Bigotry and hate aren't just for right-wingers anymore.
Ubiquitous
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
WASHINGTON--My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of
bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several
months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.
This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the
right wing--in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy,
with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers." The
word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far
right's fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist"
who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the
poor, and to level the playing field.
I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and
hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to
free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed
with us. And in recent years--with the deadly combination of sanctimony
and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and
Michael Savage--I held on to the view that the left was inherently more
tolerant and less hateful than the right.
Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have
reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a
monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony. Here are just a few
examples (there are many, many more anyone with a search engine can find)
of the type of thing the liberal blog sites have been posting about Joe
Lieberman:
• "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to
beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an
AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on
Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).
• "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a
weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It
would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and
12, 2005).
• On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about
the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of
this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish
propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights
movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec.
7, 2005).
• "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to
the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot
escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is
Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by
"gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).
• "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper,"
posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).
And these are some of the nicer examples.
One Sunday morning on C-Span I debated Nation editor Katrina vanden
Heuvel on the Lieberman versus Lamont race. Afterwards I received a
series of emails--many of them in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the
hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters)--that were of the same
stripe as the blog posts, and filled with the same level of personal
hate.
But the issue is not just emotional outbursts by these usually anonymous
bloggers. A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had
spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be
a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me
that within a day of a Lamont event--where he asked the candidate some
critical questions--some of his clients were blitzed with emails
attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not
drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to
Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical safety.
I do not blame Joe Lieberman's political difficulties on the liberal
blogosphere. Most Connecticut Democrats voting for Mr. Lamont are
genuinely outraged at President Bush for his Iraq War policies. They are
entitled to express that outrage by voting for him and against Sen.
Lieberman on that basis alone, although Sen. Lieberman's record as a
progressive Democrat and his opposition to President Bush not only on
most domestic issues but also on the conduct of the war cannot be
disputed--despite egregiously distortive ads paid for by Mr. Lamont with
$4 million of his own money.
Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed
to Mr. Lamont--nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and
intolerance. But he ought to denounce them. He hasn't as yet.
Mr. Lamont and all other liberal Democrats should remember the McCarthy
era and not fall into the trap of the hypocrisy of the double
standard--that it's not OK when Ann Coulter dispenses her venomous
hatred, but it is OK when our side's versions of Ann Coulter do.
.
Mr. Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton between 1996-98,
is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America,"
forthcoming from Palgrave.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the
liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our
military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for
them, it's failing.
blubird
everything they can to disolve everything that the U.S.A. has stood for
during the last two hundred years. There isn't any bigotry and hate
involved there. They just go after phonies like yourself and your father's
kind who support the lib crapola.
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:2budnVQu4YxihEbZ...@giganews.com...
> . "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to
> beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an
> AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on
> Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).
>
> . "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a
> weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It
> would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and
> 12, 2005).
>
> . On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about
> the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of
> this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish
> propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights
> movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec.
> 7, 2005).
>
> . "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to
> the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot
> escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is
> Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by
> "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).
>
> . "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper,"
z
is really Steve Forbes with a little plastic surgery.
Z
discovered.
The Liberal/Leftist have perfected the double-speak. They project their own
warped ideas in such a way that the Kool-Aid drinkers think it is from the
Republicans.
It is called "The Big Lie". Repeat it enough & the Kool-Aid drinkers think
it is true.
Z
"If you can read this, thank a teacher - and, since it's in English, thank
an American soldier"
All Muslims are not Terrorists, but all Terrorists are Muslim.
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:2budnVQu4YxihEbZ...@giganews.com...
> . "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to
> beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an
> AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on
> Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).
>
> . "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a
> weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It
> would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and
> 12, 2005).
>
> . On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about
> the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of
> this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish
> propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights
> movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec.
> 7, 2005).
>
> . "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to
> the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot
> escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is
> Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by
> "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).
>
> . "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper,"
Drake
wrote:
You're confused. Joe Lieberman is about hatred (of Muslims and Arabs)
and racial superiority of zionist believing Jews. You're liberal
friends are right not to like him, you just need to open your eyes.
DLM
"Drake" <take...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92pud25a976npg7td...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:35:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
> You're confused. Joe Lieberman is about hatred (of Muslims and Arabs)
> and racial superiority of zionist believing Jews. You're liberal
> friends are right not to like him, you just need to open your eyes.
