Saturday, December 30, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
I just ran across this interview with Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, on the Catholic Report. It's a very interesting read. I was unaware that he is a practicing Melkite Catholic so it gave a different perspective of his views than my previous notions of him.
Want a scary story about how whacked out Iran's president is? Check out this one from several months back.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
One of the best ideas I've seen to help combat terrorism comes from Frank Gaffney, a Reagan-era Pentagon official, who, through his website, disinvestterror.org, is leading the way to curb the funding of businesses and organizations that do business with known terrorists and terror harboring states. Here is the mission statement from their website.
Throughout our history, Americans have risen to the challenge of defending our beloved country and our liberty. Following the 9/11 attacks, however, most Americans felt powerless. Powerless to respond to the tragic attacks in New York and Washington, DC. Powerless to express meaningfully their outrage. And powerless to help defeat terrorism. What we did not realize -- until now -- was that each and every one of us actually can play a pivotal role in winning the War on Terror. How? By demanding that our public and private pensions plans, college endowments, individual retirement account managers, 401(k) plans, and other investment vehicles exploit the leverage represented by investments in publicly traded companies that operate in terrorist-sponsoring states. In a unified front, we should all be saying "This is my money and it will not go to support terror." DivestTerror.org is a nationwide campaign aimed at some 400 public companies worldwide that are providing revenues, technology and moral cover to governments that sponsor terrorism.
The primary objective of this campaign is to force governments to choose between their sponsorship of terrorism and critical partnerships with publicly traded firms. To illustrate how such a campaign can achieve this objective, please review our synopsis of the South African model of the 1980's that succeeded in ending apartheid. DivestTerror.org provides the empirical analysis and architecture that can enable such a campaign. Its success, however, can be assured only if you and other Americans enlist. Doing so will allow each and every one of us to help wage the war on Terror by opening new divestment fronts through our universities, local communities and states, individual retirement accounts, churches and unions.
DivestTerror.org provides the tools. Now, patriotic Americans can once again do their part to counter the threat confronting our country. Join us and help ensure that dangerous terrorist organizations - and those that sponsor them - will not continue to flourish with our money.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL
by Amanda B. Carpenter
Posted Dec 26, 2006
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.
In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”
“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.
At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”
As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”
Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”
These video interviews with Borat are from the Opie and Anthony Show. They are too funny not to post!
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Merry Christmas to all on this most holiest of nights, Christmas eve. As we celebrate this holiday with our family and friends, let us pause for a moment and reflect on why this day is so special. Not because we have a day off work; not because it's an excuse to eat drink and be merry; not because we get to think of others as we purchase many gifts for them; and not even because it represents peace and good will to all men. No, the reason for this day is that it is the birthday of the Christ child, Jesus of Nazareth. He who would die for all of our sins so that we might live. Happy birthday Jesus, and God bless us all, every one!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Thanks to the Curt Jester for this one!
There can be little doubt that one of the greatest political and economic problems in the US is the way that our Congress “earmarks” billions of dollars for special projects that benefit lawmakers in their bid for personal security and re-election.
The system works in a very straightforward way. Congress can pass massive spending bills and all the while representatives can add “earmarks” that benefit projects and people in their district or state. It is a form, quite often, of legal payback for favors rendered to the elected official. President Bush asked Congress, in his last State of the Union address, to give him a line-item veto. Don’t expect it to happen soon. The idea makes perfect sense really, and it has been done in several states, so why am I so pessimistic about the prospects? The simple answer is plain to see—both parties have found that it pays to spend money in this less accountable way. Incumbents use it to gain favor and to stay in power. Everyone knows that over 95% of the incumbents in the US House are re-elected every two years. Why fix a system that benefits those who are being asked to fix it? Supposedly smaller-government Republicans should favor this idea but many are just as adept at this “earmark” business as the most liberal Democrats.
All the recent talk we’ve heard about reforming the system is really not very impressive when you look at what really happens in Washington. But there have always been a few leaders who have risen above this type of spending and shown themselves to be consistent in their service of the common good of all the people. Michael Reagan recently told the story of how a wealthy businessman in California came to see his late father one day when he was running his first campaign for governor in the 1960s. The man left a paper bag with $40,000 on Reagan’s desk saying, “This is for you.” Reagan took the bag and threw it at his friend and walked out of the room. Later Reagan told this man that if he wanted to make a contribution to his campaign he should send the gift to his campaign committee. And he warned his friend to never try this stunt again, telling him that if he were elected governor the man should never expect to get a single favor from Reagan.
