Sunday, January 07, 2007

No Such Thing as Palestine

Here's a great column by Michael Meved. The original can be found here.

Auld Lang Syne, Scots Nationalism, and Palestinian Fraud
By Michael Medved

Some substantive reflections on the song we hear everywhere on New Year’s Eve can help us welcome 2007 with a fresh perspective on one of the world’s most frequently distorted conflicts.

Hundreds of millions of celebrants sing “Auld Lang Syne” at the stroke of midnight without comprehending the meaning of the words or even recognizing the language of the lyrics. How many people could define the “auld lang syne” they are so enthusiastically toasting? The lines of the song sound lovely (especially after a long evening of liquid refreshment) but few revelers ever make it to the third stanza and fewer still could provide a working translation:

Palestinian militants from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, shout slogans in front of a picture depicting former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein during a protest against his execution, in Balata refugee camp near the West Bank city of Nablus, January 2, 2007. REUTERS/Abed Omar Qusini (WEST BANK)

“We twa hae run about the braes
And pou’d the gowans fine;
But we’ve wander’d mony a weary fit,
Sin auld lang syne.” *

Obviously, the 1780’s poem by Robert Burns wasn’t written (and isn’t sung) in standard English but rather provides the world’s most famous lines in “Scots” (or “Braid”) – which is either a distinctive regional dialect or an authentic, independent language—depending on your cultural and political perspective. Today’s British government recognizes Scots as a “regional language” under the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.

Of course, the current Scottish Nationalist Movement honors, and even exalts, the lilting vernacular that’s part of their ancient heritage, as well as the Gaelic dialects still spoken in various pockets of the Scottish Highlands. The Scots have lovingly nurtured and sustained their separate nationality and, amazingly enough, recent surveys show clear majorities in both Scotland and England favoring full, final Scottish independence – severing the 1707 union that brought the two nations together to form the “United Kingdom.” In 1999, the nationalists won the right to elect a separate Scottish Parliament --- “reconvened,” as they put it, “after a 300 year hiatus.” Alex Salmond, a member of the British Parliament and leader of the Scottish National Party, recently pointed out in a letter to the Wall Street Journal: “The 20th century saw several new independent countries in Europe, including Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland, to name just a few. For now, Scotland remains an anomaly – a stateless nation. But this may soon change.”

Whether it changes or not, and whether or not the nationalists succeed in their determined drive for independence and sovereignty, no one can argue against the authenticity of a Scottish national identity. The history of the Scots goes back some 10,000 years and they established a vigorous, powerful, independent kingdom that played a prominent role in European affairs for nearly 400 years (from the victory of Robert the Bruce in the Battle of Banockburn in 1314, to the Union with England in 1707). The Scots have produced world-famous poets and musicians and economists and theologians and research scientists and monarchs, with folk music and distinctive styles of dress that are recognized around the world.

Compare the rich history and unique culture of the Scottish people with another contemporary nationalistic movement that hopes to create an independent state in 2007, or very shortly thereafter: the Palestinians. In fact, even the briefest examination of the contrast between Scottish and Palestinian nationalism highlights the fraudulence in current claims (honored by enlightened souls like Jimmy Carter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and even the America-hating Scot, George Galloway) that Palestinians mean to “restore their ancient homeland.”

What ancient homeland, exactly?

Scottish monarchs like Mary, Queen of Scots and Macbeth have been celebrated in story and poetry and song around the world. Palestinian nationalists can hardly point to comparably famous “Kings of Palestine” for one obvious reason: no Kingdom of Palestine ever existed, other than the ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea, or the short-lived, Christian Crusader kingdom based in Jerusalem. From the time that Kingdom fell to the great Kurdish leader Saladin in 1187 (less than 100 years after its founding) no independent governmental entity existed in the area of Israel and the Palestinian territories until the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948. For that reason, history records no kings or princes of Palestine, nor even governors and viceroys, who were associated with a nationality identified as “Palestinian.”

And what about other famous Palestinians through the millennia—the architects and scientists and writers and spiritual leaders? Among proud Scots, the world has recognized the likes of Alexander Graham Bell, Adam Smith, John Knox, David Hume, Robert Louis Stevenson, Sir Walter Scott, James Watt, Alexander Fleming, Andrew Carnegie and many, many more.

If even the most devoted supporters of Palestinian nationalism were asked to identify a famous representative of that nationality who had gained notoriety prior, say, to 1950, who could they name?

If a people who claim that their origins stretch back into “the mists of time” can’t identify a single famous figure as one of their own – no, not one -- what does it say about the authenticity of their historic nationality?