Amen. I started disliking Lieberman back when he started pandering to those
so worried about their "cheeeldrun". He was smooth too; could have taught
Falwell a few tricks.
*shudder*
--Deb--
>>. "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to
>>beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an
>>AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on
>>Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).
>>
>>. "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a
>>weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It
>>would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and
>>12, 2005).
>>
>>. On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about
>>the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of
>>this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish
>>propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights
>>movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec.
>>7, 2005).
>>
>>. "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to
>>the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot
>>escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is
>>Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by
>>"gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).
>>
>>. "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper,"
z
Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:35:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
> You're confused. Joe Lieberman is about hatred (of Muslims and Arabs)
because he is against restoring the Caliphate?
Ubiquitous
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:35:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>wrote:
>>BY LANNY J. DAVIS
Wow, thanks for helping to prove Lanny's point!
Here's a selection from an exchange in the comments section over at
DailyKos.com. The readers, identified by their screen names, are responding to
a post by proprietor Markos Moulitsas bashing Joe Lieberman:
OneCrankyDom: "Once we lock up a Majority where we don't need
Lieberman, I hope they will kick him to the curb like the dog he is."
Dump Terry McAuliffe: "He's a much lower form of life than a dog.
Weasel seems about right to describe him--if you're kind enough to
afford him vertebrate status."
Sharon Jumper: "Don't insult dogs like that. Given a choice between
my dog and Lieberman, I'd gas him without thinking twice."
TeresaInPa: "Sharon, jeez. I know you didn't mean it that way, but
a reference to gassing a Jew needs to be hidden."
Lanny Davis had a point, didn't he?
Server 13
As opposed to, from the conservtive side:
QUOTE
Every time a 'RAT mentions the word 'Nazi', he's thinking to himself
that he's such a good Stalinist already.
Perhaps it's high time to put on the ear defenders, the hip waders, grab
some AR-15s and pump action 12 ga. shotguns, lift the manhole covers off
the street surfaces of the blue cities, descend into the sewers there,
and commence blasting away some big shitty 'RATS.
---------------------------
> Dear Canadian Cocksucking piece of shit:
>
> I hope that someday the USA invades Canada and just turns the whole nation
> into a large National Park for Americans. Canucks will have to eat the
> Americans' leftovers from the trash bins, just like you have done for the
> past 250 years.
Canada is just a hemorrhoid on America's ass. Always has been and always
will be.
----------------------------
They're the enemy! We can attack them with nukes because with our new
missile
defense system, they can't fight back! We can wipe out those AIDS infected
Niggers in Africa, but not before we ship all the AIDS infected fags and
liberals
there to be part of it! That should teach them a lesson about abstinence.
What a better way to spread our ideology! Everybody's going to love us
once
they see how well our nukes work.
-----------------------------
One by one...they all fall into line.
If not...why, then...it's the Wellstone treatment.
------------------------------
Do the phony effete elitist socialist shit Lib Dims really claim to be
for 'the poor', 'the economically disadvantaged', and 'the little guy'?
>>phony effete elitist socialist shit
>>Stevie Dweebie Geekie
>>blew this yeller hippy dippy pwarf
>>out his fat honky ass:
So are you saying that you yourself are not human t'all and therefore a
typically ill-Liberal DemonRAT, or are you saying that you simply cannot
dispute the valid points presented, or both?
Here, suck some more on this, you chickenshitted Bawney Fwank
butt-bitch:
A loser leading other losers to where all losers belong, to nowhere, to
sheer and utter defeat, to the state of complete powerlessness in which
the Democrat Party finds itself today --
------------------------------
> God damn **NOW** and its pissant host Bill Moyers, the LBJ dick-suck who
> thinks he's smarter than everybody but Walter "No Wind Generators Will
> Spoil *My* View" CrankCase.
>
> Send both of those commie rat bastards to Hell where they bloody well
> belong with their soulmates Mao and Stalin.
----------------------------------
These shit eating, American-hating traitors need to drink the "Grape
Kool-aid" and do the Republic a favor by dying.
----------------------------------
A "good" illegal alien is a dead one.
--------------------------------
Hopefully, for all our sakes, you will be the next one they decide to
let starve to death.
