell Bard and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America for helping compile this list.


This Crop Of Dems Is Low-Class and Trashy

Rep. Ellison Calls the Cops To Snuff Tancredo’s Cigar

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) believes it is his right as a Muslim to be sworn into Congress with the Quran. But apparently, the freshman lawmaker doesn’t believe it’s Rep. Tom Tancredo’s (R-Colo.) right to smoke a cigar in his congressional office.

Ellison’s office called the Capitol Hill Police on Tancredo last Wednesday night as Tancredo was in his office smoking a cigar. The lawmakers have neighboring offices on the first floor of the Longworth House Office Building.

Tancredo was still stunned a day later. “It’s very bizarre,” said Tancredo, who has never met Ellison. “Seemed to me not a good way to say hello.”

And let’s face it. Calling the cops on a colleague takes the cake for the nerviest behavior so far among members of this year’s freshman class of Congress.


Someone tell Mr. Junior Rep. Ellison that the customary way to meet your neighbors in Congress is to knock on their door and introduce yourself... Then we have Maddog Murtha threaten to leave the military completely unfunded if Mama Pelosi failed to get the airpwane she wanted--he barked 'I just call up the Pentagon and tell them what they're supposed to do!'--and Webb wants to take a swing at President Bush because he asked him how his son was doing in Iraq???

This particular change of leaders has GOT to be one of the MOST pathetic efforts I've ever seen. Mannerless, low-class, shameful in their quest for power--and so ham-handed--the Dems are calling blacks 'clean'/articulate and those same 'clean'/articulate blacks are saying our dead troops overseas have had their lives wasted! I tell ya Hellary, and her travelling road show, seems entirely sedate in comparison. I expect the Senate will soon resemble Taiwanese/Hindustani parliament and they'll be wrenching the microphones out of their sockets with which to club us!

Stay tuned for that dandy little 'peace' rally they have scheduled in D.C. in a few weeks. If Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink doesn't come riding into town dragging pup tents and porta-potties behind them--and if they can manage to stay out of jail for the night--they have promised a rock-throw only the former vets of other wars can quell. The last time they were in our nation's cap, they had to satisfy themselves with merely defacing the same building Todd Beamer gave his life to protect. Protect from the likes of them--our own Enemies of the State!

Oh, the aptly named FitzFong Follies are set to wrap it up today, as the defense rested Wed. I know the Dems want Saddam's gallows rebuilt in the public square; too bad, they'll have to wait through closing arguments. Maybe, one day, their witness's memories will improve enough for one of them to actually recall why they were there... Whew! I'm so glad this Non-Party Of Non-Corruption isn't wasting our tax dollars!

Gad! It's not even President's Day; they haven't been running the show for more than a couple weeks! However, you'll never grow old with this crew; they've made the last few weeks seem years long--and I've heard Obama's name more than I've heard my own--and time is standin' still! This is gonna be a long election season! (I'm beginning to understand why Dick Cheney packs a gun--and isn't too careful about his aim! ;-)

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

DU Enjoys the Ugly Stuff

FROM DU: They Try To Ruin THIS Holiday, Too...

--The War On St. Valentine's Day Has Been Won!

We may never win the war on Christmas, but we beat St. Valentine in to the ground!The once Holy Day for Catholics has become a day for chocolates, jewelry, Hallmark cards, and sex.I think that is a victory all secular humanists should be proud of. I know I will be celebrating tonight!
(cosmik debris)

--The Ugly Side of Valentine's Gifts

Be My (Blood-Drenched, Pesticide-Ridden, Child-Enslaving) ValentineThe means by which we get our chocolate, diamonds and flowers for Valentine’s Day can be barbaric and even murderous...

--Pagan Holidays KICK ASS

Christians couldn't invent a cool holiday even if they were hopped up on Benzedrine and Southern Comfort.


J'MAC's Answer To Dick Lamm:

America Is A Great Nation That Must Be Saved

All great nations fall from within--not from without. Everything former Colorado governor, Richard Lamm, mentioned below is happening now. It's happening with the complicity of the schools and the media. It's also being helped along by politicians (which makes me wonder what, if anything, Lamm is doing about it.)

