In three States tonight Truckers are reporting that the North East Corridor Sky LIT UP a phosphoresent Blue.
Was it a Meateor, Was it Aliens, Was it the Democrats seeing the light. I'm sure we will never know. I am also equaly sure that on this Nite HALLOWEEN Nite, Coast to Coast Am with Art Bell will debate them all. If your up late tonight give his show a listen. Tonights show is called Ghost to Ghost with the annual telling of ghost stories.
As for the lights me I would like to think it was something Sneeking in to give us a look over. I know the Dems didn't see the light they never will. The more mundane meteor is probably the truth but like I said it is HALLOWEEN
Monday, October 31, 2005
Happy Halloween BOO
Well, shatter-bones, you seem like a joker. Playing
pranks is funny to you of course. You like to
fool around with others and be, well, annoying.
Haha. Egg-throwing and smashing windows on
Halloween must be entertaining. If you're
having fun, then good for you. Just don't take
it too far or get caught. Happy Halloween,
Mr./Ms. Funny Bones.
What Halloween Figure Are You? (MANY RESULTS WITH SIX ALL NEW ONES!!)
brought to you by
Sunday, October 30, 2005
More Good News From Iraq
IRAQ THE MODEL
Sunday, October 30, 2005
A new liberal lobby emerges in Baghdad...
Today, Mohammed and I had the privilege to be invited to attend a conference organized by a group of civil society organizations to announce the launch of a new community under the name “Ahd Al-Iraq” or (the oath of Iraq).The basic theme of the community is to take a promise from politicians, civil society activists and MPs (current or running for office) to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms every Iraqi citizen is supposed to enjoy under the new constitution and under the internationally recognized conventions and laws and to work to introduce amendments in the constitution whenever believed necessary for the protection of these rights and freedoms.The founders of the community named five main points in the constitution that require urgent reconsideration:
Follow the Link and read the story
Sunday, October 30, 2005
A new liberal lobby emerges in Baghdad...
Today, Mohammed and I had the privilege to be invited to attend a conference organized by a group of civil society organizations to announce the launch of a new community under the name “Ahd Al-Iraq” or (the oath of Iraq).The basic theme of the community is to take a promise from politicians, civil society activists and MPs (current or running for office) to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms every Iraqi citizen is supposed to enjoy under the new constitution and under the internationally recognized conventions and laws and to work to introduce amendments in the constitution whenever believed necessary for the protection of these rights and freedoms.The founders of the community named five main points in the constitution that require urgent reconsideration:
Follow the Link and read the story
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Test Your Intelligence
Clik the link and see if you can figure out whats WRONG with this Picture you have 30 seconds
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Iran Says Wipe Israel from the Map
How long before either the US or Israel Bombs the Shit out of these AssHoles
Wipe Israel from map, says Iran’s president
By Gareth Smyth in Tehran
Published: October 26 2005 21:26
Last updated: October 27 2005 00:00
Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s fundamentalist president, on Wednesday declared that Israel should be “wiped off the map” and warned Arab countries against developing economic ties with Israel in response to its withdrawal from Gaza.
//
His remarks, delivered at a conference in Tehran entitled “A World without Zionism”, led to diplomatic protests by the UK, France and Spain, while Shimon Peres, Israel’s deputy prime minister, said Iran should be expelled from the United Nations.
In Washington, spokesmen for the Bush administration said the statement underscored US concern over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s comments came as Islamic Jihad, a militant Palestinian group allied to Iran, killed at least five Israelis with a bombing in the Israeli town of Hedera. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, saying it was avenging Israel’s killing of a West Bank commander on Monday.
US analysts noted that the president’s remarks were not a departure from hardline Iranian rhetoric and did not represent new policy.
But they said the rhetoric was aggressive and badly timed, and would serve to confirm western suspicions of Iran’s more confrontational approach that were raised by the new president’s speeches at the United Nations last month.
However, European diplomats suggested the comments would not derail efforts by France, Germany and the UK to get Iran to return to the negotiating table and halt work at its Isfahan uranium conversion facility. One diplomat said the EU3 had made a point of keeping the nuclear issue separate from Iranian support for militant Palestinian groups during two years of talks.
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said, citing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution.
The president told an audience of students there was “no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world”.
“Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury,” he said, in remarks aimed at Arab states.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who took office in August, was departing from the moderate line of his reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, who argued Iran should be no more radical about Israel than the Palestinians themselves. Reformist figures in Iran have recently warned that Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s stern rhetoric endangers Iran’s national interest and could encourage the referral of Tehran’s nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. Iran denies its development of the nuclear fuel cycle is for military use.
curtesy FT.com the Financial Times
Wipe Israel from map, says Iran’s president
By Gareth Smyth in Tehran
Published: October 26 2005 21:26
Last updated: October 27 2005 00:00
Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s fundamentalist president, on Wednesday declared that Israel should be “wiped off the map” and warned Arab countries against developing economic ties with Israel in response to its withdrawal from Gaza.
//
His remarks, delivered at a conference in Tehran entitled “A World without Zionism”, led to diplomatic protests by the UK, France and Spain, while Shimon Peres, Israel’s deputy prime minister, said Iran should be expelled from the United Nations.
In Washington, spokesmen for the Bush administration said the statement underscored US concern over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s comments came as Islamic Jihad, a militant Palestinian group allied to Iran, killed at least five Israelis with a bombing in the Israeli town of Hedera. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, saying it was avenging Israel’s killing of a West Bank commander on Monday.
US analysts noted that the president’s remarks were not a departure from hardline Iranian rhetoric and did not represent new policy.
But they said the rhetoric was aggressive and badly timed, and would serve to confirm western suspicions of Iran’s more confrontational approach that were raised by the new president’s speeches at the United Nations last month.
However, European diplomats suggested the comments would not derail efforts by France, Germany and the UK to get Iran to return to the negotiating table and halt work at its Isfahan uranium conversion facility. One diplomat said the EU3 had made a point of keeping the nuclear issue separate from Iranian support for militant Palestinian groups during two years of talks.
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said, citing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution.
The president told an audience of students there was “no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world”.
“Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury,” he said, in remarks aimed at Arab states.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who took office in August, was departing from the moderate line of his reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, who argued Iran should be no more radical about Israel than the Palestinians themselves. Reformist figures in Iran have recently warned that Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s stern rhetoric endangers Iran’s national interest and could encourage the referral of Tehran’s nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. Iran denies its development of the nuclear fuel cycle is for military use.
curtesy FT.com the Financial Times
The French Paid For the Creation Of Wilsons Forged Niger Documents
Russo Martino, the man behind the forged documents indicating Saddam had purchased uranium from Niger, which Joseph A. Wilson falsely claimed he had seen and warned the Administration about, has come forward and admitted that he did this in the pay of France to undermine the British and American justification for the war in Iraq.
Go to the link and read this Story. The Deeper you dig into this story the more The Democrats look like the Traitorous Scum that they are. Thes are the things that Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Palosi, and Harry Reid Support..... Ask yourself are they really that STUPID or just Complicit?
thanks A Tangled Web for the lead
Go to the link and read this Story. The Deeper you dig into this story the more The Democrats look like the Traitorous Scum that they are. Thes are the things that Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Palosi, and Harry Reid Support..... Ask yourself are they really that STUPID or just Complicit?
thanks A Tangled Web for the lead
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Smerconish Summed it up pretty good
Michael Smerconish one of the best Radio Talk show hosts in America summed up the big tadoo about Vice President Cheyney mentioning the whole Plame thing this morning. What would have have made Cheyney mention Plame and Wilson ? Well how about this story that was running that day in the Washington Post. I guess politicians aren't allowed to talk about whats in the News. Well at least Republicans aren't.
CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data
Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A01
A key component of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said.
The CIA's failure to share what it knew, which has not been disclosed previously, was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war in Iraq, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the claim was based on fabricated evidence.
A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, "It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more."
However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.
As the controversy over Iraq intelligence has expanded with the failure so far of U.S. teams in Iraq to uncover proscribed weapons, intelligence officials have accused senior administration policymakers of pressuring the CIA or exaggerating intelligence information to make the case for war. The story involving the CIA's uranium-purchase probe, however, suggests that the agency also was shaping intelligence on Iraq to meet the administration's policy goals.
Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and a candidate for president, yesterday described the case as "part of the agency's standard operating procedure when it wants to advance the information that supported their [the administration's] position and bury that which didn't."
Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.
During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.
After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.
However, the CIA did not include details of the former ambassador's report and his identity as the source, which would have added to the credibility of his findings, in its intelligence reports that were shared with other government agencies. Instead, the CIA only said that Niger government officials had denied the attempted deal had taken place, a senior administration said.
"This gent made a visit to the region and chatted up his friends," a senior intelligence official said, describing the agency's view of the mission. "He relayed back to us that they said it was not true and that he believed them."
Thirteen months later, on March 8, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, informed the U.N. Security Council that after careful scrutiny of the Niger documents, his agency had reached the same conclusion as the CIA's envoy. ElBaradei deemed the documents "not authentic," an assessment that U.S. officials did not dispute.
Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation have described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in Niger. The documents had been sought by U.N. inspectors since September 2002 and they were delivered by the United States and Britain last February.
The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of nongovernment experts that is reviewing the handling of Iraq intelligence, is planning to study the Niger story and how it made its way into Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28. In making the case that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program, Bush declared that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
That same month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice also mentioned Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium, and the story made its way into a State Department "fact sheet" as well.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee and a leading administration critic, wrote the president June 2 asking why Bush had included the Niger case as part of the evidence he cited against Iraq. "Given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended -- that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa -- was simply false," Waxman said.
The CIA's decision to send an emissary to Niger was triggered by questions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agency briefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi efforts to acquire the uranium, according to the senior officials. Cheney's staff was not told at the time that its concerns had been the impetus for a CIA mission and did not learn it occurred or its specific results.
Cheney and his staff continued to get intelligence on the matter, but the vice president, unlike other senior administration officials, never mentioned it in a public speech. He and his staff did not learn of its role in spurring the mission until it was disclosed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on May 6, according to an administration official.
When the British government published an intelligence document on Iraq in September 2002 claiming that Baghdad had "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the former ambassador called the CIA officers who sent him to Niger and was told they were looking into new information about the claim, sources said. The former envoy later called the CIA and State Department after Bush's State of the Union speech and was told "not to worry," according to one U.S. official.
Later it was disclosed that the United States and Britain were basing their reports on common information that originated with forged documents provided originally by Italian intelligence officials.
CIA Director George J. Tenet, on Sept. 24, 2002, cited the Niger evidence in a closed-door briefing to the Senate intelligence committee on a national intelligence estimate of Iraq's weapons programs, sources said. Although Tenet told the panel that some questions had been raised about the evidence, he did not mention that the agency had sent an envoy to Niger and that the former ambassador had concluded that the claims were false.
The Niger evidence was not included in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's Feb. 5 address to the Security Council in which he disclosed some intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs and links to al Qaeda because it was considered inaccurate, sources said.
Even so, the Voice of America on Feb. 20 broadcast a story that said: "U.S. officials tell VOA [that] Iraq and Niger signed an agreement in the summer of 2000 to resume shipments for an additional 500 tons of yellow cake," a reference to the uranium. The VOA, which is financed by the government but has an official policy of editorial independence, went on to say that there was no evidence such shipments had taken place.
CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data
Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A01
A key component of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said.
The CIA's failure to share what it knew, which has not been disclosed previously, was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war in Iraq, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the claim was based on fabricated evidence.
A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, "It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more."
However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.
As the controversy over Iraq intelligence has expanded with the failure so far of U.S. teams in Iraq to uncover proscribed weapons, intelligence officials have accused senior administration policymakers of pressuring the CIA or exaggerating intelligence information to make the case for war. The story involving the CIA's uranium-purchase probe, however, suggests that the agency also was shaping intelligence on Iraq to meet the administration's policy goals.
Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and a candidate for president, yesterday described the case as "part of the agency's standard operating procedure when it wants to advance the information that supported their [the administration's] position and bury that which didn't."
Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.
During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.
After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.
However, the CIA did not include details of the former ambassador's report and his identity as the source, which would have added to the credibility of his findings, in its intelligence reports that were shared with other government agencies. Instead, the CIA only said that Niger government officials had denied the attempted deal had taken place, a senior administration said.