The absence of any notable figures in the arts and sciences, religion or politics, who were known to history as “Palestinian” isn’t just a reflection of the fact that the Arab villages like Al Quds (Jerusalem), Hebron and Yaffo represented under-populated, destitute backwaters in the larger (and culturally dynamic) Arab world. It’s also an indication that the people who grew up in those dusty settlements in the ancient Holy Land of the Bible never identified themselves as “Palestinian.” They were content to see themselves as Arabs, part of larger Islamic empires like those of the Caliphate, the Mamluks, and the Ottoman Sultanate. The ethnic identity “Palestinian” didn’t exist – and the term “Southern Syrians” continued to characterize the inhabitants of the Holy Land up through the early twentieth century.

In terms of identifying famous (or notorious) Palestinians through the long march of recorded time, the one name that inevitably emerges is the late Yasser Arafat—despite the fact that he was born and raised in Egypt and educated in Kuwait, and his “Palestinian roots” have always looked questionable. Serious challenges as to his origins also surround the late Edward Said, an Arab-American scholar who spent nearly all his life in New York City but chose to identify as a Palestinian.

But both of these famous figures achieved their notoriety, and sought to label themselves as “Palestinian” after the deliberate creation of the synthetic Palestinian identity, confirmed with the official launch of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1965. Prior to that time, the leaders of the populous, local Arab communities in Gaza and the West Bank (which had been annexed by Egypt and Jordan, respectively, in 1949) made few demands of their Arab overlords for a separate state to express their distinctive national aspirations. The insistence on an independent Palestinian Arab state (offered explicitly as part of the UN Partition in 1947, but peremptorily turned down by all Arab leaders) only became a fixation on the world scene after Israel’s victory in 1967 gave the Jewish State control of the Arab communities in the West Bank and Gaza.

During the first Arab-Israeli war, even as hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees fled from their homes to escape the raging conflict, these “Palestinians” hardly viewed an independent state and an expression of local nationalism as a necessary element in solving their problems. In the summer of 1948, after Israel’s declaration of Independence, the UN dispatched the Swedish nobleman Count Folke Bernadotte to the region to try to negotiate a truce. During his visit, he wrote in his diary: “The Palestinian Arabs had at the present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.”

These incontrovertible facts about the fraudulent nature of Palestinian nationalism help to explain its frenzied and fanatical characteristics. Ambrose Bierce defined a fanatic as “one who, when unsure of his argument, redoubles his intensity.” With no distinctive history to fuel their pride, no great achievements or figures from the past who connect with their group or to lend dignity to their claims, today’s self-defined “Palestinians” rely on crazed extremism – suicide bombing, training children to slaughter, and an utter refusal to compromise –as a means to forge their identity.

By contrast, the modern Scottish nationalists have never resorted to murderous violence or extreme demands of any kind in their drive for independence. In a sense, their peaceful determination to re-establish their own state reflects the secure, organic, authentic nature of their national identity. On the other hand, the Palestinian predilection for bloodshed and self-destruction stems from the flimsy, dishonest basis of their claims to nationhood.

This doesn’t prevent some American admirers of the Palestinian cause (often motivated by raw, undisguised anti-Semitism) from making the most outlandish assertions in their behalf. A caller to my radio show, asked to come up with names of famous Palestinians over the centuries, suggested “Goliath” of the Bible – the giant brought down by little David with his slingshot. Since Goliath was a Philistine, and the term “Palestine” (originally coined by the Romans as a deliberate insult to the exiled Jewish inhabitants of Judea) is based on the word “Philistine,” is it ridiculous to see today’s Palestinians as descendants of those ancient compatriots of the Great Goliath?

Palestinian militants from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, shout slogans in front of a picture depicting former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein during a protest against his execution, in Balata refugee camp near the West Bank city of Nablus, January 2, 2007. REUTERS/Abed Omar Qusini (WEST BANK)

Yes, it is ridiculous – despite laughable efforts by some Palestinian propagandists to make the connection. Everything about the current day inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza (including considerable DNA research) identifies them as Arab—virtually indistinguishable from the nearby residents of Syria and Jordan and Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Like most inhabitants of that corner of the globe, they descend from the religiously inspired Islamic invaders who swarmed out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th Century AD and overwhelmed or obliterated the thriving Christian communities that had become dominant in the Holy Land, Syria, Egypt and most other regions of the Middle East. There is no record of any kind—none--suggesting that the invading Arabs found an indigenous population that identified themselves with the long-vanished Philistines.

In fact, the Philistines had disappeared from history – preserving no language, culture, or distinctive identity – more than a thousand years before the Romans coined the term “Palestine.” According to one typical reference book (Webster’s New Universal Encyclopedia, 1997) the Philistines were “a sea-faring, warlike people of non-Semitic origin who founded city states on the Palestinian coastal plane in the 12th Century B.C…They were largely absorbed into the kingdom of Israel under King David in 1000 B.C.” Another reference work (the famous Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia, 1953) from an earlier generation flatly declares “Philistines later paid tribute to Assyria; were assimilated by various Semitic races.” The idea that today’s Palestinians (who speak Arabic, a language altogether unknown to the region at the time of David and Goliath) can claim to somehow reaffirm some long-forgotten Philistine identity is ludicrous: with what symbols? What cultural inheritance? What points of connection to the sea-faring, fish-worshipping, inhabitants of Biblical Philistia?