One could wish for more people like Ronald Reagan in public leadership. I think we call this integrity. The lack of such integrity is frankly harming all of us. Everyone knows that this growing practice of budget “earmarks” is called “pork.” Frankly, calling it pork is a disgrace to pigs, who have higher standards that many of those who spend public money to secure their spot in Congress. In a very real sense I call it “legalized bribery.” I pray for the day when the public has had enough of this and pressures Congress to clean up this mess. Changing parties in the last election cycle will not likely change the culture in Washington. We need something much bigger and stronger to do that. I would suggest that what we really need is leadership with courage and vision.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Got a Dream? Here's how to make it happen.
By Keith Ferrazzi
From Reader's Digest
The Power of Relationships
A few years ago, I was in New York City to advise two large banks on the secret to success in business. On the way in from the airport, I struck up a conversation with my taxi driver.
Tony was from India. He had studied to be a marine biologist but could not get a decent job in that field here. He was doing okay driving a cab, he said, "but in coming all this way, I had hoped to do better than just get by."
The more we talked, the more I realized that the counseling I provide to corporate executives also applies to average people like Tony. Like too many of us, Tony thought that being self-reliant meant never asking for help. But we need to nurture relationships in order to achieve our goals.
Tony liked to chat with his customers, yet he didn't want to bother them. I urged him to give it a try.
And he did. Not only did his customers ask that he take them to the airport at the end of their trip, they recommended him to their friends. Soon he had a long list of regulars and was able to buy his own Town Car, then a second. He had to hire a friend to help with the overflow.
Each of us contains seeds of greatness, which can be expressed in myriad ways, from starting a business to giving back to our community to raising the next generation of leaders. Life is all about finding that seed and nurturing it to its full growth. I know it's possible, because I'm living proof.
I am the son of a steelworker and a cleaning woman. My dad would come home, his hands scraped and dirty, and say, "I don't want this for you, Keith. You need a great education."
Although my father didn't know the CEO of his company, he wasn't afraid to introduce himself and ask for his advice. The CEO liked my dad's moxie and used his influence to get me a scholarship at one of the best private schools in the country. I went on to Yale University and Harvard Business School. Soon I was the youngest chief marketing officer in the Fortune 500.
I learned at a young age that the secret to success lies in the power of relationships. Consider the people who've helped you along the way as coaches. Corporate execs, celebrities and athletic aces routinely hire "life coaches" to help them reach their goals or solve their problems.
But you don't need to hire a life coach. You can become your own. It won't cost you a penny, and it's easier than you think.
What do I really want?
Jennifer was about to give birth to her first child and had decided to turn her home office into a nursery. A self- employed Web designer, she was delighted about the baby but afraid of being isolated and losing the self-esteem that came with having built her own business. "I know I should be happy, and I am -- but I'm not," she confided. "I'm excited about starting a family, but I want my life too, and I want the community that has come with working."
What do I want? It's a simple question, yet many of us aren't sure. But -- surprise! -- it doesn't have to be all that difficult to answer. It's a matter of focus.
Have you ever looked through a telescope at something? You find a reference point to home in on, then fiddle with the settings. At first, it's too close, then it's too far away, finally it's just right. The point is, it takes many adjustments to bring the subject into focus. If you want to look at something else, the process starts again.
Goal-setting is the same way. Don't worry if at first you don't know exactly what you want to do. Just don't make the mistake of never committing to anything. Sometimes the answer is very simple: Just pick something!
Dr. Mark Goulston, author of Get Out of Your Own Way at Work, suggests you "look back in order to look forward." Examine your calendar at day's end during a typical week and grade each appointment or listing on a scale of -3 to +3, where -3 means "If I never do this again, it will be too soon" and +3 means "I could do this all day long, and I can't wait to do it again." Once you identify the recurring themes, you'll be able to better focus your dreams.
If you're still stumped, ask yourself two questions: What would I truly regret if I did not achieve it? What would I do if I knew I could not fail?
Don't be afraid to dream big -- or small. And don't let others define your success. Once you know what you want, just follow the next three steps to achieve it.