"This gent made a visit to the region and chatted up his friends," a senior intelligence official said, describing the agency's view of the mission. "He relayed back to us that they said it was not true and that he believed them."
Thirteen months later, on March 8, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, informed the U.N. Security Council that after careful scrutiny of the Niger documents, his agency had reached the same conclusion as the CIA's envoy. ElBaradei deemed the documents "not authentic," an assessment that U.S. officials did not dispute.
Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation have described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in Niger. The documents had been sought by U.N. inspectors since September 2002 and they were delivered by the United States and Britain last February.
The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of nongovernment experts that is reviewing the handling of Iraq intelligence, is planning to study the Niger story and how it made its way into Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28. In making the case that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program, Bush declared that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
That same month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice also mentioned Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium, and the story made its way into a State Department "fact sheet" as well.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee and a leading administration critic, wrote the president June 2 asking why Bush had included the Niger case as part of the evidence he cited against Iraq. "Given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended -- that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa -- was simply false," Waxman said.
The CIA's decision to send an emissary to Niger was triggered by questions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agency briefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi efforts to acquire the uranium, according to the senior officials. Cheney's staff was not told at the time that its concerns had been the impetus for a CIA mission and did not learn it occurred or its specific results.
Cheney and his staff continued to get intelligence on the matter, but the vice president, unlike other senior administration officials, never mentioned it in a public speech. He and his staff did not learn of its role in spurring the mission until it was disclosed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on May 6, according to an administration official.
When the British government published an intelligence document on Iraq in September 2002 claiming that Baghdad had "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the former ambassador called the CIA officers who sent him to Niger and was told they were looking into new information about the claim, sources said. The former envoy later called the CIA and State Department after Bush's State of the Union speech and was told "not to worry," according to one U.S. official.
Later it was disclosed that the United States and Britain were basing their reports on common information that originated with forged documents provided originally by Italian intelligence officials.
CIA Director George J. Tenet, on Sept. 24, 2002, cited the Niger evidence in a closed-door briefing to the Senate intelligence committee on a national intelligence estimate of Iraq's weapons programs, sources said. Although Tenet told the panel that some questions had been raised about the evidence, he did not mention that the agency had sent an envoy to Niger and that the former ambassador had concluded that the claims were false.
The Niger evidence was not included in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's Feb. 5 address to the Security Council in which he disclosed some intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs and links to al Qaeda because it was considered inaccurate, sources said.
Even so, the Voice of America on Feb. 20 broadcast a story that said: "U.S. officials tell VOA [that] Iraq and Niger signed an agreement in the summer of 2000 to resume shipments for an additional 500 tons of yellow cake," a reference to the uranium. The VOA, which is financed by the government but has an official policy of editorial independence, went on to say that there was no evidence such shipments had taken place.
Franken humor of an ASS
Click the link and watch what passes for humor in the mind of the spokesman for the left.
If a republican did the same skit the MSM would be screaming about intolerance and hate from the right. All I can say is what a bafoon.
Franken
If a republican did the same skit the MSM would be screaming about intolerance and hate from the right. All I can say is what a bafoon.
Franken
Monday, October 24, 2005
Time to Go Back To The MOON
THIS IS HOW WERE ARE GOING TO GET THERE
Follow the link and see what and how we are going to do. For too long we have wasted time playing in near Earth Orbit. Now its time to get back to the business and program that has benefited man more than any human endeavor.
Follow the link and see what and how we are going to do. For too long we have wasted time playing in near Earth Orbit. Now its time to get back to the business and program that has benefited man more than any human endeavor.
Iraq The Model gets Another Great write up
Pajamas Media gives the Brothers a pat on the Back
Its nice to see other Blogs recognizing the hard and risky work that is put into the Iraqi blog Iraq The Model. I have re-posted some of their threads on this blog in the past, to show my fellow Americans what real Iraqis feel about what is happening in their country. They paint quite a different picture than what is spewed at us from the MSM. I recommend you check them out and pay Pajamas Media a visit while your at it.
Its nice to see other Blogs recognizing the hard and risky work that is put into the Iraqi blog Iraq The Model. I have re-posted some of their threads on this blog in the past, to show my fellow Americans what real Iraqis feel about what is happening in their country. They paint quite a different picture than what is spewed at us from the MSM. I recommend you check them out and pay Pajamas Media a visit while your at it.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Is This a Good Thing or a Bad Thing
Over 10,000 Saudi Students US- Bound
I'm not sure how to take this news. The article gives the return of Saudi Students a nice positive spin from the Arab perspective, but Have you seen or heard about any of this here in the States?
I have a few questions. Who has done the background checks on these Students? How are they going to be moniterd if at all. I don't mean spied on, I mean to make sure they are actually here to be students, stay students, stay enrolled in their classes and don't just come into the country and disappear.
Now I'm not throwing stones but the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. I think these question are just common sense.
I'm not sure how to take this news. The article gives the return of Saudi Students a nice positive spin from the Arab perspective, but Have you seen or heard about any of this here in the States?
I have a few questions. Who has done the background checks on these Students? How are they going to be moniterd if at all. I don't mean spied on, I mean to make sure they are actually here to be students, stay students, stay enrolled in their classes and don't just come into the country and disappear.
Now I'm not throwing stones but the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. I think these question are just common sense.
A Great Post About Peace Love and Racial Harmony
curtesy of Frontpage Mag
"We Have to Exterminate White People"
By Mike AdamsFrontPageMagazine.com October 21, 2005
Columnist Jon Sanders of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, NC, has written a blog entry that reveals just how easy it is to get a job teaching Africana Studies at North Carolina State University. It also demonstrates how the diversity movement is bringing people together in the great state of North Carolina.
Sanders’ recent blog directs readers to C-SPAN online, where they can click on the recent archives and scroll down until they find the “Black Media Forum on the Image of Black Americans in Mainstream Media.” This was a program presented on October 14th at Howard University. Dr. Kamau Kambon makes his appearance about three hours into the four-hour event.
Dr. Kambon's closing remarks – given about twenty minutes before the program’s conclusion - are chilling:
And then finally I want to say that we need one idea, and we're not thinking about a solution to the problem. We're thinking about all these other things, but we're not dealing with a solution to the problem. And we have to start to think about a solution to the problem so that these young brothers and sisters who are here now, who are 15, 16, or 17, are not here 25 years later talking about these same problems.Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem? I know it because they have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.
Dr. Kambon also said that “white people want to kill you…because that is part of their plan” and that “the only n**ger on the planet is the white man and the white woman, and our people are not n**gers, they are imitation n**gers.”
An official at North Carolina State University claims that Dr. Kambon – once a visiting professor being paid by the taxpayers of North Carolina – is no longer affiliated with the university. But, if that is true, why is he still listed on the university’s Africana Studies faculty page?
After you visit that site, I bet you’ll have the same question. And, like me, I hope you’ll write the Africana Studies Department demanding an answer. And while you’re at it, ask them why they hired a genocidal racist in the first place.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
"We Have to Exterminate White People"
By Mike AdamsFrontPageMagazine.com October 21, 2005
Columnist Jon Sanders of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, NC, has written a blog entry that reveals just how easy it is to get a job teaching Africana Studies at North Carolina State University. It also demonstrates how the diversity movement is bringing people together in the great state of North Carolina.
Sanders’ recent blog directs readers to C-SPAN online, where they can click on the recent archives and scroll down until they find the “Black Media Forum on the Image of Black Americans in Mainstream Media.” This was a program presented on October 14th at Howard University. Dr. Kamau Kambon makes his appearance about three hours into the four-hour event.
Dr. Kambon's closing remarks – given about twenty minutes before the program’s conclusion - are chilling:
And then finally I want to say that we need one idea, and we're not thinking about a solution to the problem. We're thinking about all these other things, but we're not dealing with a solution to the problem. And we have to start to think about a solution to the problem so that these young brothers and sisters who are here now, who are 15, 16, or 17, are not here 25 years later talking about these same problems.Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem? I know it because they have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.
Dr. Kambon also said that “white people want to kill you…because that is part of their plan” and that “the only n**ger on the planet is the white man and the white woman, and our people are not n**gers, they are imitation n**gers.”
An official at North Carolina State University claims that Dr. Kambon – once a visiting professor being paid by the taxpayers of North Carolina – is no longer affiliated with the university. But, if that is true, why is he still listed on the university’s Africana Studies faculty page?
After you visit that site, I bet you’ll have the same question. And, like me, I hope you’ll write the Africana Studies Department demanding an answer. And while you’re at it, ask them why they hired a genocidal racist in the first place.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Compliments of Mikes America
God I just love Tim Russerts Meet The Depressed
Louis Freeh's Revenge, Part II
It's like the gift that keeps on giving. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who revealed on Sixty Minutes how President Clinton sold out national security for a donation by the Saudis to his presidential library, takes it a step further; appearing on Meet The Press this past Sunday:
MR. RUSSERT: Your new book, "My FBI," has created a lot of debate with some of the comments you've made about the investigation regarding Khobar Towers. Let me remind our viewers, Khobar Towers, June 25, 1996, tragic scene, 19 Americans killed when car bombers blew up a facility where American servicemen were staying....MR. FREEH:...What do you say about a president and a national security advisor who, for two and a half years while the Khobar investigation is going on, which the president tells the American people is a critical investigation, no stone will be left unturned. What do you say about a president who never asked me for a status on the case? They never asked me, "Louis, what's going on? Any progress by the FBI?" Absolutely no interest in the case.When I finally came back to Sandy Berger and told him we now had evidence that the Iranian government had murdered 19 Americans--killed, wounded over 300, his first reaction was, "Who knows about this?" And his second reaction was "Well, that's hearsay." This was an administration that was not interested in finding out that the Iranian government had blowed up--had blown up Khobar Towers. ...we prosecuted this case very hard. We couldn't get an indictment during the Clinton administration. And in terms of Sandy Berger's work, let me tell what you he did. Talk about ineptness and compromising an investigation, he writes a letter--the president of the United States writes a letter to the Iranian president in 1999, a letter that says, "We think you may be involved in the murder of our 19 Americans at Khobar. Please help us or you won't get better trade assistance or foreign relations by the United States." They never told me they were writing that letter, Tim. The president of the United States never told the attorney general and the chief investigator that they were writing that letter.To make it worse, and to show the ineptness, the letter was supposed to be delivered to President Khatami. They gave it to the Omanis to deliver it. It was misdelivered. It was delivered to the spiritual leader, who went berserk. It compromised the Saudis, because it was clear from the letter that the Saudis had told us about the Iranians. The Saudis were never told about the letter. This is how they prosecute the case. It would be the equivalent of the attorney general writing John Gotti a letter and saying, "Mr. Gotti, we know a couple of your capos are involved in major racketeering cases. Could you please cooperate with us" but not telling the U.S. attorney and the FBI that was investigating the case that such a letter was being sent.