Again, the contrast with Scottish history proves instructive, highlighting the essential distinction between organic and synthetic nationalism. The Scots have played a recognizable, consistent role in the history of the British Isles for at least 2000 years. Their identity hasn’t appeared, disappeared and then reappeared. There’s always been a Scottish nationality – linguistically, culturally and, for nearly a millennium, politically. By the same token, the history of the Jewish people, for all its exiles and persecutions and disruptions, has provided a record of uninterrupted authenticity. Of course, Jewish culture, religion and nationality have changed over the years— as have all nationalities of even far less antiquity. But modern Israelis speak the same language, honor the same symbols, read the same sacred texts, follow some of the same folkways, and attempt to live the same values as their ancestors from before the time of Christ.

With this obsessive desire to connect with a significant past (all Jewish holidays serve to emphasize that connection) Jews should particularly welcome and cherish the emotions invoked on New Year’s Eve by “Auld Lang Syne”—best translated as “Old Times Past” or “Times Long Ago.”

Why sing of the past just as you’re crossing over into the New Year, and letting the old year go? Because it’s the process of connecting past and future that makes the present fully alive—as in the now-realized Scottish nationalist dream of reconvening their parliament after a 300 year interruption, or the vibrant Jewish dream of rebuilding a homeland after 2000 years of exile. The question that begins “Auld Lang Syne” – “Should auld acquaintance be forgot?” – is answered definitively in the negative by the remaining four stanzas of the song. No, old acquaintance and experience and national history must not be forgotten or ignored, but they shouldn’t be distorted or falsified either. The past matters, but we poison the present if we look back through a clouded lens of dishonesty and delusion.

Candor requires a straightforward recognition that 2007 won’t see the Palestinians realizing their cherished dream of re-establishing their beautiful, noble, once flourishing homeland since that homeland never existed as a nation state and most certainly never flourished. No, they do not qualify a “stateless nation” like the Scots, since they are not a nation at all, but rather a group of 4 million Arabs in a sea of Arabs (compared to the 5 million Scots) who yearn for autonomy and self-government and international recognition. Actually, they’ve already achieved that autonomy in Gaza (from which Israel has entirely withdrawn) but use it only to elect terrorists and to fire rockets at their neighbors (more than sixty attacks in December alone). Even if the Palestinians get their own flag and UN seat (they already possess both, for all practical purposes) they may never manage to function as a stand-alone, fully independent, functioning political entity. Some form of confederation with their Arab brothers (and former rulers) in Egypt and Jordan may be necessary to make a future “Palestine” viable in any sense, but the differences between Palestinians on the one hand and Egyptians and Jordanians on the other are far less pronounced than the distinctions between Scots and English ---who nonetheless managed to confederate with conspicuous success for 300 years. Moreover, these particular Arabs never conducted centuries of warfare against one another as the Scots and English did so the uncompromising, impassioned insistence on a totally separate Palestinian nation (among 22 other Arab nations in the region with the same language and religion) doesn’t deserve the automatic endorsement it regularly receives.

So as we “tak a cup of kindness” to 2007, may we toast a New Year that brings progress toward an independent Scotland (with enthusiastic English approval), and brings a fresh, clear-eyed approach of informed realism to outlandish Palestinian claims that make it far more difficult to resolve the long-standing conflict in the Middle East.


* For the record, the translation of the cited verse is “We two have run about the hills/and pulled the daisies fine/But we’ve wandered many a weary foot/ since auld lang syne.

The Numbers Game

The Real Iraq Body Count
What You're Not Supposed to Know

This is from The Religion of website

I will now forgive all the chuckling. The numbers are a bit off, since they're from May of last year.

We often hear from people who complain - in hit and run fashion - about the "tens of thousands" of innocent Iraqis killed by "American cluster bombs" and other instruments of destruction that the "occupiers" are supposedly dropping on Saddam Hussein's once idyllic "Muslim land." Sometimes the claims run into the hundreds of thousands. Sometimes even the millions.

Not all of these folks are the wide-eyed Jihadi sympathizers that live among us here in the West (where they spend their time denouncing their host country and praying that their immigration status won't be revoked). Some are just sanctimonious anti-Americanists that use these ridiculous numbers to feel better about themselves.

Enter IraqBodyCount, an anti-war organization that was envisioned even before the Iraq War began, with the heady ambition of documenting each and every victim of American aggression in order to turn public opinion against the action to remove Saddam (let's just say they aren't too concerned about the hundreds of mass graves unearthed from the Ba'athist era).