Political correctness, which is really cultural Marxism, is so ingrained in society today, it's conceivable the attitudes and beliefs Lamm mentioned may never be removed from the American body politic. With plans underway to combine the US, Canada, and Mexico into one union, and the government's deliberate refusal to enforce immigration laws and secure the border, it's likely within our lifetime--and in the next generation--that the United States may disappear. There is a possibility that the country that we were raised in, the country that a good many of those who post here served and fought for, will cease to exist.

If there is any true son and daughter of Liberty out there--and I'm one--this must not happen. It must not happen without a fight--politically--or dare I say, a real one. The men who gave birth to this nation, the men who suffered through Valley Forge, stormed Normandy Beach, and raised the flag on Iwo Jima fought first to establish America and then to defend it. Are we--this and future generations--going to dishonor that sacrifice, lose our liberty and our nation because ''there's nothing we can do''?

As our forefathers fought an oppression from afar, we've got to fight, one way or another, the power here that arrogantly assumes we will sit by as millions of people cross our borders with some presumptive notion of entitlement to do so. "Tyranny, like Hell is not easily conquered''; illegal immigration and multiculturalism shouldn't be and aren't, either.

The first step is to refuse to ascribe to it. The second is to pester the hell out of your elected representative about it and see what their position on it is. What Victor Davis Hanson wrote about, and what Lamm laid out, is real--its happening and it has to be stopped.

Long, But Good!

How To Destroy America
by Dick Lamm

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Recently there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Davis Hansen talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"
"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high. school."
"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together.
Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E. Pluribus Unum -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus'. Instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson's book, Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness.
Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book, 1984. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that the future of our great nation is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped quickly, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.


Thank you, Imp, for bringing this to us!

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Obama Says Soldiers' Lives 'Wasted'

Obama Says Soldiers' Lives 'Wasted'

In his first stumble, White House hopeful Barack Obama on Monday took back words from the day before, when he said the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were "wasted."

Following his Springfield launch on Saturday, Obama wrapped up a three-day swing in the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, ending at a University of New Hampshire rally where he assailed the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."
In this case, that would be Obama, the Illinois Democrat.

During his first press conference as a presidential candidate at Iowa State University, Obama, discussing his opposition to the Iraq war, said the war "should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.''


Monday, February 12, 2007

Air Pelosi



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit, there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city--about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

A. FDR led us into World War II.

B. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost. An average of 112,500 per year.

C. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost. An average of 18,334 per year.

D. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

E. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost.
An average of 5,800 per year.

F. Clinton went to war in Bosnia--without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.

Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three+ times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

G. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea-- without firing a shot--and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons In Iraq... for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find The Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count and recount the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In- Chief is doing a HARD JOB! The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR) Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13 a.m.

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for the Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank."

"I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day, to a veteran's hospital and look those men-- with their mangled bodies--in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
You go with me to the space program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee--and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a real job."

"You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags."

"You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job? For those who don't remember: During WWII, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a veteran."


MUST READ: Explaining the Left To the Left

The Left's Identification With Murderous Aggressors

By James Lewis

Psychiatry is familiar with an odd syndrome called "identification with the aggressor." It's sometimes called the Stockholm Syndrome, after the behavior of air passengers taken hostage by PLO terrorists at the Stockholm Airport in 1973, who, when they were rescued, came out singing the praises of their murderous captors.

Recently we saw the same human oddity when two Fox News reporters were kidnapped in Gaza, and forced to convert to Islam at the point of a gun. After his freedom was bought (at a reported cost of millions of dollars), reporter Steve Centanni
told the world that:

"I hope that this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover the story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful and kind hearted. The world needs to know more about them. Don't be discouraged."

"Kind-hearted" and "beautiful" are not the first words that come to mind to describe kidnappers who were quite ready to murder Steve Centanni only a day before. In psychiatric thinking the reporters "identified with the aggressors" --- the terrorist kidnappers --- in a mental flip that allowed them to push away their realistic fear of dying to a distant imaginary cause. They no longer thought of themselves as helpless victims, having adopted the kidnappers' point of view.