Get out of your own way
Everyone has a habit that once served us well but is now just dragging us down. It might not be drink or drugs, but it's an addiction nonetheless. Procrastination is an addiction. So is being defensive. Or refusing to accept responsibility for your mistakes.
My addiction was conflict avoidance. When I was growing up, I learned to give people (Mom, Dad, teachers, coaches) what they wanted, and I was rewarded -- pats on the back, good grades, team captain. But the flip side was that I didn't learn to ask what I, Keith, wanted for myself.
I was unable to say to a friend, "I'd rather not." Or to someone I was dating, "We should end this already." Or to an employee, "John, your performance is not acceptable."
It was only after I diagnosed this behavior that I could enlist friends and supporters to help me change it. They practiced with me on what to say to John and how to say it, paving the way for a productive, and easier, conversation. As a result, John altered his behavior and became a more effective member of the team.
Just as you may not know the negative behavior holding you back, you may be missing the positive trait that can propel you forward. Identifying your strengths is as important as naming your weaknesses because, like it or not, you're guided by these opposing forces.
I always joke that if you can't think of a behavior you want to change, I'm sure your spouse or a trusted friend will have a few ideas. Likewise, they're also the ones who'll tell you what they most admire about you.
What's the point of all this? There are few things that will make you feel as bad as blowing an opportunity because of a self-defeating behavior. Conversely, few things will make you feel as good -- and will gain you the respect of others -- as identifying and overcoming one of them.
Help others, help yourself
Kim (not her real name) was in danger of being fired from her job at a small marketing firm. She was a whiz at Internet research but was such a perfectionist that she'd try to cover up her mistakes. She'd ask her boss for advice, then argue with him if she disagreed. With a pink slip almost guaranteed, Kim knew she needed help to save herself from herself. It was time to create her own dream team of advisors.
The most dramatic and enduring life changes often occur through community-based initiatives, like Weight Watchers and Alcoholics Anonymous, where there are multiple people invested in your success and to whom you feel accountable. It makes sense to apply the same principles that have been so successful in dealing with self-destructive habits when creating your own self-guided community for personal growth.
Your "dream team" works best with about five people, all of whom care enough about you to be ruthlessly honest. Select people with diverse backgrounds -- your softball buddy, maybe your accountant and someone whose behavior you admire or whose position you aspire to. Not only will a diverse group come up with creative solutions, they are more likely to be plugged in to networks and resources you may not have access to yourself. Kim, for example, invited both a trusted colleague and her boss to join her team.
The trick is to listen to their critiques, and that's not always easy to do. Kim argued with her team so much that one member finally said, "Look, if you're going to ask for my advice and always disagree with it, it's not worth my making the effort to give it."
Of course, you can ask clarifying questions: "What do you mean by that?" or "What did you think when you saw me doing this?" But do not contradict them, even if you feel a team member has levied a terrible misjudgment. This is his "gift" to you. And if four out of five people are giving you the same gift, then chances are they're onto something.
Now, I bet you're thinking, Why would these folks do this? What do I have to offer that could possibly induce people, some of whom I barely know, to help me in this way?
In a word, you have your own generosity, and that is the fuel making this entire engine run. By reaching out to others with generosity, whether it's to recommend a new yoga class or to seek their counsel, you're laying the foundation for a long-term relationship. And I guarantee you'll be rewarded with a positive response.
My friend Dr. Dean Ornish tells me that, in his experience, most people who survive a heart attack will eventually backslide to the same bad habits that put them on the operating table in the first place. Even fear of death, he says, is not a strong enough motivation to change ingrained habits.
But once people realize that they can have a better sex life, will dance at their child's wedding and see their grandchildren grow up, they start to exercise and eat right. They "get" the connection between aspiring to succeed and positive goal-driven activities.
It's a well-known saying in business that "what gets measured gets managed." That's why Weight Watchers insists on a weekly weigh-in.
Choose one of your goals and ask yourself, What do I need to do in the next 60 days to feel that I am on my way to success? If you want to be spiritually grounded, set up a series of meetings with a clergyman to talk about a study program. If you want that promotion, talk to your boss about what it will take to get it.
Next, determine your milestones, and take the pulse of your progress at prescribed checkpoints. At the beginning, talk to your dream team weekly about your progress. As you gain more confidence, extend the time between checkups to 30 days, then 60, then 90.