Freeh was Clinton's ScapegoatMR. FREEH: [Bill Clinton] didn't wait till his book [My Life] to attack the FBI or try to undermine me. It was sort of a regular routine, if you remember, at the White House, after a while. His press spokesman would get up and they would say, "What does the president think of the director?" And the press spokesman, using some of those same bullets and talking points, would say, "Well, the president thinks the FBI director is doing the best he can," which was a direct attack on a sitting FBI director. I never commented on the president of the United States while I was in office, despite being attacked, being undermined. He didn't like the FBI. He thought the FBI and the FBI director, you know, had a personal animus against him because they were always investigating him.Well, you know what? We were always investigating him because there were always Bill Clinton allegations. And independent counsels were investigating him. Ultimately, the Congress of the United States was investigating him. He didn't get it that this wasn't personal, that the FBI director has the responsibility of conducting those investigations. And the fact that he didn't like it, I understand it. I wouldn't like being investigated by the FBI for seven years, either. But the fact of the matter is, we didn't come up with the allegations. We didn't look for things to do. We had a lot of serious work we'd like to do besides the nonsense that preoccupied us with the president. Touche Louis!
posted by Mike's America 10/19/2005
Louis Freeh's Revenge, Part II
It's like the gift that keeps on giving. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who revealed on Sixty Minutes how President Clinton sold out national security for a donation by the Saudis to his presidential library, takes it a step further; appearing on Meet The Press this past Sunday:
MR. RUSSERT: Your new book, "My FBI," has created a lot of debate with some of the comments you've made about the investigation regarding Khobar Towers. Let me remind our viewers, Khobar Towers, June 25, 1996, tragic scene, 19 Americans killed when car bombers blew up a facility where American servicemen were staying....MR. FREEH:...What do you say about a president and a national security advisor who, for two and a half years while the Khobar investigation is going on, which the president tells the American people is a critical investigation, no stone will be left unturned. What do you say about a president who never asked me for a status on the case? They never asked me, "Louis, what's going on? Any progress by the FBI?" Absolutely no interest in the case.When I finally came back to Sandy Berger and told him we now had evidence that the Iranian government had murdered 19 Americans--killed, wounded over 300, his first reaction was, "Who knows about this?" And his second reaction was "Well, that's hearsay." This was an administration that was not interested in finding out that the Iranian government had blowed up--had blown up Khobar Towers. ...we prosecuted this case very hard. We couldn't get an indictment during the Clinton administration. And in terms of Sandy Berger's work, let me tell what you he did. Talk about ineptness and compromising an investigation, he writes a letter--the president of the United States writes a letter to the Iranian president in 1999, a letter that says, "We think you may be involved in the murder of our 19 Americans at Khobar. Please help us or you won't get better trade assistance or foreign relations by the United States." They never told me they were writing that letter, Tim. The president of the United States never told the attorney general and the chief investigator that they were writing that letter.To make it worse, and to show the ineptness, the letter was supposed to be delivered to President Khatami. They gave it to the Omanis to deliver it. It was misdelivered. It was delivered to the spiritual leader, who went berserk. It compromised the Saudis, because it was clear from the letter that the Saudis had told us about the Iranians. The Saudis were never told about the letter. This is how they prosecute the case. It would be the equivalent of the attorney general writing John Gotti a letter and saying, "Mr. Gotti, we know a couple of your capos are involved in major racketeering cases. Could you please cooperate with us" but not telling the U.S. attorney and the FBI that was investigating the case that such a letter was being sent.
Freeh was Clinton's ScapegoatMR. FREEH: [Bill Clinton] didn't wait till his book [My Life] to attack the FBI or try to undermine me. It was sort of a regular routine, if you remember, at the White House, after a while. His press spokesman would get up and they would say, "What does the president think of the director?" And the press spokesman, using some of those same bullets and talking points, would say, "Well, the president thinks the FBI director is doing the best he can," which was a direct attack on a sitting FBI director. I never commented on the president of the United States while I was in office, despite being attacked, being undermined. He didn't like the FBI. He thought the FBI and the FBI director, you know, had a personal animus against him because they were always investigating him.Well, you know what? We were always investigating him because there were always Bill Clinton allegations. And independent counsels were investigating him. Ultimately, the Congress of the United States was investigating him. He didn't get it that this wasn't personal, that the FBI director has the responsibility of conducting those investigations. And the fact that he didn't like it, I understand it. I wouldn't like being investigated by the FBI for seven years, either. But the fact of the matter is, we didn't come up with the allegations. We didn't look for things to do. We had a lot of serious work we'd like to do besides the nonsense that preoccupied us with the president. Touche Louis!
posted by Mike's America 10/19/2005
A good one from Little Green Footballs
Hamas Wants to Keep on Killin'
The Hamas terror gang really hates it when President Bush hints that he might ask them to stop murdering Jews: Hamas accuses Bush of sowing Palestinian discord.
GAZA, Oct 20 (Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamic militant group Hamas accused U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday of trying to bring war among Palestinians for urging President Mahmoud Abbas to confront and dismantle armed factions.
Bush made the call after a meeting with Abbas at the White House to try to advance a long-stalled “road map” for peace with Israel following last month’s Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Bush was making a “new American attempt to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority in order to create internal Palestinian strife and weaken the factions of resistance.”
The spokesman said Hamas, branded a terrorist group by Washington, rejected Bush’s decision to send a new security envoy with a mandate to help the Palestinian Authority “end terror attacks and dismantle terror infrastructures.”
Abu Zuhri said that represented “a flagrant American intervention in Palestinian affairs and reaffirms American hostility to our people.”
And don’t forget, at present Hamas is supposedly observing a ceasefire.
The Hamas terror gang really hates it when President Bush hints that he might ask them to stop murdering Jews: Hamas accuses Bush of sowing Palestinian discord.
GAZA, Oct 20 (Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamic militant group Hamas accused U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday of trying to bring war among Palestinians for urging President Mahmoud Abbas to confront and dismantle armed factions.
Bush made the call after a meeting with Abbas at the White House to try to advance a long-stalled “road map” for peace with Israel following last month’s Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Bush was making a “new American attempt to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority in order to create internal Palestinian strife and weaken the factions of resistance.”
The spokesman said Hamas, branded a terrorist group by Washington, rejected Bush’s decision to send a new security envoy with a mandate to help the Palestinian Authority “end terror attacks and dismantle terror infrastructures.”
Abu Zuhri said that represented “a flagrant American intervention in Palestinian affairs and reaffirms American hostility to our people.”
And don’t forget, at present Hamas is supposedly observing a ceasefire.
I see a Suicide in Cindys Future
Queen Looney of The Left Attacks St Hillary .....
More proof that this woman has lost her mind. We all have seen the inevitable suicide on the horizon. Its always been the only way the tragedy that is Cindy Sheehan can ever end. Now though its guaranteed. The sure guiding hand of a crossed Clinton will help the inevitable to its conclusion. Ask Vince Foster and the rest of the bodies left in the wake of the Clintons bye bye Cindy
More proof that this woman has lost her mind. We all have seen the inevitable suicide on the horizon. Its always been the only way the tragedy that is Cindy Sheehan can ever end. Now though its guaranteed. The sure guiding hand of a crossed Clinton will help the inevitable to its conclusion. Ask Vince Foster and the rest of the bodies left in the wake of the Clintons bye bye Cindy
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Have You Ever Just Surfed The Blogoshpere?
I like to do that occasionally. You just click the button in the corner that says "next blog". You find some pretty bizarre shit. Most of it is boring, some porn as usual with the net. Lots of parents posting kids pictures, and best of all the most diverse range of politics that exist. The one thing that really pisses me off is when you land on a Blog with NO next blog button. It's like being held against your will and its always on the last blog anyone would ever visit by choice
The EU can't get support for Global Warming on Earth
So now they will go Off Planet.
I wonder How many Venusions Drive SUVs
PARIS (AFP) - Venus Express, the European Space Agency's first mission to explore Earth's closest neighbour, will be launched next Wednesday from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
The ESA gave the prospective launch time as 0443 GMT.
The 1.27-tonne unmanned spacecraft, which will be taken aloft by a Russian-made Soyuz-Fregat rocket, is expected to arrive at Venus on April 6.
Venus Express, equipped with seven instruments, is intended to map the Venusian surface and weather system, looking at temperature variation, cloud formations, wind speeds and gas composition.
Its main goal is to help understand why Venus fell prey to runaway global warming.
Venus is the second planet from the Sun. It is similar in size, mass and age to Earth, but the two planets are otherwise quite different.
The so-called Morning Star has clouds of suffocating gas driven by hurricane-force winds, as well as a surface pressure and temperature high enough to crush and melt steel.
Venus Express is a sister to Mars Express, an orbiter that is now circling the Red Planet.
Further information is available on (www.esa.int).
I wonder How many Venusions Drive SUVs
PARIS (AFP) - Venus Express, the European Space Agency's first mission to explore Earth's closest neighbour, will be launched next Wednesday from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
The ESA gave the prospective launch time as 0443 GMT.
The 1.27-tonne unmanned spacecraft, which will be taken aloft by a Russian-made Soyuz-Fregat rocket, is expected to arrive at Venus on April 6.
Venus Express, equipped with seven instruments, is intended to map the Venusian surface and weather system, looking at temperature variation, cloud formations, wind speeds and gas composition.
Its main goal is to help understand why Venus fell prey to runaway global warming.
Venus is the second planet from the Sun. It is similar in size, mass and age to Earth, but the two planets are otherwise quite different.
The so-called Morning Star has clouds of suffocating gas driven by hurricane-force winds, as well as a surface pressure and temperature high enough to crush and melt steel.
Venus Express is a sister to Mars Express, an orbiter that is now circling the Red Planet.
Further information is available on (www.esa.int).
Monday, October 17, 2005
Hamas Could Easily Attack us From Within US Borders
How Long Before Car Bombs Go Off in Your HomeTown?
curtesy WND
"Hamas has an extensive infrastructure in the U.S. mostly revolving around the activities of fundraising, recruiting and training members, directing operations against Israel, organizing political support and operating through human rights front groups. While Hamas has not acted outside Israel, it has the capability of carrying out attacks in America if it decided to enlarge the scope of its operations."
"In November 2003, Jamal Aqal, a Canadian immigrant born in Gaza, was arrested in Israel under suspicion of receiving weapons and explosives training from Hamas for use in future terror attacks in Canada and New York City. Aqal pled guilty in 2004 to planning to kill American and Canadian Jewish leaders and Israeli officials traveling in the U.S. "
Great Artilcle On the Folly Of International Law
This article explains why we can never be part of a world Government
It also should be required reading for all the Moonbats on the Left that are always pushing us to be more a part of the UN and The World Court. If these wingnuts had their way this is the type of bullshit we would have to endure dictated to us by Foreign Fools.
It also should be required reading for all the Moonbats on the Left that are always pushing us to be more a part of the UN and The World Court. If these wingnuts had their way this is the type of bullshit we would have to endure dictated to us by Foreign Fools.
Any Excuse to Pilage
The Black Gangs upset at the Nazi's Burn Bars and Gas Stations in Protest (and I'll bet their mothers all call them sonny because their so bright)
From FoxNews: Neo-Nazi March Causes Riots.
Protesters at a white supremacists' march threw rocks at police, vandalized vehicles and stores and cursed the mayor for allowing the event.
Mayor Jack Ford said when he and a local minister tried to calm the rioters Saturday, they were cursed and a masked gang member threatened to shoot him. ...
At least two dozen members of the National Socialist Movement, which calls itself "America's Nazi Party," had gathered at a city park to march under police protection. Organizers said they were demonstrating against black gangs they said were harassing white residents.
The violence broke out about one-quarter of a mile away along the planned march route shortly before it was to begin. One group of men pounded on a convenience store, and others overturned vehicles. ...
When the rioting began, Ford tried to negotiate with those involved, but "they weren't interested in that." He said people in the crowd swore at him and wanted to know why he was protecting the Nazis.
They were mostly "gang members who had real or imagined grievances and took it as an opportunity to speak in their own way," Ford said.
"I was chagrined that there were obvious mothers and children in the crowd with them," he said.
Thomas Frisch, 76, said a large group of men destroyed the exterior of a gas station next to his home of 30 years.
"A whole big gang started to come in here. Next thing you know, they're jumping on the car. Then they overturned it. Then they started on the building, breaking windows, ripping the bars off," he said.
Ratajski and his nephew left Jim & Lou's Bar as a crowd gathered in front, pelting police with rocks and breaking the windows. "I was shaking. I feared for my life," said Ratajski's nephew, Terry Rybczynski.
UPDATE I: FoxNews has updated the above link, adding and deleting information. This was added:
The neighborhood northwest of downtown, full of tree-lined streets and well-kept brick homes, once was a thriving Polish community. But within the last decade it's become home to poorer residents. ...
The neo-Nazi group became interested in the neighborhood because of a white resident's complaints to police about gang violence, Bill White, a group spokesman, said earlier this month. ...
Rioters set fire to 86-year-old Louis Ratajski's neighborhood pub, Jim & Lou's Bar, but he and his nephew, Terry Rybczynski, escaped the flames.
And in a Reuters article, Mayor Ford said of the violent reaction by gangs: "That's exactly what (the white supremacist group) wanted."
UPDATE II -- Oct. 17: More interesting links and commentary by Michele Malkin, Martin Lindeskog, and Committees of Correspondence.