Somewhere along the way, however, harsh reality began to sink in that America was acting as no other country in history has ever acted to prevent civilian casualties in warfare. As a matter of fact, more American troops have been killed in the conflict than have civilians been killed by Americans. Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians.

Though mere mortals might be prompted to reconsider their prejudices at this point, the folks at IraqBodyCount reacted by quietly changing their mission to include the victims of terrorists - the very people that the Americans are trying to stop. Their dubious body-count even includes members of the Iraqi security forces, who are part of the coalition.

In other words, people who are killed trying to stop terrorists are counted as victims of their own effort - as if deadly attacks against the innocent should be tolerated by those in a position to discourage it. Of course, no one thinks this way in real life. Who would lay the blame for rape victims at the feet of those earnestly campaigning against sexual abuse?

Another big problem with IraqBodyCount's statistics is that they even include the terrorists themselves. Enemy combatants in Iraq don't wear uniforms or carry ID cards, and all it takes for someone to make the list is to wind up in a hospital or morgue with "trauma." How many true civilians were really killed by Americans at Fallujah? Probably very few.

Look further and you'll also find that one out of every 40 "war victims" on the list actually came from a stampede at a religious festival on a single day, August 31,2005, that neither the Americans, Iraqi security forces, nor even the terrorists were anywhere near. No doubt the Americans are somehow responsible for Hajj stampedes in Mecca as well.

Unfortunately, few of the people who quote IraqBodyCount's sensational numbers bother to put much thought into what they really represent. Fewer still choose to drill into the data to discover the identity of those who kill.

In fact, if you do make it through the donation solicitation pages on the main site and begin to browse their database, you'll notice that the tables are conspicuously missing a column - the party responsible for each attack.

There's a reason for this, as we discovered when we analyzed each incident to answer this question. It turns out that the vast majority of civilian deaths are caused by Islamic terrorists, and that very few are from American bombs and bullets. This is because (unlike the terrorists) the Americans aren't in Iraq to kill civilians.

Why does IraqBodyCount vilify Americans, who are literally giving their blood to help Iraqis, while protecting the activities of foreign terrorists, who enter the country specifically to kill innocent people? Because the Website and the terrorists both share an anti-American political agenda to which the lives of innocent Iraqis are secondary.

In fact, Iraqis are little more than statistics to these folks. And since the value of these statistics is substantially mitigated by presenting the full truth, IraqBodyCount wisely avoids identifying each incident by relevant context.

Since our sympathies are merely for the innocent, and not filtered by anti-American bigotry, we decided to sift through the data to discover the information that IraqBodyCount doesn't want you to know. We carefully examined their list of incidents from January 1, 2006 through May 9 to come up with some idea of who's really behind all those alleged civilian casualties.

Obviously it would have been easier to do this if IraqBodyCount kept track of the party responsible for each attack rather than, say, the time of day that it took place, but, as we found out, this extremely pertinent information completely undermines their preferred conclusions and so it is omitted (to the indifference of fawning new organizations).

Despite this imprecise science, we feel confident in our general findings.

Since the beginning of the year, there were two American air strikes - in which 21 civilians were killed along with the terrorists. There were also six incidents on the ground in which civilians were killed in crossfire between U.S. and terrorist elements. Although the Americans aren't trying to kill civilians and the terrorists are, we added these to our count anyway just to mitigate reasonable suspicion.

Out of 1,468 deadly attacks that resulted in civilian deaths, the Americans were involved in less than a dozen. IraqBodyCount often uses a "who really gives a rat's ass" method of counting deaths that even they have to admit contains overlap, so it's difficult to discern the true number of dead bodies from the beginning of the year, but the site appears to be reporting between 2,793 and 5,396 (so much for accuracy). What's clearer is that only about 44 of these involve American troops - or around 1 in 100.

[Editor's Note: Updated count through November 1st, 2006 is 15,191 dead Iraqi civilians, of which 130 were killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans]

So far, we have not seen a single non-combatant Iraqi civilian killed intentionally by the Americans. The handful of attributed deaths are either accidental or as a result of the collateral damage from a targeted attack against terrorists. By contrast, most of the civilians killed by Islamic terrorists are deliberately killed with extreme malice.

There is a wide moral distinction between the two that is not done justice merely by counting bodies.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Rosie O'Donnel Is a Big, Fat Idiot

I...I just can't comment on the shear stupidity of this "woman". Check out this video (it's kind of old news, I know) and response.

By Don Feder
September 22, 2006

While Muslims were busy threatening to kill the Pope, Rosie O’Donnell – talk-show host, constitutional scholar and celebrity airhead – was busy comparing conservative Christians to Islamo-fascists.