Don't be surprised if your focus shifts over time. That's normal. Every three to six months, reassess your goals and rethink your plan. You may even need to reach out and include new people in your support community. With her boss's encouragement and support, Kim left her old firm and started her own Internet marketing business. She is building a portfolio of satisfied clients and says she's happier than she's ever been.
Remember Jennifer? She worked through her conflicting emotions about having a baby and decided that this was actually an opportunity to help other pregnant women. She started a website that has grown into a vibrant interactive online community, Suburban CEO.
My dad always used to say, "Don't ever look back and wonder 'what if.'" You've got a dream, right? And now you've got the plan, so what are you waiting for?
Are you standing in the way of your own success? Find out now!
Keith Ferrazzi is CEO of Ferrazzi Greenlight and author of Never Eat Alone
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Thanks to ProLife Blogs and National Pro Life Radio for turning me on to this great video by Flipsyde. This is powerful, I've included the lyrics below.
Please accept my apologies, wonder what would have been
would you have been a little angel? or an angel of sin?
tom-boy running around, hanging with all the guys?
or a little tough boy with beautiful brown eyes?
paid for the murder befor they had determined the sex
choosing our life over your life meant your death
and you never got a chance to even open your eyes
sometimes I wonder as a fetus if you fought for your life?
Would you have been a little genius, in love with math?
Would you have played in your school clothes and made me mad?
would you have been a little rapper like your poppa the piper?
would you have made me quit smoking by finding one of my lighters?
I wonder about your skintone and shape of your nose
and the way you would have laughed and talked fast or slow
I think about it every year, so I picked up a pen
Happy birthday, I love you whoever you would have been
[Chorus x 2]
What I thought was a dream
make a wish
was as real as it seemed
I made a mistake
I got a million excuses, as to why you died
and other people got their own reasons for homocide
who’s to say it would have worked
and who’s to say it wouldn’t have
I was young and struggling, but old enough to be a dad
the fear of being my father has never disappeared
I ponder it frequently while I’m sipping on my beer
my vision of a family was artificial and fake
so when it came time to create I made a mistake
now you got a little brother, maybe it’s really you
maybe you really forgave us knowing we was confused
maybe, every time that he smiles
it’s you proudly knowing that your father is doing the right thing now
I never tell a woman what to do with her body
but if she don’t love children then we can’t party
I think about it every year so I picked up a pen
Happy birthday, I love you whoever you would have been
[Chorus x 2]
What I thought was a dream
make a wish
was as real as it seemed
I made a mistake
from the heavens to the womb
to the heavens again
from the ending to the ending
never got to begin
maybe one day we can meet face to face
in a place without time and space
[Chorus x 2]
What I thought was a dream
make a wish
was as real as it seemed
I made a mistake
How true might this parody actually turn out to be?
Monday, December 18, 2006
Help spread some Christmas cheer to the nazis at the ACLU. Click on the card above to send them an e-Christmas card, or even better, mail them a physical card!
Here's the address:
125 Broad Street
New York, Ny 10004
What If the ACLU Had Existed on the First Christmas Eve?
December 18, 2006
By John Lillpop
As we Americans struggle to preserve our rich cultural traditions surrounding Christmas, there are times when the struggle seems too hard, the load too heavy.
For example, one wonders if it is worth it upon hearing that another whacked-out liberal judge has determined that the nativity scene is unconstitutional.
The nativity scene is unconstitutional, for heaven’s sake!
Not that long ago, the word unconstitutional was reserved for major injustices that really harmed humanity. For instance, unconstitutional referred to heinous acts like slavery or racial discrimination.
Or what about that chacter with too much time on his hands who threatened to sue if his religious symbols were not granted equal time and importance to fifteen Christmas trees enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of the public at the Seattle airport? Why would a supposed “man of faith” act to deny so many people the pleasure of seeing a simple, unobtrusive symbol just because the symbol did not represent his particular faith?
How does one confront such narrow-minded, spiteful thinking without going barking mad?
One way is to fantasize what the first Christmas might have been like if liberals and the ACLU had been in charge on the night Jesus was born.
The Christmas story would have been dramatically different:
* Upon entering Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph would have been approached by members of the local Planned Parenthood. Mary would have been encouraged to abort the unborn fetus, and Planned Parenthood would have offered to pay for the procedure with tax money stolen from the Roman government.