Posted by Forkum at 05:24 PM / Permalink
In an Iraqies Own Words
curtesy LittleGreenFootballs
saturday, october 15, 2005
"This Vote Was a Great Blow to the Terrorists"
Iraqi reader Haider Ajina emailed the following note about the Iraqi referendum on their new constitution:
Greetings All,
It seems that a larger percentage of Iraqis voted the constitutional ballot than in the election of January. 65-70%+ are the early numbers. I spoke to my father last night about 8am his time in Nejaf and he said he was going to go vote at 9am. I did not get a hold of my Grand mother and cousins the lines to Baghdad were busy. I called my father gain around 9am my time. He said he had voted (yes for the constitution) and that the turnout was strong and matters were calm. Security in Nejaf was very good indeed he said. There are a number of neighborhood watches and Iraqi security patrols. He has not seen American soldiers patrolling the street in Nejaf for weeks now. His voice was strong and very very happy almost giddy I would say. This vote alone was a great blow to the terrorists in Iraq. This was a great step towards a solid democracy in Iraq. The constitution now guarantees Iraqi’s rights and protects them from their government. The rule of law will prevail stronger now. I no longer fear for my Iraqi family from their government. They now truly hold their destiny in their hands, and they can plan for their future. The security issues are being dealt with on a daily basis and progress in Iraq is measurable and evident. Again the Ajinas in California and in Iraq owe a great thank you to the men and women of the USA (military & civilians) who are making all of this possible. Thank you for all your sacrifices, all your hard work, and your tenacity and vision and thank you for a bright future.
Regards Haider Ajina
saturday, october 15, 2005
"This Vote Was a Great Blow to the Terrorists"
Iraqi reader Haider Ajina emailed the following note about the Iraqi referendum on their new constitution:
Greetings All,
It seems that a larger percentage of Iraqis voted the constitutional ballot than in the election of January. 65-70%+ are the early numbers. I spoke to my father last night about 8am his time in Nejaf and he said he was going to go vote at 9am. I did not get a hold of my Grand mother and cousins the lines to Baghdad were busy. I called my father gain around 9am my time. He said he had voted (yes for the constitution) and that the turnout was strong and matters were calm. Security in Nejaf was very good indeed he said. There are a number of neighborhood watches and Iraqi security patrols. He has not seen American soldiers patrolling the street in Nejaf for weeks now. His voice was strong and very very happy almost giddy I would say. This vote alone was a great blow to the terrorists in Iraq. This was a great step towards a solid democracy in Iraq. The constitution now guarantees Iraqi’s rights and protects them from their government. The rule of law will prevail stronger now. I no longer fear for my Iraqi family from their government. They now truly hold their destiny in their hands, and they can plan for their future. The security issues are being dealt with on a daily basis and progress in Iraq is measurable and evident. Again the Ajinas in California and in Iraq owe a great thank you to the men and women of the USA (military & civilians) who are making all of this possible. Thank you for all your sacrifices, all your hard work, and your tenacity and vision and thank you for a bright future.
Regards Haider Ajina
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade "Supported by The People"
Death Cult Child Abuse
The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Mahmoud Abbas’ death squad, tried to bully a 14-year old boy into committing mass murder: Would-Be Bomber, 14, Caught by Israelis.
In another raid, the army arrested a 14-year-old Palestinian boy who told his interrogators that militants from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades — which has ties to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah movement — pressured him to carry out a suicide bombing after he quarreled with his father.
Militant groups have increasingly turned to youths to carry out attacks in recent years, hoping the army would be less suspicious of them. The boy, identified by militants and his parents as Salah al Jitan, would have been one of the youngest Palestinian suicide bombers.
Salah’s parents, who confirmed their son is 14, said that after they quarreled with him about a month ago, five armed Al-Aqsa militants came to their house to tell them to leave the boy alone. Last week, they came again, this time to take him away for a suicide bombing, said his father, Moussa al Jitan.
The father said Salah did not want to go, adding that he would not let them take him. The teenager did not leave the house until Israeli forces arrested him Monday, a move his parents welcomed. “Good, he will be in jail. That’s better than dying,” said Sariel al Jitan, his mother.
The teenager said the militants threatened to kill him and tell everyone he was a collaborator with Israel if he didn’t carry out the attack, the army said.
Jamal Tirawi, an Al-Aqsa commander the army accused of recruiting the boy, said the account was “a lie.”
Tirawi said Salah was 17 and approached the group to volunteer to carry out an attack. Al-Aqsa refused because he is the only son in his family, Tirawi said. “The boy is lying, and the Israelis are lying,” he said.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Mahmoud Abbas’ death squad, tried to bully a 14-year old boy into committing mass murder: Would-Be Bomber, 14, Caught by Israelis.
In another raid, the army arrested a 14-year-old Palestinian boy who told his interrogators that militants from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades — which has ties to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah movement — pressured him to carry out a suicide bombing after he quarreled with his father.
Militant groups have increasingly turned to youths to carry out attacks in recent years, hoping the army would be less suspicious of them. The boy, identified by militants and his parents as Salah al Jitan, would have been one of the youngest Palestinian suicide bombers.
Salah’s parents, who confirmed their son is 14, said that after they quarreled with him about a month ago, five armed Al-Aqsa militants came to their house to tell them to leave the boy alone. Last week, they came again, this time to take him away for a suicide bombing, said his father, Moussa al Jitan.
The father said Salah did not want to go, adding that he would not let them take him. The teenager did not leave the house until Israeli forces arrested him Monday, a move his parents welcomed. “Good, he will be in jail. That’s better than dying,” said Sariel al Jitan, his mother.
The teenager said the militants threatened to kill him and tell everyone he was a collaborator with Israel if he didn’t carry out the attack, the army said.
Jamal Tirawi, an Al-Aqsa commander the army accused of recruiting the boy, said the account was “a lie.”
Tirawi said Salah was 17 and approached the group to volunteer to carry out an attack. Al-Aqsa refused because he is the only son in his family, Tirawi said. “The boy is lying, and the Israelis are lying,” he said.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Why I Hate Unions Especially Teachers Unions
Post Curtesy Frontpage Mags David Horowitz
The union oppressors of the poor and the vulnerable: - Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:39 PM
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the biggest special interests thwarting and distorting the democratic election process are government unions. As you will see in the letter below in California alone, the teachers union alone is putting $100 million into an election campaign to defeat Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives.
The teachers union is an exploiter of California school children and the biggest obstacle to needed reform in the California school system. Let me put that more clearly. The California teachers union is a racist organization that is destroying the life chances of millions of poor black and Hispanic children whom its members every year fail to teach the rudiments of reading, writing and arithmetic, denying them a shot at the American dream.
In Los Angeles County alone there are more than 300,000 poor black and Hispanic children in K-12 schools who are failing to pass whatever grade they are in. In other words they are being taught nothing. But they are being formally passed because the school system promotes them anyway -- thus committing two evils at the same time: first we don't teach you anything; then we lie to you and your parents and pretend we do. Efforts to hold teachers accountable for their failures (and reward teachers who are successful at raising their students' test scores) have been relentlessly thwarted over many generations by the teacher unions who represent their members at the expense of the children.
And they do all their political damage -- $100 million worth this year -- without the consent of their members. There are a lot of good teachers out there. But the union supports a system where good teachers get paid the same as the bad teachers who should be fired, but who have lifetime jobs that no one can remove them from.
The teacher union taxes its members without their consent. It elects the school board that pays its salaries. It forces the school board to collect its dues right out of the teachers' paychecks. It is a mini-totalitarian state that is run by rabid leftists whose last interest is the chlidren and whose first interest is themselves.
Schwarzenegger has roused the ire of the union radicals by proposing to force them to get approval from their members for the political taxes it lifts from their pockets ($300 a head). He has further angered them by asking that teachers not have lifetime jobs after a two-year trial period (where no one is watching them anyway). Arnold's proposal is modest. Wait five years and then get tenure. But why should they get tenure at all?
Why do teachers have lifetime jobs? Lifetime jobs for teachers (and guaranteed salary raises no matter how badly they teach, no matter how lazy they are) is an outrage. Of course you'll never read this in the LA Times or any metropolitan newspaper in America.) Because the teacher unions are the dominant force in the Democratic Party and thus part of the power structure in all major inner cities in America. They control the school boards that preside over the corrupt, failing school systems that are destroying the life chances of millions of poor black and Hispanic children every single day. They are the principal special interest electing the Democratic city councils in every major inner city in America today. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America that policy can affect, Democrats, leftists and organizations like the teacher unions are responsible for. They have their boot heels on the necks of the powerless, and the poor, and the most vulnerable minorities.
In California, Governor Schwarzenegger has given citizens of the state a chance to oppose these exploiters and oppressors of our minority youth in the November election. Don't miss the opportunity to do a good deed.
From the Desk of:Lillian Perry, Fontana Teacher
From the Desk of:Larry Sand, Los Angeles Teacher
October 12, 2005 Dear California Teacher: We are also California teachers and are writing to you because we're concerned about what the leaders of our union, the California Teachers Association (CTA), are doing to our union and with our hard earned dollars that we send to them in Sacramento every month. Here's the bottom line: Our current leadership is on the verge of bankrupting the CTA to fund a political agenda that many of us do not support. Every year, union leaders in Sacramento take more than $100 million dollars from California teachers' paychecks. This is approximately $300 per teacher per year . Much of this is used to fund a political agenda over which individual teachers have little control. Even worse, this is taken from our paychecks without our permission. Earlier this year, the CTA leadership decided it still didn't have enough money to spend on politics, so the union leadership decided to take an additional $60 each year from our paychecks for the next three years . This forced assessment gave the union leaders an additional $50 million or more of our money for their political agenda. According to court documents filed last week, the CTA has at least $34 million in outstanding loans. Now, these same union leaders are trying to borrow ANOTHER $40 million through a line of credit. When will enough be enough? Where has the money gone? To dozens of consultants and political firms (getting paid millions of dollars), pollsters, television and radio advertising, direct mail firms and the list goes on and on. Much of this "Sacramento slush fund" has been used to oppose Prop. 75 - a very simple measure that says the CTA must ask our permission before political campaign funds are taken from our paychecks. Why would CTA be so opposed, and spend tens of millions of dollars, to having to ask our permission? Could it be that union leadership is concerned that we might not agree with their political agenda - like spending millions to qualify a measure that would have raised property taxes and millions more for measures that have nothing to do with education ? Proposition 75 will give teachers a choice, a voice and a say. It will bring accountability to the CTA. Please read the measure for your self. If you agree with us, please join us in voting "YES" on Proposition 75. Prop. 75 is about union democracy, a voice for teachers and guaranteeing us the right to choose how our money is spent. Visit www.organizenotpolitics.org to learn more. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Entry from David's Blog - http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/
The union oppressors of the poor and the vulnerable: - Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:39 PM
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the biggest special interests thwarting and distorting the democratic election process are government unions. As you will see in the letter below in California alone, the teachers union alone is putting $100 million into an election campaign to defeat Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives.
The teachers union is an exploiter of California school children and the biggest obstacle to needed reform in the California school system. Let me put that more clearly. The California teachers union is a racist organization that is destroying the life chances of millions of poor black and Hispanic children whom its members every year fail to teach the rudiments of reading, writing and arithmetic, denying them a shot at the American dream.
In Los Angeles County alone there are more than 300,000 poor black and Hispanic children in K-12 schools who are failing to pass whatever grade they are in. In other words they are being taught nothing. But they are being formally passed because the school system promotes them anyway -- thus committing two evils at the same time: first we don't teach you anything; then we lie to you and your parents and pretend we do. Efforts to hold teachers accountable for their failures (and reward teachers who are successful at raising their students' test scores) have been relentlessly thwarted over many generations by the teacher unions who represent their members at the expense of the children.
And they do all their political damage -- $100 million worth this year -- without the consent of their members. There are a lot of good teachers out there. But the union supports a system where good teachers get paid the same as the bad teachers who should be fired, but who have lifetime jobs that no one can remove them from.
The teacher union taxes its members without their consent. It elects the school board that pays its salaries. It forces the school board to collect its dues right out of the teachers' paychecks. It is a mini-totalitarian state that is run by rabid leftists whose last interest is the chlidren and whose first interest is themselves.
Schwarzenegger has roused the ire of the union radicals by proposing to force them to get approval from their members for the political taxes it lifts from their pockets ($300 a head). He has further angered them by asking that teachers not have lifetime jobs after a two-year trial period (where no one is watching them anyway). Arnold's proposal is modest. Wait five years and then get tenure. But why should they get tenure at all?