The most infamous examples come from World War II Nazi concentration camps, where some prisoners were placed in charge of others. According to witnesses like psychiatrist
Viktor Frankl, these "Kapos" would wear discarded pieces of Nazi uniforms and often abuse their fellow victims. Unconsciously they were identifying with the aggressors, to ward off the awful awareness of their own vulnerability. People do things like that in extremis.

Now look at the behavior of the Left since 9/11, both in this country, Europe, and even Israel. Rather than feel righteously angered by the terrorist mass murder of 3,000 innocent people, large parts of the Left have adopted the aggressors' point of view. They keep telling us that the Islamic fascists were right to blow up innocent people who had done them no harm; some of them have taken on conspiracy theories, claiming that Bush or Israel really committed the atrocities.

At the same time they are in deep denial about the danger of future terrorist attacks on American soil, and blindly refuse to see the rising threat of nuclear proliferation by stateless terror groups. Instead, they "displace" their fear and anger on George W. Bush. To the Left, once Bush is gone, the terror problem will simply and magically go away.

Yet we know that small amounts of radioactive materials --- like the Polonium 210 that was used just two months ago to poison
Alexander Litvinenko in London --- could be turned into a "dirty bomb" in anybody's garage. It wouldn't take any more technical skill than was used in 1995 to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

Terrorists with dirty bombs are a murderous threat to all of us, but the Left denies it. Twisting reality is the hallmark of mental pathology.

The Left's behavior looks just like identification with the Islamofascist aggressor. Just as the concentration camp Kapos wore pieces of Nazi uniforms to magically assume the power of their killers-to-be, the radical Left adopts the symbols and slogans of Hezbollah and Al Qaida. Strikingly, their intellectual leader Noam Chomsky is the son of a Talmudic scholar --- a man who devoted his life to the study of Jewish scripture, and who would therefore be a ready target for today's fascists.

Chomsky must have grown up as a child in a most devout household. No doubt many of his family members were murdered in the Nazi Holocaust. Yet last year Chomsky flew to Lebanon to be publicly photographed shaking hands with Hassan Nasrallah, who was even then preparing to launch many hundreds of short-range missiles at Jewish civilians in Israel --- including, no doubt, Talmudic scholars. Chomsky has been a radical Leftist all his life, even before he became famous as a linguist. Identification with the aggressor? It certainly would explain his very odd life course.

In London, during the Hezbollah war in Lebanon, demonstrators from George Galloway's Respect Party (an offshoot of the Socialist Workers' Party) carried signs reading "We are all Hezbollah now." They literally adopted the aggressors' point of view. This has been happening all over Europe, where the Left still reigns supreme, and on American university campuses as well --- probably for the same psychological reason.

The rise of anti-Zionism (and of course anti-Semitism) in Europe can also be seen in this light. If only those six million Jews in Israel were to disappear like magic, goes the wishful thought, all the danger and trouble would go away. Europe's Muslims would become as peaceful as lambs, and Iran's zealots would learn to love us. It is a childlike surrender to fear.

Notice that this is exactly what the Left did during the Cold War. I do not remember a single passionate demonstration against the Soviet Union, which had nuclear-armed missiles aimed directly at Europe and the US. Instead, the most extreme and feverish passions were aimed straight at the United States, the country that led and protected the West from Soviet aggression.

The other side of "identification with the aggressor" is "blaming the victim." In Nazi concentration camps the Kapos would act out sadistically to other victims, blaming them for Nazi crimes. A decade ago the phrase "blaming the victim" was on everybody's lips, when feminists loudly accused all men of blaming rape victims for being raped. That seemed to disappear along with the Bill Clinton saga and his blatant sexual abuse of a young intern, to the deafening silence of the feminist Left. Today we can plainly see "blaming the victim" among Islamic fascists, who often accuse young girls of being sluts if they are gang-raped by men. Islamic radicals always blame their victims. That is what makes them incapable of guilt toward their victims.

The real oddity is that the Left has enthusiastically joined the new fascists. We no longer hear the old trope of "blaming the victim" from feminists. Rather, feminists on the Left have joined Islamofascists in blaming the United States --- for being the fire brigade that is trying to put out the fire. The Left even defends women being pressured to wear the burqa, the ancient sign of women's submission and sexual slavery in the most retrogressive kind of tribal Islam. Shari'a law prescribes exactly how women are to be physically slapped for failing to obey fathers and husbands. Feminists are silent.