* An activist liberal judge in Nazareth would have issued a restraining order to prevent the three wise men from entering the city where the Savior was born.
Citing the lack of any women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, transvestites, or blind and handicapped Buddhists among the three wise persons, the judge would give the wise men three hours to implement an affirmative action plan, or be forced to leave the Holy Land.
* Lawyers from the Bethlehem chapter of the ACLU would have sued the innkeeper who turned Mary and Joseph away. The suit would claim that there was, in fact, plenty of room at the inn, but that Mary was discriminated against solely because she was an unmarried, pregnant, middle-eastern woman who spoke Aramic but not Latin.
* Joseph would have been required to pay a special “Usury Fee”—not a tax, mind you—owing to the fact that the donkey carrying the blessed Mary was not licensed in Bethlehem. The local tax assessor was known in the underground as the “Ass Taxer,” a term that still applies to most Democrats.
* Joseph and Mary would have been forced to leave Bethlehem earlier than originally planned, because a local bureaucrat named Goreish determined that their donkey was releasing unhealthy levels of toxic gases—indelicately called “farts” in our enlightened times.
Such emissions were thought to be a major factor in clinical depressions, and were also implicated in a phenomenon that Goreish called “global warming” which he claimed would surely destroy the earth by the end of the month, at the latest.
If nothing else, we can give thanks for the fact that liberalism and the ACLU did not exist in their present form on that first Christmas Eve.
And that allowed our Creator to give humanity the greatest and most blessed gift of all time!
The so-called “War on Terror” is a misnomer. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy. We are at war with those who utilize this tactic against us, our interests, and our allies.
Negotiation is by definition the art of compromise. The finding of a middle ground which can be mutually acceptable. Diplomacy is only possible where both sides are capable of compromise. When one party to a negotiation has an immutable agenda and the willingness to die in the pursuit of its fulfillment, there is nothing to be gained by negotiation as there is no possibility of mitigating their position. There is no mutually beneficial or mutually acceptable common ground. To believe otherwise is little more than politically correct pie-in-the-sky pipe dreaming.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Last night at the end of the Denver Nuggets vs. New York Knicks game the following brawl erupted. One more reason why the NBA is the worst league in sports. The players in the league today are a far cry from Magic, Bird, Jordan, Robinson, etc. of yesterday who showed nothing but class on the court. The NBA is now a league of thugs, over-paid crybabies, and wanna-be gang-bangers who need to learn some dignity, honor, and basic human respect.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Those crazy guys at Jib Jab have done it again, they've created a hilarious video about the past year in review.
Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 14, 2006
Jimmy Carter was certainly the worst President in American history. It was no particular feat that he went on to become the worst ex-President as well. But now he has sunk to a new and abominable low.
Even as Islamic Hitlerites gather in Iran to deny the first Holocaust of the Jews and to plot the second, former president Jimmy Carter tours America with a new book that describes Jews as racists and oppressors, and suggests they are also a conspiratorial mafia that intimidates “critics,” controls America’s media and war policy, and are therefore also the source of Islamic terrorism and the Arabs’ genocidal campaign to eliminate them from the map of the Middle East.
In other words, Americans beware of the Jew in your midst.
Here is Carter’s description of the Middle East conflict in his own words, delivered during an interview he gave on National Public Radio during the second day of the Holocaust deniers’ conference in Teheran:
“I have spent a lot of time in Palestine in recent years. … The Palestinians have had their own land, first of all, occupied and then confiscated and then colonized. They’ve been excluded from their own gardens and fields, and pastures and churches. They have been severely restrained in their movements. They have to have different kinds of passes to go through different checkpoints inside their own lands on their own roads. The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.They connect these settlements with very nice roads for the Israeli settlers, and then superhighways and so forth going into Jerusalem. Quite often the Palestinians are prevented from even riding on those roads that have been built in their own territory. So this has been in many ways worse than it was in South Africa.”
When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel.
It is a lie that Palestinians “had their own land, first of all, occupied.” This is like saying that Texans had their own land occupied by Hispanics, ignoring the fact that Hispanics were there first. The very word Palestine is a Roman appellation for the people called Philistines, who were not Arabs but red-haired sailors from the Aegean. The Jews were there as well.