On ABC’s "The View", O’Donuts smeared committed Christians while trivializing the suffering of Islam’s many victims.

Responding to the comments of her co-host that militant Islam is a threat to free people everywhere, O’Donnell – famous for her keen intellect – shot back: “Just a minute. Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state.”

Actually , we don’t have separation of church and state – words inserted into the Fist Amendment by Hugo Black in 1947. (Rosie might want to check out the motto on the currency in her Prada purse – “In God We Trust.”) But that’s another story.

O’Donnell didn’t tell us who these radical Christians are, but -- given the mindset of political Hollywood -- it’s easy to guess that she was referring to the Pro-Life Jihad and Family-Values Army of God.

Let’s see if I’ve got this straight:

Militant Muslims behead prisoners. Radical Christians oppose embryonic stem-cell research.

Militant Muslims blow themselves up in crowded shopping malls, slaughtering women and children. Radical Christians defend traditional marriage.

Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings, Radical Christians work to protect the sanctity of human life.

Militant Muslims threaten to kill those whom they believe have insulted their precious Prophet. Radical Christians threaten to launch consumer boycotts.

Militant Muslims issue fatwas. Radical Christians distribute voter guides.

Yep, I can see the similarities all right. The two are as alike as peas in a pod. No wonder Jerry Falwell is so often mistaken for Sheik Nasrallah.

Following her obscene comparision, O’Donnell turned her laser-like reasoning to the war on terrorism.

On 9/11, America was attacked “not by a nation,” Rosie opined. (Yeah, just a bunch of Muslim dudes hanging around a street corner in Jeddah.) Yet, “as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people.” Apparently, O’Donnell doesn’t know that innocents die in war. Does she think everyone who was killed in the January, 1945 firebombing of Tokyo was a war criminal?

Warming to her subject, O’Donnell observed, “Iraq and Afghanistan never threatened to kill us” – i.e., neither Saddam Hussein nor Mullah Omar sent the White House a post card that read – “Dear America, We will ,kill you.” Of course, al-Qaeda had training camps in Afghanistan and Saddam was subsidizing every terrorist gang in the Middle East, but there was no formal declaration of war.

Maybe Rosie blames radical Christians for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan too. Perhaps it was all part of a cunning conspiracy to ban partial-birth abortions while our attention was focused elsewhere.

Christianity is about as popular with the Hollywood crowd as George W. Bush. (“I hate him!” Barbra Streisand shrieks.) To wit-less:

* Bill Maher calls Christian conservatives “the party of paranoia,” claims Christianity “has taken over all three branches of government,” and says Christians who seek to influence the political debate are “demagogues, con men and scolds” who “worship power.”
* Actor Ian McKellen, who played a significant role in “The DaVinci Code,” claims the Catholic Church blinds us to the truth and says “The Bible should have a disclaimer in the front that says this is fiction.”
* CNN founder Ted Turner says “Christianity is a religion for losers,” and the Ten Commandments should be rewritten to remove the prohibition on adultery and include sanctions for sins against the ozone layer. In 2001, when some CNN employees showed up at a meeting with ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday, Turner called them “Jesus freaks” and told them they “ought to be working for Fox (News).”

Not satisfied with giving O’Donnell a forum for her very deep thoughts, last weekend, ABC aired a documentary called “Jesus Camp,” which focused on a Bible camp in North Dakota where youth are being trained to spread the faith, and – if necessary -- lay down their lives to witness in the Third World.

“This camp is, by many accounts, a small – and perhaps extreme – slice of what some say is a growing, intensifying evangelical youth movement,” ABC observed. Among other ominous trends, the documentary notes that in the past 15 years, “enrollment at Christian colleges is up 70 percent. Sales of Christian music are up 300 percent” and “tens of thousands of youth pastors have been trained.”

Sales of Christian music up 300 percent? This is ominous indeed. Today “Amazing Grace,” tomorrow, a theocracy. Christian colleges are growing because the left has ruined education at secular institutions by turning them into politically correct indoctrination centers.

The ABC special was based on the work of Lauren Sandler, described as “a secular, liberal feminist from New York” (Could the network possibly have founded a more biased source?), who is alleged to have “spent months among the believers researching her new book ‘Righteous.’”

Aside: The left has made a cottage industry of producing hysterical tracts on the apocalyptic dangers of the religious right. Besides Sandler’s offering, the latest titles include: “Holy Vote,” by Ray Suarez, “Religion Gone Bad: Hidden Dangers of The Christian Right,” by Mel White, “Why The Christian Right Is Wrong,” by Robin Meyers, “The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right,” by veteran left-wing hack Michael Lerner and “Theocons: Secular America Under Siege,” by Damon Linker. Not that publishers are obsessed or anything.