The Left claims to value "peace" above all things; but that means that self-defense ranks nowhere. It's not an option --- at least not when Republicans are in office. If we leave out self-defense against Iranian nukes or El Qaida truck bombs, there is no option except submission. That is what "identification with the aggressor" comes down to. It is a Stockholm Syndrome for millions of people --- most of the readers of the New York Times and the UK Guardian, just for starters.

To make things worse, the Left itself is ruthlessly aggressive against conservatives, democratic individuals who happen to disagree with them. There is a true persecutorial viciousness in the Left's attacks on Republican presidents, from Herbert Hoover to Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush. Emotionally, these people want to destroy those who defy their demands. Almost all the assassins and would-be assassins of American Presidents since JFK have been Leftists, starting with Lee Harvey Oswald. So their rage is not exactly harmless.

Most of the time the Left just aims at destroying conservatives' careers and public reputations - as they have tried to do with ferocious fury in the cases of Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh, and numerous others. And it's not just national politics. Harvard University feminists just formed a lynch mob that drove Larry Summer's out of the Presidency and appear to have succeeded in replacing him with
one of their own. They have succeeded in placing their own radical leaders in the top power positions at the most prestigious university in the United States.

They are driven by paranoid rage: They are in fact the aggressors.

But when it comes to assaults on their country, the Left blames the victims. The most militant Leftists seem severely damaged psychologically. The
recent suicide by the militant lesbian President of UC Santa Cruz may be only the tip of the pathological iceberg.

Many radical Leftists seem to suffer from a basic twist in character. They constantly confuse aggressive and defensive actions by their own country, on whose freedom and protection they depend every hour of the day. They constantly indulge sworn enemies of our freedom and well-being. They constantly push for government actions that seem plausible on the surface, but which inevitably hurt the very people they are supposed to help. It happens over and over again.

When I was young I thought the Left was just confused, but now I'm increasingly drawn to the idea that there is a deep, if unconscious, malevolence at the bottom of the history of disasters inflicted by those people. They are dangerous.


Sunday, February 11, 2007

We Tried To Tell Them...

Teen Age Workers Laid Off After Minimum Wage Boost

Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.

That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.

Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.

And teens are among the first workers to go.


The Psychodynamics of the Radical Liberal Mind

The Psychodynamics of the Radical Liberal Mind

The first step toward an in-depth understanding of adult behavior is to comprehend its origins in childhood. Whether adaptive or maladaptive, the enduring patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that define adult personality begin in the early years of life. In fact, our earliest experiences with caretakers and others, acting on inherited temperament factors, strongly determine our later personality traits, including those expressed in political values and beliefs.

The dispositions of the liberal mind are no exception: his hopes and fears, beliefs and passions, values and morals are in great measure the legacy of his childhood from birth through adolescence. The traits that define who he is are the traits that lead him to pursue particular goals in the political arena and to use particular methods to achieve them.

The radical liberal mind’s goals are now familiar, of course, but another brief summary will prove useful in highlighting their essentially childlike nature. Just noted were the grandiose goals of providing for everyone’s material welfare and healthcare, protecting everyone’s self-esteem correcting all social and political disadvantages, educating all citizens, and eliminating all class distinctions.

In his pursuit of these goals, he intends to construct a universal human family, one united in bonds of mutual love, concern, caretaking and tolerance. Through drastic government action the radical liberal seeks the following:

1. A powerful parental government to provide everyone with a good life and a caring presence

2. An elite corps of surrogate parents that will manage the lives of the people through approximately equal distributions of goods and services, just as real parents provide equally for the needs of their children

3. A guarantee of material security from the state, similar to that which a child expects from his parents

4. A form of parental social justice that cures or mitigates all states of deprivation, inequality, suffering and disadvantage

5. A guarantee that negative rights for the protection of individual liberty will yield to positive rights that reduce or eliminate inequalities of wealth, social status and power, just as good parents would balance benefits to their children

6. Government laws that will punish the “haves” for their excesses and compensate the “have-nots” for the pangs of envy, just as good parents would do for their children

7. Government directives from wise and caring officials that channel the citizen’s initiative and industry through social programs and tax incentives, just as wise parents determine the directions of the family’s labors