In short, first of all the Jews were in the land before the Arabs.
Second of all, the Arabs who inhabited the Palestine Mandate in 1948, at the time of the creation the state of Israel, considered themselves Syrians.
Third, the Palestine Mandate was not created on land taken from the Syrians or the Arabs. It was taken from the Turks.
It was not taken from the Turks by the Jews, but by the British and the French. They took it because Turkey sided with Germany in the First World War and, of course, lost. The Turkish empire had ruled the entire region including Syrian, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan for four hundred years before Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were artificially created by the English and the French. Jordan – a state whose majority is Palestinian – occupies 80% of the Palestine Mandate.
So it is a preposterous lie to say that the Palestinians had their own land and that it was occupied by the Jews.
Fourth, the individual plots of land that Jews now own were in the first instance bought from the Arabs who regarded themselves as Syrians and who lived in the area of Israel. The only property that was confiscated was confiscated as a spoil of the aggressive war that five Arab states waged against Israel from the day of its birth. Five Arab armies invaded Israel, a sovereign state, with the declared intent of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” The cry today of the Muslim majority in the Middle East is to “liberate Palestine from the river to the sea.” In other words push the Jews into the sea.
By the standards of occupation and legitimacy Jimmy Carter invokes, Israel has more legitimacy as a Jewish state than Texas does as an American state, rather than a Mexican province.
The fifth Jimmy Carter lie in this lone Jimmy Carter sentence is the claim that the Jews have colonized anything. “The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.”
Why is it wrong of the Jews to live in the West Bank? (The 7000 Jews of Gaza, of course, have already been expunged as result of the Arabs’ genocidal hate.) Why can’t Jews have settlements in the West Bank?
The answer is because the Palestinians Arabs are filled with a racist and theocratic hate towards the Jews. They can’t tolerate a non-Muslim, non-Arab people --however small a minority -- living in their midst. (The 7000 Jews of Gaza – out of a population of 1.2 million – were law-abiding and peaceful and created a horticultural industry that produced ten percent of Gaza’s gross national product. But they were Jews. And that was intolerable to Palestine’s Nazis. So they had to be removed.)
Contrast Carter’s attack on Jews living in the West bank as “colonizers” who must be expelled with the fact that more than a million Arabs live in Israel, where Israel provides them with more rights – including the right to vote and elect Arab members of Israel’s government – than any Arab who lives in any Arab state in the Middle East.
There is indeed a wall now between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. But it is not a wall to keep Arabs out of Israel because they are Arab, as Carter maliciously maintains. There are more than a million Arabs living in Israel. There are indeed checkpoints in the West Bank and into Israel and obstacles to Palestinians crossing them. But this is not because the Israelis discriminate against Palestinians because they are Muslims or Arabs.
It is because too many Palestinians have shown themselves to be bloodthirsty, murderers who have been indoctrinated by their religious leaders and their government to believe in a sick Islamic fantasy that it is their Muslim duty to kill Jews by blowing themselves up; and that, if they do so, they will go to heaven along with 70 members of their family; and, that, if they are lucky enough to be male they will be rewarded by 72 virgins on the other side.
On this side they will be regarded as martyrs and saints and honored by their government. Sixty-percent of Palestinians support suicide bombing and this sick, genocidal agenda – which is shared by all members of the Palestinians’ democratically elected government – to kill the Jews.
To ignore these facts and to invert them, as Jimmy Carter does, is to mark yourself as a moral defective.
To take on as a mission the spreading of lies that enable Islamic Nazis to carry out their final solution is the epitome of the evil that America’s fifth column left and its reprehensible ex-President represent in our time.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Senator and presidential hopeful John McCain of Arizona recently introduced two bills to the senate to suppress online Internet usage. Under the guise of helping curb child pornography and exploitation, the bills would force websites, including blogs, chat rooms and social networking sites, to remove any members or material deemed inappropriate, including discussions on the topics. CNet reports.
McCain's website lists the two bills here and here.
In theory the idea to force registered sex offenders to register their Internet activity is an interesting concept, however, it does appear to cross the line of our personal freedoms, to the point of censorship. The first bill can be read here.
The fact that McCain is teaming with Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the second bill should be cause to worry for any Internet using, freedom loving American.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Everyone's favorite ousted Republican from Texas has joined the blogging community. Tom DeLay launched his blog on Monday. Should be some interesting reading.