If I wanted to make a fast buck, I’d write a book titled: “The Unintelligent Leftist’s Guide To Hating The Christian Right – In The Name of Tolerance And Diversity.”

ABC breathlessly discloses that, based on her exhaustive research, Sandler has reached the foreordained conclusion that, “the evangelical youth movement will have a negative impact on the country’s future, because the most moderate young evangelicals are inflexible on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.”

Sandler herself confesses: “It’s an absolute, straight-up-us-against-them. It’s you’re either with us or against us. … Not only are you a sinner, but you are working for the enemy – the enemy being Satan.”

Now I get it, Christian youth are a menace to society because they believe in the rightness of their cause, because they have firm convictions and because they view the other side as wrong – while loving them anyway.

And how about all of the students indoctrinated by teachers at the high school and college-level to: hate America, feel guilty if they’re male, Caucasian and/or heterosexual and see Republicans, right-to-lifers, opponents of gay marriage and oil company executives as “Satan.” Are they not equally “inflexible” and intolerant?

But, you see, it’s good to be inflexible and intolerant in a cause of which O”Donnell, Sandler and ABC approve.

Lauren Sandler and Rosie O’Donnell, meet Mel Seesholtz. A Professor of English at Pennsylvania State University, Seesholtz isn’t exactly Mr. Flexibility. Actually, you might call him a Radical Secularist.

In an online posting last week, Seesholtz – who’s bummed about the defeat of the so-called Bias Free Curriculum Act in California (life-style indoctrination in the guise of teaching tolerance) –referred to Christian opponents of bill as “evil lunatics.”

Seesholtz writes: “A very wise woman recently asked me, ‘Who will rid us of the evil lunatics?’” The prof says he responded, “We will. We must. Public education and a civil civilized (sic) society depend upon it.”

Rid in what way? Exile? Execution? Are we talking Stalinist gulags or Khmer Rouge killing fields?

It all comes down to this: Rosie and company hate conservative Christians because (as Sandler points out) they hate their agenda. Hence, in their twisted thinking, the Bible Belt equals Shiite Iran, the Campus Crusade for Christ is the same as Hezbollah and Bible-campers are comparable to suicide bombers, hence they’re a threat to democracy, pluralism and liberty, hence someone must rid society of said “evil lunatics.”

On the 5th anniversary of 9/11, I spoke to a group of Christian Zionists in Pennsylvania. After my speech, a middle-aged man came up to me and said: “You know, Mr. Feder, in the next Holocaust, it’ll be Christians.”

Do they make uniforms for concentration-camp guards in 60 extra-humongous?

Then of course, there's this...

ABC's Rosie O'Donnell: 'Don't Fear the Terrorists, They're Mothers and Fathers'
Posted by Megan McCormack on November 9, 2006

One would have thought that the Democratic takeover of Congress and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation would have preseted plenty of fodder for the women of ‘The View’ to debate on Thursday’s show. However, it was a discussion on Iraq and the war on terror that dominated today's 'Hot Topics' segment. Not surprisingly, co-host Rosie O’Donnell equated the post-September 11th America to the "McCarthy era" and claimed people were "blacklisted" and labeled "unpatriotic" if they expressed any dissent from the Bush administration. O’Donnell also defended the United Nations as a "world voice" and took a shot at Iraq war ally Britain for being "on our side and in our pocket." The liberal O’Donnell then went on to tell conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck to not be afraid of terrorists:

Rosie O’Donnell: "Faith or fear, that's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country–"

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe–"

O’Donnell: "Well, then, get away from the fear. Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers."

Joining the ladies as a guest co-host was Barbara Walters’ best friend, retired opera singer Beverly Sills. Sills seemed to fit in well with the majority liberal ‘View’ panel, as she deplored, what she saw as a lack of vocal opposition to the war before it began, leading to O’Donnell’s rant equating today’s environment to the "McCarthy era":

Beverly Sills: "And the weapons of mass destruction– I don't remember everybody–now you can't find anybody who was in favor of it ever. I mean, where was the great, great screaming and yelling?"

O’Donnell: "I think it was a tough time to raise your voice in dissent in this country because look what happened to the Dixie Chicks, people were blacklisted. We were close to the McCarthy era, where if you said that you were against the policies of the administration, you were called unpatriotic."

Hasselbeck pointed out that before the Iraq war, Senator Hillary Clinton had made this statement during a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

O’Donnell used Clinton’s words to defend the United Nations and slammed Britain for being "on our side and in our pocket":

Hasselbeck: "These are quotes of, of people like Hillary Clinton, who were, ‘if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological warfare–"

O’Donnell: "Ok, ok, stop, stop. If left unchecked, so what she was saying is maybe we should have let the U.N. finish their job before we invaded in defiance of the world."