Why do teachers have lifetime jobs? Lifetime jobs for teachers (and guaranteed salary raises no matter how badly they teach, no matter how lazy they are) is an outrage. Of course you'll never read this in the LA Times or any metropolitan newspaper in America.) Because the teacher unions are the dominant force in the Democratic Party and thus part of the power structure in all major inner cities in America. They control the school boards that preside over the corrupt, failing school systems that are destroying the life chances of millions of poor black and Hispanic children every single day. They are the principal special interest electing the Democratic city councils in every major inner city in America today. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America that policy can affect, Democrats, leftists and organizations like the teacher unions are responsible for. They have their boot heels on the necks of the powerless, and the poor, and the most vulnerable minorities.
In California, Governor Schwarzenegger has given citizens of the state a chance to oppose these exploiters and oppressors of our minority youth in the November election. Don't miss the opportunity to do a good deed.
From the Desk of:Lillian Perry, Fontana Teacher
From the Desk of:Larry Sand, Los Angeles Teacher
October 12, 2005 Dear California Teacher: We are also California teachers and are writing to you because we're concerned about what the leaders of our union, the California Teachers Association (CTA), are doing to our union and with our hard earned dollars that we send to them in Sacramento every month. Here's the bottom line: Our current leadership is on the verge of bankrupting the CTA to fund a political agenda that many of us do not support. Every year, union leaders in Sacramento take more than $100 million dollars from California teachers' paychecks. This is approximately $300 per teacher per year . Much of this is used to fund a political agenda over which individual teachers have little control. Even worse, this is taken from our paychecks without our permission. Earlier this year, the CTA leadership decided it still didn't have enough money to spend on politics, so the union leadership decided to take an additional $60 each year from our paychecks for the next three years . This forced assessment gave the union leaders an additional $50 million or more of our money for their political agenda. According to court documents filed last week, the CTA has at least $34 million in outstanding loans. Now, these same union leaders are trying to borrow ANOTHER $40 million through a line of credit. When will enough be enough? Where has the money gone? To dozens of consultants and political firms (getting paid millions of dollars), pollsters, television and radio advertising, direct mail firms and the list goes on and on. Much of this "Sacramento slush fund" has been used to oppose Prop. 75 - a very simple measure that says the CTA must ask our permission before political campaign funds are taken from our paychecks. Why would CTA be so opposed, and spend tens of millions of dollars, to having to ask our permission? Could it be that union leadership is concerned that we might not agree with their political agenda - like spending millions to qualify a measure that would have raised property taxes and millions more for measures that have nothing to do with education ? Proposition 75 will give teachers a choice, a voice and a say. It will bring accountability to the CTA. Please read the measure for your self. If you agree with us, please join us in voting "YES" on Proposition 75. Prop. 75 is about union democracy, a voice for teachers and guaranteeing us the right to choose how our money is spent. Visit www.organizenotpolitics.org to learn more. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Entry from David's Blog - http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/
Great Post From David Horowitz about Crazy Louie Farrahkahn
Black racism on the march -
Friday, October 14, 2005 4:17 PM
George Bush has appointed more blacks to higher positions of authority than any president in the history of the United States, and indeed has appointed balcks to higher positions of authority in this country than any comparable minority in any country in the history of the world. Yet an NBC poll this week reveals that only 2% of blacks "approve" the president's performance. Two percent! What could account for this failure of vision? Perhaps black Americans have been persuaded that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina that devasted the Gulf and also that only blacks died in the hurricance? And that all those whites who risked their own lives to rescue them were only a mirage. After all this is the impression conveyed by the leaders of the Democratic Party and the entire "liberal" media. Whereas the (ignored) truth is that if any individual is responsible for black deaths in New Orleans it is New Orleans black mayor Ray Nagin, who failed to evacuate his citizens even though the means, the time, and the warnings were all available to do so and it was his responsibility (and not George Bush's) to see that it was done.
This Saturday, as millions of Iraqis go to the polls to vote on the first democratic constitution in the history of the Arab Muslim world -- courtesy of George Bush -- millions of African Americans will be focused on a march in Washington led by a racist kook who has prolaimed that George Bush not Osama Bin Laden attacked America on 9/11 and followed up this feat by blowing up the levees that protected New Orleans in order, presumably, to drown its black citizens. What a disgrace this spectacle is. What a travesty this march. And the usual black leaders will be there to join Minister Farrakhan, including Al Sharpton, recent Democratic presidential candidate who has the blood of 8 lynch victims on his hands but is treated by all and sundry as a veritable statesman.
This is the last popular racism in America: The racism that blames whites for everything bad that happens to blacks and the racism that holds blacks accountable for nothing.
Friday, October 14, 2005 4:17 PM
George Bush has appointed more blacks to higher positions of authority than any president in the history of the United States, and indeed has appointed balcks to higher positions of authority in this country than any comparable minority in any country in the history of the world. Yet an NBC poll this week reveals that only 2% of blacks "approve" the president's performance. Two percent! What could account for this failure of vision? Perhaps black Americans have been persuaded that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina that devasted the Gulf and also that only blacks died in the hurricance? And that all those whites who risked their own lives to rescue them were only a mirage. After all this is the impression conveyed by the leaders of the Democratic Party and the entire "liberal" media. Whereas the (ignored) truth is that if any individual is responsible for black deaths in New Orleans it is New Orleans black mayor Ray Nagin, who failed to evacuate his citizens even though the means, the time, and the warnings were all available to do so and it was his responsibility (and not George Bush's) to see that it was done.
This Saturday, as millions of Iraqis go to the polls to vote on the first democratic constitution in the history of the Arab Muslim world -- courtesy of George Bush -- millions of African Americans will be focused on a march in Washington led by a racist kook who has prolaimed that George Bush not Osama Bin Laden attacked America on 9/11 and followed up this feat by blowing up the levees that protected New Orleans in order, presumably, to drown its black citizens. What a disgrace this spectacle is. What a travesty this march. And the usual black leaders will be there to join Minister Farrakhan, including Al Sharpton, recent Democratic presidential candidate who has the blood of 8 lynch victims on his hands but is treated by all and sundry as a veritable statesman.
This is the last popular racism in America: The racism that blames whites for everything bad that happens to blacks and the racism that holds blacks accountable for nothing.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
A Good Post from A Tangled Web ...David Vance
PARIS WORSE THAN ABU GHRAIB!
Who'd have guessed it - but PARIS has worse prison conditions than Abu Ghraib! Or at least that's what the European Council's commissioner for Human Rights reckons, describing conditions in the prison of France's most august court building as the worst he has ever seen. Alvaro Gil-Robles said the cells in the historic Palais de Justice in Paris were squalid and inhumane. Say it ain't so? Can we expect to see images of the squalid conditions in the Palais de Justice splashed all over our media? Or will this be hushed up and swept under the Euro-carpet?
Posted by DV on October 13, 2005 at 06:23 AM Permalink Comments (5) TrackBack (0)
Who'd have guessed it - but PARIS has worse prison conditions than Abu Ghraib! Or at least that's what the European Council's commissioner for Human Rights reckons, describing conditions in the prison of France's most august court building as the worst he has ever seen. Alvaro Gil-Robles said the cells in the historic Palais de Justice in Paris were squalid and inhumane. Say it ain't so? Can we expect to see images of the squalid conditions in the Palais de Justice splashed all over our media? Or will this be hushed up and swept under the Euro-carpet?
Posted by DV on October 13, 2005 at 06:23 AM Permalink Comments (5) TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Al Gore Is Still an ASS....curtesy Drudge
If he had won There woild be car-bombs exploding all over the Country
Gore Unleashed In Sweden: If I Were President 'We Would Not Be Routinely Torturing People... We Would Be A Different Country'... Oct 12, 4:24 PM (ET)
By MATTIAS KAREN
(AP) Former US Vice President Al Gore speaks at an economic forum in Stockholm, Sweden,Wednesday Oct....
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.
"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.
When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.
"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."
(AP) Former US Vice President Al Gore speaks at an economic forum in Stockholm, Sweden,Wednesday Oct....
Full Image
"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."
Gore did not elaborate. But last year, he blamed Bush administration policies for the inmate abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Mike Feldman, Gore's spokesman, did not immediately comment on Gore's remark when reached by phone in Washington.
Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called Gore's comments "fictitious rants that border on dangerous."
"To accuse Americans of participating in 'routine torture' is absurd and reveals that while Al Gore may no longer be a leader in his party, he still embodies the maniacal anger that guides Democrat leaders in Washington today," Schmitt wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Gore also reiterated his criticism that the Bush administration was too slow in responding to the crisis in New Orleans after the city's levees failed during Hurricane Katrina. He said that should have been predicted.
"There were specific warnings that the levees might break," he said. "But for whatever reason those warnings were not acted upon in a timely way."
He said the United States and other countries are similarly ignoring the threats that global warning pose to the environment.
"My country is extremely attentive to the slightest increase in a risk from terror, and that's appropriate," he said. "But why should we be so tolerant of risk where the future habitability of our planet is concerned?"
Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors.
"I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," Gore said.
He declined to comment on New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's possible run for the White House in 2008, but he said he believes the country is ready for a female president.
"Of course a woman could get elected president," he said. "I am not going to make any comment on individual candidates. It's quite premature."
---
Associated Press reporter Donna Cassata in Washington contributed to this report.
Gore Unleashed In Sweden: If I Were President 'We Would Not Be Routinely Torturing People... We Would Be A Different Country'... Oct 12, 4:24 PM (ET)
By MATTIAS KAREN
(AP) Former US Vice President Al Gore speaks at an economic forum in Stockholm, Sweden,Wednesday Oct....
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.
"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.
When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.
"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."
(AP) Former US Vice President Al Gore speaks at an economic forum in Stockholm, Sweden,Wednesday Oct....
Full Image
"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."
Gore did not elaborate. But last year, he blamed Bush administration policies for the inmate abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Mike Feldman, Gore's spokesman, did not immediately comment on Gore's remark when reached by phone in Washington.
Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called Gore's comments "fictitious rants that border on dangerous."
"To accuse Americans of participating in 'routine torture' is absurd and reveals that while Al Gore may no longer be a leader in his party, he still embodies the maniacal anger that guides Democrat leaders in Washington today," Schmitt wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Gore also reiterated his criticism that the Bush administration was too slow in responding to the crisis in New Orleans after the city's levees failed during Hurricane Katrina. He said that should have been predicted.
"There were specific warnings that the levees might break," he said. "But for whatever reason those warnings were not acted upon in a timely way."
He said the United States and other countries are similarly ignoring the threats that global warning pose to the environment.
"My country is extremely attentive to the slightest increase in a risk from terror, and that's appropriate," he said. "But why should we be so tolerant of risk where the future habitability of our planet is concerned?"
Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors.
"I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," Gore said.
He declined to comment on New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's possible run for the White House in 2008, but he said he believes the country is ready for a female president.
"Of course a woman could get elected president," he said. "I am not going to make any comment on individual candidates. It's quite premature."
---
Associated Press reporter Donna Cassata in Washington contributed to this report.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
A Question For the Blood thirsty Scumbag Islamofacists
Why is it the wrath of ALLAH when a hurricane kills 1600 people in the US but it's NOT the Wrath of ALLAH when 35,000 muslims are killed by an Earthquake?
MMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMM
The Benefits Of Bill Clintons TREASON
Chinese Crew Blasts Off for Space Mission
Oct 11 9:11 PM US/Eastern Email this story
By STEPHANIE HOOAssociated Press Writer
JIAYUGUAN, China
Two years after China became only the third nation to launch a human into orbit, a pair of astronauts blasted off Wednesday on a longer, riskier mission after receiving a farewell visit from Premier Wen Jiabao.
Wen said the "glorious and sacred mission" would demonstrate China's national confidence and ability.
A rocket carrying the Shenzhou 6 capsule and the astronauts blasted off Wednesday from the remote base in China's northwest. In a break with the space agency's typical secrecy, the launch was shown live on Chinese state television.
The mission, reportedly due to last up to five days, is a key prestige project for China's communist leaders, who have justified the expense of a manned space program by saying that it will drive economic development. It will be more complicated than the first flight in which carried one astronaut and lasted just 21 1/2 hours.