In other news, the Christian Embassy in Washington has this video on their website that is stirring up all kinds of controversy. I guess they didn't get the memo that you're not supposed to be Christian and work on the Hill. Insert sarcasm here. Glad to see that some people still believe they can put their faith into practice in politics. Note to the ACLU...the separation of Church and State was designed to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around!
Two excellent articles on Islam, the enduring heresy from a Catholic perspective, can be found here, and the endless jihad from a muslem worldview, here.
Thanks to Catholic Answers for these great articles.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Breitbart news reports that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was heckled by a group of students during a speech at a Tehran university recently.
If the US could somehow tap into these disgruntled groups of students or others and support them, it would be a significant help in undermining the radical Islamic ideas set forth by Ahmadinejad.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit lists all the latest and Hotair has the video via fox.
By Raymond Ibrahim
December 5, 2006
IN THE DAYS before Pope Benedict XVI's visit last Thursday to the Hagia Sophia complex in Istanbul, Muslims and Turks expressed fear, apprehension and rage. "The risk," according to Turkey's independent newspaper Vatan, "is that Benedict will send Turkey's Muslims and much of the Islamic world into paroxysms of fury if there is any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims." Apparently making the sign of the cross or any other gesture of Christian worship in Hagia Sophia constitutes such a sacrilege.
Built in the 6th century, Hagia Sophia — Greek for "Holy Wisdom" — was Christendom's greatest and most celebrated church. After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts from Arabs, Constantinople — now Istanbul — was finally sacked by Turks in 1453, and Hagia Sophia's crosses were desecrated, its icons defaced. Along with thousands of other churches in the Byzantine Empire, it was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph. Nearly 500 years later, in 1935, as part of reformer Kemal Ataturk's drive to modernize Turkey, Hagia Sophia was secularized and transformed into a museum.
Protests aimed at keeping the pope out of Hagia Sophia rocked Istanbul right up to the morning of his visit to the site. Contrast that intolerance with the tolerance granted Muslims in regard to the Al Aqsa mosque — this time, an Islamic site in Jerusalem annexed by Judaism. Unlike the permanent Muslim desecration of Hagia Sophia, after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, the Jews did not deface or convert the mosque into a Jewish synagogue or temple, even though the Al Aqsa mosque is deliberately built atop the remains of the Temple Mount, the holiest site of Judaism and, by extension, an important site for Christians. Moreover, since reclaiming the Temple Mount, Israel has granted Muslims control over the Al Aqsa mosque (except during times of crises).
All this illustrates the privileged status that many Muslims expect in the international arena. When Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories — such as Constantinople, not to mention all of North Africa, Spain and southwest Asia — those whom they have conquered as well as their descendants are not to expect any apologies, let alone political or territorial concessions.
Herein lies the conundrum. When Islamists wage jihad — past, present and future — conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their previous owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage "might makes right." That's fine; many people agree with this Hobbesian view.
But if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam's conquests resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding justice, restitutions, rights and so forth?
Put another way, when Muslims beat infidels, it's just too bad for the latter; they must submit to their new overlords' rules with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for apologies and concessions are expected from the infidel world at large.
Double standards do not make for international justice. Either territorial conquests are always unjust and should therefore be ameliorated through concessions, or else they are merely a manifestation of the natural order of things — that is, survival of the fittest.
If some Muslims wish to wage eternal jihad until Islam dominates the globe, they are only being true to Islam and its doctrines as they understand it. However, in that case, where the world is divided into two warring camps, Islam and Infidelity — or, in Islamic terms, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War — how can these Muslims expect any concessions from the international community? The natural conclusion of the view that "might makes right" is "to the victor go the spoils."
The fact that Turkey conquered Constantinople more than 500 years ago does not prevent the Turkish government from returning Hagia Sophia to Christendom today, which would undoubtedly be a great gesture. But of course that can never be. The Muslim world would undergo a "paroxysm of fury" if a Christian pope dares pray in the conquered church; what would the Muslim world do if Hagia Sophia were actually converted back to a church?
But perhaps Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions — all things the Islamic world has yet to do — the West reaffirms that Islam has a privileged status in the world.