Hasselbeck: "The U.N. wasn’t doing their job. He was in violation of how many sanctions?"

O’Donnell: "But the U.N.–but here’s, here’s the thing, Elisabeth. When you go to war–"

Hasselbeck: "I have more quotes."

O’Donnell: "All right, but wait. When you go to war, we have the United–we have the United Nations, and the United Nations is the one who says, as the world voice, what they condone and what they condemn. And the U.N. had said we could not do it, and every other nation in the world, besides England, who’s on our side and in our pocket, they said it was a bad idea. "

Sills then rejoined the conversation, seemingly arguing for negotiating with the enemy:

Sills: "In the second world war, we were fighting Adolf Hitler from Germany, Mussolini from Italy, you know, we knew, we knew–"

Walters: "Hirohito from Japan."

Sills: "Hirohito from Japan. Who are we? Who, if we decide now, okay, let’s bring our men and women home, it’s all over. Let’s sit down at the table and negotiate. What are we negotiating, and with whom? Does anybody know the name of the enemy?"

O’Donnell: "It's a vague, it’s a vague nation called terrorists."

Sills: "But I’m going to say that–I mean, has somebody said to me, I hate you Americans because my children have no electricity, they’re not educated, we have no medication, they’re very poor. If somebody said that to me, I would really sit down and want to listen to them and want to do something."

Sills went on a nonsensical rant, where she made it sound as if the government had placed the blame for September 11th on one person:

Sills: "So far we've seen one fellow with a big birthmark on his face and he's gone to jail because he's the only one responsible for, for the catastrophe that happened in this country."

Behar: "Saddam, you mean. Who are you talking about? Hussein?"

Sills: "Hussein, no. This man on the airplane who they say is responsible for 9/11, the one person responsible for bringing the Towers down. The only one? That's what we've come up with? One murderer responsible for all this?"

It’s not exactly clear to whom Sills was referring, but most people recognize that those responsible for the 9/11 tragedy either died in the terror attacks, been killed or captured, or are being pursued in the war on terror.

Towards the end of the segment, O’Donnell berated Hasselbeck for "fearing" terrorists:

O’Donnell: "Well, you have two choices in life, Elisabeth. Faith or fear. Faith or fear, that's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country–"

Hasselbeck: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe–"

O’Donnell: "Well, then, get away from the fear. Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers."

If the phrase "faith and fear" sounds familiar, it should. O’Donnell, as NewsBusters reported here, used that line before, arguing that "the government should lead by faith, never by fear," in the same program where she declared, ‘radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

I Dare Democrats to Deny This

Seeing how the left-wing media and their Bush-hating allies, the DNC, have seen to have forgotten how and why the war started-to which they are now denying these statements, or were "pressured" into making them- here's a little reminder...not that I expect it to make any difference.

By the way, please disregard the video menu immediately following this video. They're all anti-Bush, anti-semite rhetoric and have absolutely no basis in truth. I don't know why this guy (where I got the video from) would have this useful collage only to be followed by re-visionists theories of history.

Democrat Hypocrisy

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Thursday, January 04, 2007

For Your Information

This weas sent to me via email recently.

The next time a liberal friend of yours wants to argue about the number of U.S.Forces members killed in Iraq and how this war (unrealistically) compares with wars of the past, fill them in with these tidbits of information:

-There were 102 combat related killings in Iraq during December.

-In that same period, there were roughly-based upon preliminary reports-39 murders in Detroit, MI. That's only one U.S. city as opposed to the entire nation (i.e United States v. Iraq or Detroit v. Baghdad) Add those numbers up, and you get the idea of disproporionate "numerology".

When some people claim President Bush shouldn't have started the war, inform them of the following...

led us into World War II
Germany never attacked us, Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

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.

started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

turns Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Went to war in Bosnia without UN consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Usama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. bin Laden has attacked U.S. interests and citizens on multiple occasions.

In the five years since terrorists attacked us
President Bush has...
liberated two countries,
crippled the Taliban and al Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya (who has since seen what has happened to Saddam Hussein and quit it's clandestine WMD program)Iran and and North Korea without firing a shot,
immunized, fed, and precipitated the education of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani children,
allowed the ascent of women to be put in a position of political power,
and many other good and decent things that the biased left-wing media and Bush-bashers won't let you know.

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 of 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 report to the police that his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

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

take into account that Iraq is rid of an oppressive, murdering dictator.
It has it's first REAL democratically elected government in it's history.

* More American soldiers died during World War II than at Pearl Harbor.
* More people died during WWI than Archdukes killed precipitating that war.
* More people died in the fighting that followed the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumpter than during that attack. Indeed, far more died during that war than the total of African slaves killed by their owners.
* More people died during the Spanish-American War than during the sinking of the Maine.

And so on...

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Let the Word Go Forth...