Oct 11 9:11 PM US/Eastern Email this story
By STEPHANIE HOOAssociated Press Writer
JIAYUGUAN, China
Two years after China became only the third nation to launch a human into orbit, a pair of astronauts blasted off Wednesday on a longer, riskier mission after receiving a farewell visit from Premier Wen Jiabao.
Wen said the "glorious and sacred mission" would demonstrate China's national confidence and ability.
A rocket carrying the Shenzhou 6 capsule and the astronauts blasted off Wednesday from the remote base in China's northwest. In a break with the space agency's typical secrecy, the launch was shown live on Chinese state television.
The mission, reportedly due to last up to five days, is a key prestige project for China's communist leaders, who have justified the expense of a manned space program by saying that it will drive economic development. It will be more complicated than the first flight in which carried one astronaut and lasted just 21 1/2 hours.
The News From Iraq
IRAQ THE MODEL
Sunday, October 09, 2005
The Arab League solving Iraq's problems? Yeah sure...
The league of Arab tyrants, er I mean countries has sent delegates to Iraq to prepare for the expected visit of the secretary general of the league Amr Mousa.The announced purpose of the Mousa’s visit is to arrange for a national “reconciliation” conference supposedly in order to bridge the gap between different factions of Iraqi community.However, Iraqi MP Jawad Al-Maliki the 2nd man in Jafari’s Dawa party said that news has leaked telling that Mousa put paying Saddam Hussein a visit in his jail on the schedule of his visit to Iraq.Al-Mailiki added that this visit to Saddam would aim at including Saddam and the Ba’ath in the “reconciliation” plan and Al-Maliki said that his bloc would probably be calling for a vote in the parliament to stop Mousa from coming to Iraq..!!While there’s no way to verify these claims I wouldn’t be shocked if it turned out to be true.I don’t know whose idea was it to invite the league into Iraq but it was a very dumb idea, that’s what I’m sure of; this league can do nothing good for Iraq and actually I’d prefer they leave us alone or even kick us out of their league of corruption and tyranny.Iraq now isn’t qualified to be a member of the league (in the league’s standards of qualifications; that’s being pan-Arab fascists ruled by a mentally retarded sociopath) and I hope we don’t get qualified at all.Can anyone tell me how are we supposed to believe that the ones who caused the trouble in the first place have the intention to help solve it now?I don’t think the league is the least sad about the bad things happening in Iraq, I actually can pictures them laughing and celebrating each and every death in Iraq and they keep pouring more doom and gloom into the scene as that is what they really want to see. And I have what supports this attitude; since April 2003 and even long time before that, all Arab regimes (except for Kuwait) stood against toppling Saddam, of course not out of care for the Iraqi people but out of fear from seeing the same scenario happen again in their countries. We have a saying here that goes like this “if you see your neighbor’s bear being shaved, spray water on yours”.The tyrant in Iraq built his hopes on the Arab methodology of supporting God-like-rulers and he invested Iraq’s resources in this effort.Perhaps you remember the corrupt contracts of the oil for food program with Arab countries like Egypt, Syria and Jordan where billions of dollars were wasted on items that weren’t worth one third the amounts written in those contracts.Saddam also hired the Arabic media to promote his regime and defend his position, and please I don’t want to hear anyone telling me that Arabic media is not biased; according to a research a read last week on the moderate Al-Sharq Al-Awsat it was found that 15 billion dollars are spent per year by the media while the incomes are just slightly above 1.5 billions!!So who’s covering the 13.5 billion dollar difference?Arabs have showed Iraq’s case to the public in a mutilated way and they sent murderers to kill us and recruited every terrorist against us and now comes the tyrants’ clown to say that he wants to help draw Iraq’s future. To hell with a future and a “reconciliation” planned by Mousa.
Posted by Omar
Sunday, October 09, 2005
The Arab League solving Iraq's problems? Yeah sure...
The league of Arab tyrants, er I mean countries has sent delegates to Iraq to prepare for the expected visit of the secretary general of the league Amr Mousa.The announced purpose of the Mousa’s visit is to arrange for a national “reconciliation” conference supposedly in order to bridge the gap between different factions of Iraqi community.However, Iraqi MP Jawad Al-Maliki the 2nd man in Jafari’s Dawa party said that news has leaked telling that Mousa put paying Saddam Hussein a visit in his jail on the schedule of his visit to Iraq.Al-Mailiki added that this visit to Saddam would aim at including Saddam and the Ba’ath in the “reconciliation” plan and Al-Maliki said that his bloc would probably be calling for a vote in the parliament to stop Mousa from coming to Iraq..!!While there’s no way to verify these claims I wouldn’t be shocked if it turned out to be true.I don’t know whose idea was it to invite the league into Iraq but it was a very dumb idea, that’s what I’m sure of; this league can do nothing good for Iraq and actually I’d prefer they leave us alone or even kick us out of their league of corruption and tyranny.Iraq now isn’t qualified to be a member of the league (in the league’s standards of qualifications; that’s being pan-Arab fascists ruled by a mentally retarded sociopath) and I hope we don’t get qualified at all.Can anyone tell me how are we supposed to believe that the ones who caused the trouble in the first place have the intention to help solve it now?I don’t think the league is the least sad about the bad things happening in Iraq, I actually can pictures them laughing and celebrating each and every death in Iraq and they keep pouring more doom and gloom into the scene as that is what they really want to see. And I have what supports this attitude; since April 2003 and even long time before that, all Arab regimes (except for Kuwait) stood against toppling Saddam, of course not out of care for the Iraqi people but out of fear from seeing the same scenario happen again in their countries. We have a saying here that goes like this “if you see your neighbor’s bear being shaved, spray water on yours”.The tyrant in Iraq built his hopes on the Arab methodology of supporting God-like-rulers and he invested Iraq’s resources in this effort.Perhaps you remember the corrupt contracts of the oil for food program with Arab countries like Egypt, Syria and Jordan where billions of dollars were wasted on items that weren’t worth one third the amounts written in those contracts.Saddam also hired the Arabic media to promote his regime and defend his position, and please I don’t want to hear anyone telling me that Arabic media is not biased; according to a research a read last week on the moderate Al-Sharq Al-Awsat it was found that 15 billion dollars are spent per year by the media while the incomes are just slightly above 1.5 billions!!So who’s covering the 13.5 billion dollar difference?Arabs have showed Iraq’s case to the public in a mutilated way and they sent murderers to kill us and recruited every terrorist against us and now comes the tyrants’ clown to say that he wants to help draw Iraq’s future. To hell with a future and a “reconciliation” planned by Mousa.
Posted by Omar
Another Great Cox & Forkum
Last Friday, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency and its head, Mohamed ElBaradei, won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. Iran Press News posted an AFP story stating that Iran fears an emboldened IAEA after Nobel prize. And today FoxNews reports that diplomats say Iran may compromise on nukes to avoid U.N. Security Council sanctions.
Besides seeking access to two military sites, the [IAEA] agency also wants to interview military officials thought to be associated with what Iran calls a purely civilian nuclear program. ...
Iran strongly denies assertions from the United States and its allies that its nuclear program is a cover for a weapons program or that its military is involved in atomic activities.
But is there any reason to believe this isn't more of Iran's "cheat and retreat" delay tactics? No. In fact, other news last week indicates there is even more reason for concern. The Washington Times reported that, contrary to public statements by the regime, the Iranian military has effectively taken control of nuclear program.
Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has placed the military firmly in control of his nation's nuclear program, undercutting his government's claim that the program is intended for civilian use, according to a leading opposition group.
Leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the force created specifically to defend the 1979 Islamic revolution, now dominate Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's top foreign policy-making body under the constitution.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, a little-known former mayor of Tehran before his surprise election in July, is a former IRGC commander, as is new council Secretary-General Ali Larijani, who has taken the lead in negotiations about Iran's nuclear programs.
Revolutionary Guard commanders also have taken charge of the council's internal security, strategy and political posts, according to a report issued by the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran. A Revolutionary Guard veteran even serves as the council's press spokesman.
The simply fact is Iran cannot reconcile a "purely civilian nuclear program" with its weekly calls for "Death to America!"
Posted by Forkum at 05:29 PM / Permalink
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Psycho Liberal Wants to Cut Space Program
I was watchinmg Forbes on Fox the other morning and they were talking about where to get money to pay for the poor idiots that built there town below sea level. When this stupid Woman Leah Goldman said "Well NASA is 40 billion over the next couple of years just cut that waste of money" This psycho bitch ought to be drawn an quartered. NASA is the only part of the Government that has ever helped with the advancement of this country and Mankind, and this looney would cut it.
Just my Opinion
The Troll
Just my Opinion
The Troll
NEW Vomit Comet Vacations
NOW THATS A VACATION
October 8, 2005
Zero-gravity tourists head to KSC
BY CHRIS KRIDLER FLORIDA TODAY
Modified Boeing 727 is used for flights. Zero G image. Enlarge this image
Zero-G's flights
Main airport: Fort Lauderdale; a Nov. 20 flight is scheduled for Titusville Plane: Modified Boeing 727-200 Altitude of maneuvers: 24,000 to 34,000 feet Number of parabolas per flight: About 15 Time weightless per maneuver: 25 to 30 secondsCost per flight: $3,750 plus tax Online: http://www.nogravity.com/
CAPE CANAVERAL - Teachers will experience the weightlessness of space in a weekend of parabolic flights from Kennedy Space Center during a pilot program that could bring commercial flights to the shuttle landing strip.
Zero-G's proposal was one of a handful of responses to KSC's request for ideas on using the landing facility. NASA made the announcement Friday.
"We're hoping this will lead to a regular thing," Zero-G spokesman Noah McMahon said. "We would actually love to be a permanent resident at the Kennedy Space Center."
The list of teachers who will be flying Nov. 5-6 is not complete. They will conduct experiments on the four planned flights and take inspiration back to their classrooms, McMahon said.
NASA also is negotiating with other organizations that submitted proposals to use the Shuttle Landing Facility, said Jim Ball, spaceport development manager at KSC.
For now, the agency is trying to demonstrate that it's possible to open its facilities to non-NASA users, he said.
The NASA spaceships that come after the shuttles won't use the runway. They are expected to land using parachutes, probably in California.
Zero Gravity Corp. mostly flies out of its Fort Lauderdale headquarters but has a Nov. 20 flight scheduled from Titusville. A flight costs $3,750 and creates short periods of lunar gravity, Martian gravity and zero gravity during a series of bell-curve-shaped ascents and descents.
Contact Kridler at 242-3633 or ckridler@flatoday.net
October 8, 2005
Zero-gravity tourists head to KSC
BY CHRIS KRIDLER FLORIDA TODAY
Modified Boeing 727 is used for flights. Zero G image. Enlarge this image
Zero-G's flights
Main airport: Fort Lauderdale; a Nov. 20 flight is scheduled for Titusville Plane: Modified Boeing 727-200 Altitude of maneuvers: 24,000 to 34,000 feet Number of parabolas per flight: About 15 Time weightless per maneuver: 25 to 30 secondsCost per flight: $3,750 plus tax Online: http://www.nogravity.com/
CAPE CANAVERAL - Teachers will experience the weightlessness of space in a weekend of parabolic flights from Kennedy Space Center during a pilot program that could bring commercial flights to the shuttle landing strip.
Zero-G's proposal was one of a handful of responses to KSC's request for ideas on using the landing facility. NASA made the announcement Friday.
"We're hoping this will lead to a regular thing," Zero-G spokesman Noah McMahon said. "We would actually love to be a permanent resident at the Kennedy Space Center."
The list of teachers who will be flying Nov. 5-6 is not complete. They will conduct experiments on the four planned flights and take inspiration back to their classrooms, McMahon said.
NASA also is negotiating with other organizations that submitted proposals to use the Shuttle Landing Facility, said Jim Ball, spaceport development manager at KSC.
For now, the agency is trying to demonstrate that it's possible to open its facilities to non-NASA users, he said.
The NASA spaceships that come after the shuttles won't use the runway. They are expected to land using parachutes, probably in California.
Zero Gravity Corp. mostly flies out of its Fort Lauderdale headquarters but has a Nov. 20 flight scheduled from Titusville. A flight costs $3,750 and creates short periods of lunar gravity, Martian gravity and zero gravity during a series of bell-curve-shaped ascents and descents.