8. Government policy that instructs the people in how to relate to each other politically, just as good parents instruct their children in how to conduct themselves properly

9. Permissive laws passed by sympathetic legislators that lower the obligations of contracts, ease codes of acceptable conduct, and relax the burdens of established institutions such as marriage and adoption procedures, just as indulgent parents would do

10. Government welfare programs that free the citizen-child from the duties of altruism, just as parents do

11. An international caring agenda that will enhance the family of nations by understanding everyone’s hardships, tolerating destructive actions by others, and empathizing with aggressors to bring them to the negotiating table, just as good parents do in resolving family disputes


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2007/02/11/the_psychodynamics _of_the_radical_liberal_mind

The MAN With the PLAN!

It IS Robin Williams's Plan!

You gotta love Robin Williams... Even if he's nuts!

Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan. What we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan... (Hard to argue with this logic!)

"I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan:"

1) "The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those 'good ole boys', we will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, the Middle East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days, the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days' stay unless given a special permit! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, or they get a "D", and it's back home, baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy and will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia, and other oil producing countries, $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their product. (About a week of their wells filling up their storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine, or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given to their army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH... learn it... or LEAVE... Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?'


Our bloodhound, Batya, has ferreted out the straight dope on the Robin William's plan! Thanks, gal, for getting to the bottom of this one!

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Is This Funny To YOU?

Rape Isn't Funny

Sarah said she couldn't keep her knees from buckling and the tears from welling in her eyes when she picked up a copy of the student newspaper at Central Connecticut State University this week.Sarah, a freshman at the university who asked that her last name not be used, said she was raped when she was 15. She said all the hard emotions of her attack came flooding back to her - the shame, the rage, the despair - as she read an article in the campus newspaper, The Recorder, headlined "Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It."

"I couldn't believe the things I was reading," she said Thursday, a day after the article appeared. "I couldn't believe anyone in this day and age would write something like that, and that other people would let it be published."The article, written by opinion editor John Petroski, details several "benefits" that rape has made to civilization over the years. The article describes rape as a "magical experience" that has been a blessing to "ugly women."


You Wanna Know What the Left Thinks?

FROM DU: Do Some People Not Realize We Can Be Involved In All-Out War...

... in this country very soon, and do they not realize that this country is falling apart from the inside. We have many more problems in this country than I can ever remember and people are literally losing there minds (look at the news stories).

There are a lot of comfortable people who are not paying attention, if you look at the media everyone is starting to come out of the woodworks to warn people how close we are to all out world war... These crazy people in the White House and their friends are determined to start more wars before they leave that White House so that whoever is the next president will have to fight it and therefore start the draft.

But, I believe the war will be in this country because the borders are open, tunnels are being dug (and we don't know how many more there are) crime is out of control, the rich are against the poor, some of those who profess to believe in God are against anyone who is different than themselves, and many other problems too numerous to mention will be the downfall of this country.

Bush is talking about he is protecting us--how and from what? From what I can see he is the ultimate danger to us and the world.I would like to know how homeless are being thrown in the street and in Michigan homeless are losing fingers and other limbs due to frostbite because Bush doesn't give a damn about us! Where is the affordable housing, jobs and medical care?

Why in the hell should we worry about a terrorist when our country is trying to destroy us at every turn, what country will we have to protect? In the meantime, Bush and Cheney are stocking their bunkers and getting ready for the coming war... (butterfly77)


(I hate posting crap from DU because I always have to spend so much time correcting their spelling and grammar...) It's always the same with these folks--it's a continual game of 'Ain't It Awful'. Soup Line America--as Rush calls it. Where in the world can they fairly conclude that 'our own country is continually trying to destroy us'? What kind of liberal hippy flipdip is that? What utter nonsense!

All they want is a continual 'Gimmee America'. They have no sense of personal responsibility--they want the government to babysit them--even when they are adults and should be taking care of themselves! They provide not one shred of evidence that ANYBODY is 'losing fingers and limbs in Michigan' due to the cold--and, if they haven't got the sense to come in out of the cold there, they can't blame the President of the United States! If he HAD forced them somewhere, they'd simply complain they were being denied their rights and were being kidnapped and 'warehoused'!