And what did the pope do in his controversial visit to Hagia Sophia? He refrained from any gesture that could be misconstrued as Christian worship and merely took in the sights of the museum. Moreover, when he was invited into the Blue Mosque nearby, he respectfully took off his shoes and prayed, eyes downcast, standing next to the the grand mufti of Istanbul like a true dhimmi — a subdued non-Muslim living under Islamic law and acknowledging Islamic superiority.
And therein is the final lesson. Muslims' zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there's something to be said about being passionate and protective of one's own. Here the secular West — Christendom's prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes ideologically, politically and especially spiritually, Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Today is the Roman Catholic feast day of the Immaculate Conception. Want to understand it a little better? Read here.
The problem is people today, pretend not to know the difference between good and evil, even after 9/11. Morality is now politically incorrect; the homosexuals, the abortion party, the race baiters, the celebricrats would all have to come to terms with right and wrong which eventually becomes a choice between good and evil. They are not willing to face it in their own lives, so they refuse to face it on a national or international level.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
The Iraq Study Group has finally compiled their report. Of course they recommended the worst course of action, opening up talks with Iran and Syria. Right Wing Nut House and the Counterterroism Blog have a couple of excellent posts on the matter.
Want a good read on the reality of what's going on in Iraq and at home? Andrew C. McCarthy has a great one here about fighting the real war.
Senator Rick Santorum delivered a speech back on October 30 about terrorism and the state of national security in the US. I just stumbled across the transcript here and it is a great example of statesmanship, something that more people should be saying.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
This is hilarious, certainly a nice break from the negativity of everything in the news lately.
White and Nerdy
Monday, December 4, 2006
THE FRAUD OF ANCHOR BABIES
By: Dr. Jack Wheeler
The myth of Birthright Citizenship is one of the more extraordinary frauds committed in America today. Liberals insist that the "Citizenship Clause" of the 14th Amendment - which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" - means that children of illegal aliens born on US soil automatically are US citizens.
The 14th Amendment means no such thing. When it was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves, the Citizenship Clause's author, Senator Jacob Howard, made it explicitly clear that the clause did not apply to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."
The key phrase of the clause is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The primary author of the entire 14th Amendment, Senator John Bingham, stated, "I find no fault with the introductory (Citizenship) Clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
This meaning was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), which determined that the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" explicitly excluded "citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
In other words, an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. Illegal aliens from Mexico do not owe allegiance to America. Their children, if born in the US, thus have no constitutional right to US citizenship.
These children are known as "anchor babies," as under the 1965 Immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. They are thus a major contributor to the flood of illegal invasion into America.
Current estimates are that 300,000 anchor babies are born in the United States every year now to illegal alien mothers. The cost of providing government services such as health and education for them at taxpayer expense is in the billions each year.
To help stop this invasion, to stop this misinterpretation of the Constitution, Congressman Nathan Deal (R-GA), along with 84 co-sponsors, has introduced HR 698 into Congress: The Citizenship Reform Act. Its purpose is to "deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens."
The 85 Congressional sponsors of the Citizenship Reform Act, after thorough legal consultation, are convinced the problem of anchor babies can be solved legislatively, and does not require a constitutional amendment.
Democrats do not want the bill passed, as the more anchor babies, the more illegal relatives enter the US, the more welfare programs are needed to take care of them, the more government workers hired to administer the programs, all resulting in more Democrat voters.
"Moderate" Republicans are afraid the bill will "alienate" certain voters. Being spineless, their fear controls them.
Yet a growing number of people in Congress are heeding the demands of the great majority of American citizens to end the outrage of birthright citizenship. The prospects of passage for HR 698 are thus growing with them.
As Congressman Deal explains:
The Supreme Court has never gone so far as to suggest that a foreign national with no lawful connection to our nation ought to be able to confer citizenship on their child on the basis of a decision to violate our immigration laws. Someone with no legal equities or any legal duties to the United States is in no position to lay claim to the ultimate prize of citizenship on behalf of their offspring.
You might consider calling your Congressman's local district office and asking if he or she is a co-sponsor of HR 698, and that you won't vote for them if they are not.
Pajamas Media reports the latest info on the flying imams, including the official police report and an eye witness account. This certainly doesn't sound like they were just innocent passengers flying home to me.
UPDATE: Powerline has posted more info from the Minneapolis airport police.