Contact Kridler at 242-3633 or ckridler@flatoday.net
Freeh Tells Clinton Administration Fuck You with his new Book
FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: CLINTON WAS A PROBLEM ; 'CLOSETS WERE FULL OF SKELETONS' Thu Oct 06 2005 14:07:50 ETLouis Freeh Speaks for the First Time About his Terrible Relationship with the PresidentFormer FBI Director Louis J. Freeh says publicly for the first time that his relationship with President Bill Clinton ? the man who appointed him ? was a terrible one because Clinton?s scandals made him a constant target of FBI investigations. Freeh discloses this and many other details of his dealings with the Clinton White House in a new bombshell book 'My FBI : Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror' -- ste for release next week.Freeh has taped an interview with Mike Wallace and CBSNEWS '60 MINUTES' to be broadcast Sunday, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.MOREIn the book, ?My FBI,? he writes, ?The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.?The director sought to distance himself from Clinton because of Whitewater, refusing a White House pass that would have enabled him to enter the building without signing in. This irked Clinton. ?I wanted all my visits to be official,? says Freeh. ?When I sent the pass back with a note, I had no idea it would antagonize the president,? he tells Wallace.Returning the pass was only the start of the rift. Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as ?that F?ing Freeh.? Says Freeh, ?I don?t know how they referred to me and I really didn?t care,? he says. ?My role and my obligation was to conduct criminal investigations. He, unfortunately for the country and unfortunately for him, happened to be the subject of that investigation,? Freeh says. In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody ? the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, ?Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis? reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.? Says Freeh, ?That?s a fact that I am reporting.? The most unsavory of those investigations was the one concerning Clinton and Lewinsky. The White House intern had kept a semen-stained dress as proof of her relationship and a Clinton blood sample was needed to match the DNA on the dress. ?Well, it was like a bad movie and it was ridiculous that?Ken Starr and myself, the director of the FBI, find ourselves in that ridiculous position,? he tells Wallace. ?But we did it?very carefully, very confidentially,? recalls Freeh. As he explains the plan in the book, Clinton was at a scheduled dinner and excused himself to go to the bathroom. Instead of the restroom, he entered another room where FBI medical technicians were waiting to take a blood sample.Freeh says he was determined to stay on as FBI director until President Clinton left office so that Clinton could not appoint his successor. ?I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director,? he tells Wallace. ?[So] I was going to stay there and make sure he couldn?t replace me,? Freeh tells Wallace.
The Cartoon Says it All
From AFP: Islam permits killing of 'infidel’ civilians: Zarqawi tape (via Jihad Watch).
DUBAI -- Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has said Islam permits the killing of "infidel" civilians, according to an audiotape broadcast on the Internet early Saturday.
"In Islam, making the difference is not based on civilians and military, but on the basis of Muslims and infidels," said the voice attributed to the fugitive leader who has a 25-million-dollar price on his head.
"The Muslim's blood cannot be spilled whatever his work or place, while spilling the blood of the infidel, whatever his work or place, is authorized if he is not trustworthy," said the tape, whose veracity could not be determined.
The recording comes a day after US officials claimed to have seized a letter allegedly sent to Zarqawi by Al Qaeda number two Ayman Zawahiri, in which he raised concerns over the impact on Arab opinion of videotaped executions.
Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born Islamist extremist, is Iraq's most wanted man.
His Al Qaeda Group of Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers has claimed responsibility for some of the most gruesome attacks in Iraq, including the beheadings of foreign hostages and Iraqis.
Posted by Forkum at 05:19 PM / Permalink
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Tell Me Somthing I Didn't Know
| You are a Social Moderate (55% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (76% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Another Good One from Cox & Forkum
This cartoon was originally posted on Feb. 8 when the story first broke.
Here's the latest from The New York Sun: Senate Will Probe Saudi Distribution Of Hate Materials.
The American government is demanding that Saudi Arabia account for its distribution of hate material to American mosques, as the State Department pressed Saudi officials for answers last week and as the Senate later this month plans to investigate the propagation of radical Wahhabism on American shores.
The flurry of activity comes months after a report from the Center for Religious Freedom discovered that dozens of mosques in major cities across the country, including New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, were distributing documents, bearing the seal of the government of Saudi Arabia, that incite Muslims to acts of violence and promote hatred of Jews and Christians.
Via Charles Johnson who has more information in this post.
Posted by Forkum at 10:12 PM / Permalink
An Interesting Case
I dont agree with what the Blogger was saying or his use of the medium, but I agree with the higher courts ruling
Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous BloggerOct 06 1:02 PM US/Eastern
By RANDALL CHASEAssociated Press Writer
DOVER, Del.
In a decision hailed by free-speech advocates, the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision requiring an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who targeted a local elected official.
In a 34-page opinion, the justices said a Superior Court judge should have required Smyrna town councilman Patrick Cahill to make a stronger case that he and his wife, Julia, had been defamed before ordering Comcast Cable Communications to disclose the identities of four anonymous posters to a blog site operated by Independent Newspapers Inc., publisher of the Delaware State News.
In a series of obscenity-laced tirades, the bloggers, among other things, pointed to Cahill's "obvious mental deterioration," and made several sexual references about him and his wife, including using the name "Gahill" to suggest that Cahill, who has publicly feuded with Smyrna Mayor Mark Schaeffer, is homosexual.
In June, the lower court judge ruled that the Cahills had established a "good faith basis" for contending that they were victims of defamation and affirmed a previous order for Comcast to disclose the bloggers' identities.
One of the bloggers, referred to in court papers only as John Doe No. 1 and his blog name, "Proud Citizen," challenged the ruling, arguing that the Cahills should have been required to establish a prima facie case of defamation before seeking disclosure of the defendants' identities.
The Supreme Court agreed, reversing and remanding the case to Superior Court with an order to dismiss the Cahills' claims.
"Because the trial judge applied a standard insufficiently protective of Doe's First Amendment right to speak anonymously, we reverse that judgment," Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote.
Steele described the Internet as a "unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before," and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming defamation should be required to provide sufficient evidence to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment before a court orders the disclosure of a blogger's identity.
"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," Steele wrote. "The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all."
The standard adopted by the court, the first state Supreme Court in the country to consider the issue, is based on a 2000 New Jersey court ruling.
Under the standard adopted by the Supreme Court, a plaintiff must first try to notify the anonymous poster that he is the subject of subpoena or request for a court to disclose his identity, allowing the poster time to oppose the request. The plaintiff would then have to provide prima facie evidence of defamation strong enough to overcome a summary judgment motion.
"The decision of the Supreme Court helps provide protection for anonymous bloggers and anonymous speakers in general from lawsuits which have little or no merit and are filed solely to intimidate the speaker or suppress the speech," said David Finger, a Wilmington attorney representing John Doe No. 1.
"Delaware cases are generally respected in other states, and we'll have to see if this trend continues with these types of lawsuits, but I expect the decision of the Delaware Supreme Court to be influential," Finger added.
Robert Katzenstein, a lawyer representing the Cahills, did not immediately return a telephone message left at his home.
"This is the first state Supreme Court to squarely decide the standards to govern John Doe subpoena cases," said Paul Alan Levy, an attorney for Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, who helped argue the case for John Doe No. 1. "The court's determination to require sufficient evidence before a critic is outed will go a long way toward reassuring citizens that they remain free to anonymously criticize public officials."
Steele noted in his opinion that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and "generally set the record straight," and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
"Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning," he wrote.
Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous BloggerOct 06 1:02 PM US/Eastern
By RANDALL CHASEAssociated Press Writer
DOVER, Del.
In a decision hailed by free-speech advocates, the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision requiring an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who targeted a local elected official.
In a 34-page opinion, the justices said a Superior Court judge should have required Smyrna town councilman Patrick Cahill to make a stronger case that he and his wife, Julia, had been defamed before ordering Comcast Cable Communications to disclose the identities of four anonymous posters to a blog site operated by Independent Newspapers Inc., publisher of the Delaware State News.
In a series of obscenity-laced tirades, the bloggers, among other things, pointed to Cahill's "obvious mental deterioration," and made several sexual references about him and his wife, including using the name "Gahill" to suggest that Cahill, who has publicly feuded with Smyrna Mayor Mark Schaeffer, is homosexual.
In June, the lower court judge ruled that the Cahills had established a "good faith basis" for contending that they were victims of defamation and affirmed a previous order for Comcast to disclose the bloggers' identities.
One of the bloggers, referred to in court papers only as John Doe No. 1 and his blog name, "Proud Citizen," challenged the ruling, arguing that the Cahills should have been required to establish a prima facie case of defamation before seeking disclosure of the defendants' identities.
The Supreme Court agreed, reversing and remanding the case to Superior Court with an order to dismiss the Cahills' claims.
"Because the trial judge applied a standard insufficiently protective of Doe's First Amendment right to speak anonymously, we reverse that judgment," Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote.
Steele described the Internet as a "unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before," and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming defamation should be required to provide sufficient evidence to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment before a court orders the disclosure of a blogger's identity.
"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," Steele wrote. "The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all."
The standard adopted by the court, the first state Supreme Court in the country to consider the issue, is based on a 2000 New Jersey court ruling.
Under the standard adopted by the Supreme Court, a plaintiff must first try to notify the anonymous poster that he is the subject of subpoena or request for a court to disclose his identity, allowing the poster time to oppose the request. The plaintiff would then have to provide prima facie evidence of defamation strong enough to overcome a summary judgment motion.
"The decision of the Supreme Court helps provide protection for anonymous bloggers and anonymous speakers in general from lawsuits which have little or no merit and are filed solely to intimidate the speaker or suppress the speech," said David Finger, a Wilmington attorney representing John Doe No. 1.
"Delaware cases are generally respected in other states, and we'll have to see if this trend continues with these types of lawsuits, but I expect the decision of the Delaware Supreme Court to be influential," Finger added.
Robert Katzenstein, a lawyer representing the Cahills, did not immediately return a telephone message left at his home.
"This is the first state Supreme Court to squarely decide the standards to govern John Doe subpoena cases," said Paul Alan Levy, an attorney for Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, who helped argue the case for John Doe No. 1. "The court's determination to require sufficient evidence before a critic is outed will go a long way toward reassuring citizens that they remain free to anonymously criticize public officials."
Steele noted in his opinion that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and "generally set the record straight," and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
"Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning," he wrote.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Great Article by David Vance of A Tangled Web
The Blair Doctrine
By David Vance
Published
10/04/2005
"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." -- Lord Palmerston, 19th century British politician.
It's hard to imagine that the British government, a stalwart friend of the United States in the war on terror, could actually be conspiring with Europe's largest terrorist organization to subvert democracy in a part of the United Kingdom. It's even more bizarre to contemplate that a terror group which has killed thousands of innocent people is now being presented to the world as harbingers of peace.
Yet that is exactly what is happening as British Prime Minister Tony Blair helps sell the idea that the Irish Republican Army (IRA) has abandoned violence in pursuance of democratic politics. In fact, the IRA has clearly stated it will not disband its terror infrastructure and instead will continue to expand its lucrative criminal empire. The funds from these illicit activities will assist it in growing its political wing, Sinn Fein, which in turn seeks to seize control of the government of both Ireland and Northern Ireland. In essence this is a terrorist driven insurrection which Blair is patently not only appeasing but arguably colluding with.
It is useful to understand why Blair behaves in this fashion, as it seems so at odds with his stance over Afghanistan and Iraq. The answer is summarized in the expression that "Britain does not have friends, only interests." Over the decades an IRA campaign of terror waged on the British citizens of Northern Ireland. This cost was considered tolerable when directed against the loyal British citizens of Northern Ireland but when the IRA hit upon the idea of bombing the commercial centers of major cities like London and Manchester, instead of confronting the terrorists the government resorted to type and embarked on a comprehensive policy of appeasing them. The name given to this despicable cowardice was "the Irish peace process" and it was championed by the likes of the EU, UN and of course US President Bill Clinton.
The deal was simple. The IRA promised to stop attacking UK cities, to stop slaughtering British soldiers. It was permitted to retain its weapons and was allowed to kill and maim at will within the Roman Catholic community, whilst its political apologists in Sinn Fein gained maximum political leverage. It was peace, but not as we knew it.