"...remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."
-President John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Defense: Republicans v.s. Democrats

Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

Posted 9/29/2006

Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.

Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and pardoned draft evaders.

President Carter also stopped B-1 bomber production, gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

That led Carter, a Democrat, to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

The Soviets, with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

Carter thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man. With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic nation. Executions followed. Palestinian hit men were hired to secretly eliminate the opposition so the religious mullahs couldn't be blamed.

Iran's ayatollah then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible by blowing themselves up. This inhumane menace has grown unchallenged.

The ayatollah next created and financed with Iran's oil wealth Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement this summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that damaged Lebanon and diverted the world's attention from Iran's nuclear bomb program.

In November 1979, Iranians, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their current puppet president who was elected in an unfree, rigged election in which opponents were intimidated into not running, stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days.

Carter, after nearly six months, belatedly attempted a poorly executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines. The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal, and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.

America can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong military ally, Iran, and put the U.S. at odds with a gangster regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to connect the dots?

Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he said.

During the Carter Democrat period, communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over Ethiopia, South Yemen ( located at the mouth of the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to the Suez Canal), Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua.

Compared to the pre-Vietnam War defense budget in 1964, Carter requested in fiscal 1982's defense budget a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, a 75% reduction in ships, an 83% reduction in attack submarines and a 90% reduction in helicopters.

The Soviets for years consistently spent 15% of their GDP on defense; in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor. No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR to the ash heap of history — an astounding feat no one (except Reagan) believed possible.

In addition to a communist enemy rapidly expanding its territorial conquests, Reagan inherited from Democratic management a 12% inflation rate (highest in 34 years), 21% interest rates (highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), a depleted military and a serious energy crisis.

For eight years congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with Reagan and were on the wrong side of nearly all his defense and economic policies. They said he wasn't bright — an "amiable dunce," as party elder Clark Clifford put it. They maintained his tax cuts wouldn't work, that he insulted the Soviets by labeling them the "Evil Empire" and that he was going to start World War III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles installed in East Germany. John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical nuclear superiority in Europe. Kerry seemed to constantly advise retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted — a recipe for us to lose every war.

Democrats waffled on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

Democratic leaders all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down incoming enemy missiles. Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

Democratic politicians were proved wrong on virtually every vital Reagan policy. His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic boom that created 20 million new jobs. Interest rates tumbled from 21% to 7 1/2%. Inflation nose-dived from 12% to 3%. And oil prices collapsed when — contrary to warnings from Democrats — he removed price controls on natural gas.

Reagan's motto was "Peace through Strength," not peace through weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. And for the first time in history Soviet expansion ended.

Reagan never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Years later, a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

In July 2001, the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test missile out of the sky. Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

The current terrorist threat to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

October 1993. A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame."

January 1995. Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Bin Laden tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima. In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans.

June 1996. Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372 wounded.

July-August 1996. The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

February 1998. Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

May 29, 1998. Finally, after a long series of deadly bombings carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning, consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

Aug. 7, 1998. Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

Now Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

Dec. 20, 1998. Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Next, the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

Feb. 10, 1999. The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

May 1999. Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours. October 2000, the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Americans must learn from history and costly mistakes. Sadly, Democrat Jimmy Carter, a Southern peanut farmer, became our Neville Chamberlain, creating the specific conditions that have brought us the three greatest threats to our national security today: 1) Iran's nuke-bound terrorists; 2) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

Carter's inability to deal with the Soviet communists emboldened them to invade Afghanistan. A 23-year-old bin Laden also was drawn there to recruit young Muslim fighters and build a network to raise money for the anti-Soviet jihad that later became al-Qaida.

Years later, civilian Carter took it on himself to go to North Korea and negotiate a peace agreement that would stop that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He then convinced Clinton and Albright to go along with it. The signed piece of paper proved worthless, as the Koreans easily deceived Democrats and used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear bombs and increase the threat we face today.

The Clinton administration had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

Contrast this inability to take action with Harry Truman's ability to make sound decisions and get results on complex defense issues — from dropping the bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

Further Democratic incompetence in matters of defense emerged from Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick. They built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

Democrats in the Clinton administration allowed the selling of important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now engaged in a massive military buildup.

Estimates are that 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Democrats in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win.

Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

However, when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.

from Investor's Business Daily




Wayne Kopping, Director and Editor of the (unknown-thanks MSM) film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" explains and promotes his film on Glenn Beck.

How come this film isn't as popular as "Loose Change"? Is it because political correctness has permeated on this continent so much that we'd collectively rather be sensitive than protected? We'd rather be dead than offensive? Or is everybody just cowardly and perpetually, galactively stupid?

  • /* Profile ----------------------------------------------- */ #profile-container { margin:0 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px dotted #444; padding-bottom:1.5em; } .profile-datablock {