But then, at 8:45 a.m. on September 11, 2001, the IRA was effectively decommissioned as a result of Al Qaida attacking the United States. Suddenly all terrorist groups of global outreach around the world were faced with the sudden reality that they either ceased their bombings and shootings or faced the wrath of the energized American administration. In effect, the IRA has spent the time since that dreadful day developing a strategy of wringing endless concessions from the craven UK government in exchange for publicly acknowledging the obvious -- namely that its illegal armaments were as redundant as the reasons for using them.
Now, four years on, the IRA has decided to admit that it cannot use its own weapons. It has agreed to this on the basis that the British government allows it to retain its toxic criminal empire, that it can police its own areas, and that it will have its proxies placed in the government of Northern Ireland. It's accepted a make over for a British political roll-over. Plus ça change.
What is worse is that the British government and the MSM is now doing the propagandizing for this terrorist group. They present the false impression that the IRA has chosen the path of peace and has finally decided to commit itself to democratic politics. They are mute about the fact that the IRA seeks to retain its entire paramilitary structure, they obfuscate the fact that the IRA has dramatically expanded its criminal empire culminating in the UK's biggest bank robbery in December of 2004. They ignore the fact that the IRA terrorists swagger around Northern Ireland considering themselves beyond the reach of the law. In fact, these hooded thugs believe that they are the law. That's how degraded society becomes when government adopts the philosophy of seeing, hearing and speaking no evil as a policy directive.
In Northern Ireland, the British government is now demanding that democratic politicians sit down and share power with the delegates of unreconstructed terrorism. This is conveyed as reasonableness incarnate. But if Blair considers this to be so very reasonable today how we can be sure that tomorrow he will not also consider it reasonable to bring the representatives of Jihad terrorism into the British government? How can a politician who makes a distinction between "good" and "bad" terrorists offer any form of effective leadership in the war against terror?
The Bush doctrine has been about putting terrorists on notice that we will hunt them down and bring them to justice, wherever they may be found. The Blair doctrine appears to be telling selected terrorists that justice can be set aside and means found to appease them.
The author is a Belfast based freelance writer. Find more of his writing here.
By David Vance
Published
10/04/2005
"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." -- Lord Palmerston, 19th century British politician.
It's hard to imagine that the British government, a stalwart friend of the United States in the war on terror, could actually be conspiring with Europe's largest terrorist organization to subvert democracy in a part of the United Kingdom. It's even more bizarre to contemplate that a terror group which has killed thousands of innocent people is now being presented to the world as harbingers of peace.
Yet that is exactly what is happening as British Prime Minister Tony Blair helps sell the idea that the Irish Republican Army (IRA) has abandoned violence in pursuance of democratic politics. In fact, the IRA has clearly stated it will not disband its terror infrastructure and instead will continue to expand its lucrative criminal empire. The funds from these illicit activities will assist it in growing its political wing, Sinn Fein, which in turn seeks to seize control of the government of both Ireland and Northern Ireland. In essence this is a terrorist driven insurrection which Blair is patently not only appeasing but arguably colluding with.
It is useful to understand why Blair behaves in this fashion, as it seems so at odds with his stance over Afghanistan and Iraq. The answer is summarized in the expression that "Britain does not have friends, only interests." Over the decades an IRA campaign of terror waged on the British citizens of Northern Ireland. This cost was considered tolerable when directed against the loyal British citizens of Northern Ireland but when the IRA hit upon the idea of bombing the commercial centers of major cities like London and Manchester, instead of confronting the terrorists the government resorted to type and embarked on a comprehensive policy of appeasing them. The name given to this despicable cowardice was "the Irish peace process" and it was championed by the likes of the EU, UN and of course US President Bill Clinton.
The deal was simple. The IRA promised to stop attacking UK cities, to stop slaughtering British soldiers. It was permitted to retain its weapons and was allowed to kill and maim at will within the Roman Catholic community, whilst its political apologists in Sinn Fein gained maximum political leverage. It was peace, but not as we knew it.
But then, at 8:45 a.m. on September 11, 2001, the IRA was effectively decommissioned as a result of Al Qaida attacking the United States. Suddenly all terrorist groups of global outreach around the world were faced with the sudden reality that they either ceased their bombings and shootings or faced the wrath of the energized American administration. In effect, the IRA has spent the time since that dreadful day developing a strategy of wringing endless concessions from the craven UK government in exchange for publicly acknowledging the obvious -- namely that its illegal armaments were as redundant as the reasons for using them.
Now, four years on, the IRA has decided to admit that it cannot use its own weapons. It has agreed to this on the basis that the British government allows it to retain its toxic criminal empire, that it can police its own areas, and that it will have its proxies placed in the government of Northern Ireland. It's accepted a make over for a British political roll-over. Plus ça change.
What is worse is that the British government and the MSM is now doing the propagandizing for this terrorist group. They present the false impression that the IRA has chosen the path of peace and has finally decided to commit itself to democratic politics. They are mute about the fact that the IRA seeks to retain its entire paramilitary structure, they obfuscate the fact that the IRA has dramatically expanded its criminal empire culminating in the UK's biggest bank robbery in December of 2004. They ignore the fact that the IRA terrorists swagger around Northern Ireland considering themselves beyond the reach of the law. In fact, these hooded thugs believe that they are the law. That's how degraded society becomes when government adopts the philosophy of seeing, hearing and speaking no evil as a policy directive.
In Northern Ireland, the British government is now demanding that democratic politicians sit down and share power with the delegates of unreconstructed terrorism. This is conveyed as reasonableness incarnate. But if Blair considers this to be so very reasonable today how we can be sure that tomorrow he will not also consider it reasonable to bring the representatives of Jihad terrorism into the British government? How can a politician who makes a distinction between "good" and "bad" terrorists offer any form of effective leadership in the war against terror?
The Bush doctrine has been about putting terrorists on notice that we will hunt them down and bring them to justice, wherever they may be found. The Blair doctrine appears to be telling selected terrorists that justice can be set aside and means found to appease them.
The author is a Belfast based freelance writer. Find more of his writing here.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Happy Anniversary NASA
October 1 Marks NASA's 47th Anniversary
09.27.05
Since its founding on October 1, 1958, NASA has pushed the boundaries of human exploration. We've put footprints on the moon and tire tracks on Mars. We've given the world breathtaking images of our home planet, our solar system and the galaxies beyond. We invented the first re-usable spacecraft and, with our international partners, established a permanent human presence in space. Along the way, we've pioneered new technologies that have improved people's lives. Now, we're blazing a new trail into the cosmos. Before the end of the next decade, NASA astronauts will again explore the surface of the moon, traveling in a new spaceship that builds on the best of Apollo and shuttle technology. And this time, we're going to stay, building outposts and paving the way for eventual journeys to Mars and beyond. Related Links:+ Administrator's Anniversary Message+ NASA's New Spaceship+ 2003 Flash Feature: 45 Years of Exploration+ NASA History OfficeImage Details:First row, from left: A 1931 photo shows the original hangar at NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The first American satellite in orbit, Explorer 1, launches in January 1958. The "Original Seven" Mercury astronauts were selected in 1959. The experimental Echo project used large metallic balloons to bounce signals from one point on Earth to another. Second row, from left: The X-15 hypersonic research aircraft flew for nearly 10 years, from June 1959 to October 1968. Apollo 11 astronauts left the first bootprints on the moon in July 1969. Jupiter's Great Red Spot, seen from one of the twin Voyager spacecraft that launched in 1977. NASA satellites helped create the "blue marble," a detailed image of Earth.Third row, from left:Columbia launches on the first shuttle mission in April 1981. Image of the Eagle Nebula from the Hubble Space Telescope. The Mars rover Opportunity looks back at its tracks on the red planet. The international space station is humanity's first permanent orbital outpost. Fourth row, from left: The Cassini spacecraft has been sending back images of Saturn, it's rings and moons since July 2004. Discovery returns the space shuttle fleet to flight in July 2005. NASA satellites help scientists and forecasters watch powerful hurricanes. Artist's concept of NASA's next spaceship, the crew exploration vehicle, docked with a lander in lunar orbit. Photo credit: NASA
Cofusion In Iraq
IRAQ THE MODEL
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Iraqi National Assembly took a very worrisome step by abolishing the value of Iraqis’ votes in the upcoming referendum through giving two different interpretations of the word “voter” in the law that will govern the referendum and decide whether the draft constitution is ratified or not.In response, the UN has refused this change in the referendum laws and asked the Assembly to take fast action to correct this contradiction:
We have expressed our position to the national assembly and to the leadership of the government and told them that the decision that was taken was not acceptable and would not meet international standards," Jose Aranaz, a legal adviser to the U.N. electoral team in Iraq...The change that was introduced lately by the Assembly would call the draft constitution ratified if more than 50% of actual voters voted with “yes” but in another sentence in the same rule which states that the draft constitution would be considered rejected if two thirds of the voters in three provinces voted with “no” the word “voters” was interpreted as registered voters not actual voters.
Iraq's parliament made a ruling on Sunday determining that for the Oct. 15 referendum to pass only half of those who turn out to vote across the country would have to say "Yes". But a clause setting a two-thirds "No" vote in at least three of 18 provinces as a veto on the charter would be interpreted to mean two thirds of all registered, rather than actual, voters. In other words, the word "voter" in the interim constitution was being interpreted in two different ways in the same article.The above means that the government is far more interested in approving the draft constitution than it is in having the people freely decide for their future and I frankly do not know how people are supposed to trust a government that is literally playing with words and planning to deny them their right to decide on a super-important issue like their nation's constitution.I wasn't worried at all when the final draft came with several articles I didn't agree with since I thought my voice would count and could change things in either direction but now? Now I feel like I'm facing a challenge of having my voice ignored and hijacked again and that is something I cannot accept.
- posted by Omar @ 18:24
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Iraqi National Assembly took a very worrisome step by abolishing the value of Iraqis’ votes in the upcoming referendum through giving two different interpretations of the word “voter” in the law that will govern the referendum and decide whether the draft constitution is ratified or not.In response, the UN has refused this change in the referendum laws and asked the Assembly to take fast action to correct this contradiction:
We have expressed our position to the national assembly and to the leadership of the government and told them that the decision that was taken was not acceptable and would not meet international standards," Jose Aranaz, a legal adviser to the U.N. electoral team in Iraq...The change that was introduced lately by the Assembly would call the draft constitution ratified if more than 50% of actual voters voted with “yes” but in another sentence in the same rule which states that the draft constitution would be considered rejected if two thirds of the voters in three provinces voted with “no” the word “voters” was interpreted as registered voters not actual voters.
Iraq's parliament made a ruling on Sunday determining that for the Oct. 15 referendum to pass only half of those who turn out to vote across the country would have to say "Yes". But a clause setting a two-thirds "No" vote in at least three of 18 provinces as a veto on the charter would be interpreted to mean two thirds of all registered, rather than actual, voters. In other words, the word "voter" in the interim constitution was being interpreted in two different ways in the same article.The above means that the government is far more interested in approving the draft constitution than it is in having the people freely decide for their future and I frankly do not know how people are supposed to trust a government that is literally playing with words and planning to deny them their right to decide on a super-important issue like their nation's constitution.I wasn't worried at all when the final draft came with several articles I didn't agree with since I thought my voice would count and could change things in either direction but now? Now I feel like I'm facing a challenge of having my voice ignored and hijacked again and that is something I cannot accept.
- posted by Omar @ 18:24
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Hell will Freeze Over First
EU Wants Shared Control of InternetSep 30 10:00 AM US/Eastern
By AOIFE WHITEAP Business Writer
BRUSSELS, Belgium
The European Union insisted Friday that governments and the private sector must share the responsibility of overseeing the Internet, setting the stage for a showdown with the United States on the future of Internet governance.
A senior U.S. official reiterated Thursday that the country wants to remain the Internet's ultimate authority, rejecting calls in a United Nations meeting in Geneva for a U.N. body to take over.
EU spokesman Martin Selmayr said a new cooperation model was important "because the Internet is a global resource."
"The EU ... is very firm on this position," he added.
The Geneva talks were the last preparatory meeting before November's World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia.
A stalemate over who should serve as the principal traffic cops for Internet routing and addressing could derail the summit, which aims to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world.
At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.
That role has historically gone to the United States, which created the Internet as a Pentagon project and funded much of its early development. The U.S. Commerce Department has delegated much of that responsibility to a U.S.-based private organization with international board members, but Commerce ultimately retains veto power.
Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.
They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.
Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)