------------------------------------
Euthanizing them, and grinding them up for fertilizer doesn't sound so
preposterous, does it? They couldn't be pelletized and stored for used as
people food, because the dope would still be in the pellets and that would
just start the problem all over again.
-----------------------------------
> These prisoners are fed better than they ever have been
> in their lives. They get these specially prepared 'ALLAH'
> approved meals. The Guards wear WHITE GLOVES when
> they handle their Holy Comic Book, and they get to Listen
> to Christina Aquiliera while they are in Prison.
>
> They've never had it this good in their lives
I say saw off one head a day.
*overhead reduction*
Eventually the facility is closed, and the f'loons are happy.
-----------------------------------
> ALL LIBERALS SHOULD BE GROUND UP AS PET FOOD!
>
> Liberals are idiots.
----------------------------------
This a white nat NG. Faggot cry baby liberals can take their whining
elsewhere!
-------------------------------------
OH Goodie! A whole bunch of traitor-fuck leftists to run over in my SUV. I
can't wait!
------------------------------------
When some brain damaged liberal like Dianne Feinstein come sout and says, "I
agree, attacking Iran
would be an "immoral" decision by the U.S.", then if I'm the anti-christ
sand nigger, I'm going to say, "you go girl, you go".
Liberals have no sense of protectionsim or survival of our culture, period.
Liberals have no sense of what an "enemy" is, because in their dimented
minds there is no such thing, period.
"Enemies" are only a term used in movies like Star Wars and Star Trek.
Liberals have no sense of being American, and what sacrafice is required to
say that is, period.
Bottom line, we were attacked on 9/11 because the radicals think we are weak
as a nation.
Their perception of America, is what the American Liberal has portrayed us
to be in the world.
AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE PUSSIES !
George Bush you better get of your Liberal Ass and show the sand niggers
who's boss, or we're all
doomed.
-------------------------------------
In a perfect world Liberals would be packed onto a train to Dachau and
gassed immediately.
---------------------------------------
> YOU jews will not disarm America...and make it easier for ISRAEL to
> complete
>
> the takeover of us.
>
> We will put you into box cars again before we let you do that.
>
> I will nail your door shut myself.
------------------------------------
They're gonna die anyway. Why should we allow them to drain our healthcare,
raise insurance rates? Most of the time it's a self inflicted death
sentence.
CNN doctors also said there is growing evidence that the AIDS infected fags
can actually pass this disease of death by sitting on toilet seats.
The only humane thing to do is exterminate them....for the sake of our
children.
-------------------------------------
> All illegal aliens and their spawn should be immediately killed.
> All enablers, protectors, and promoters of any illegal
> alien activity, including any associated aristocracy and elite
> should be tarred, feathered and run out of town (or similarly
> punished) immediately.
-----------------------------------
His stinking beaner ass will get raped in prison, don't worry. Like I
said beaners are not human and must be treated accordingly
UNQUOTE
Ubiquitous
blogress who briefly worked for the presidential campaign of the
extravagantly coiffed John Edwards. "Guess god [sic] liked the ACLU
better after all."
Falwell, who died yesterday, was 73--not exactly hypergeriatric, but he
beat the average life expectancy in Psalm 90:10:
The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and
if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is
their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off,
and we fly away.
It is a stretch, to say the least, to take Falwell's death as a sign of
divine dislike, or preference for the ACLU, all of whose members will
die eventually too.
Falwell wasn't our cup of tea--in particular, we took offense at his
suggestion that America was to blame for 9/11--though in fairness we
should point out that Falwell was quick to apologize, unlike most of
those on the left and Ron Paul who have made similar comments.
But the hatred Falwell inspires on the left is quite something to
behold. Here's a sampling (quoting verbatim except the redacted
vulgarity):
* "tzs," on Marcotte's blog: "If Mr. Falwell had not used his life to
spew hatred at anyone who did not fit his narrow-minded, bigoted idea of
who was a True God-fearing American™, one might feel more willing to
refrain from stating what an absolutely putrid little excrescence of
vomit he was. But I'm being polite, so I won't say that. R.I.P., and
after watching Falwell I know know why the Romans threw the Christians
to the lions."
* "Blue_In_AK on DemocraticUnderground.com: "he was such an unctuous,
smug, obnoxious blowhard that it's really difficult not to celebrate his
death. I'm trying, but it's .... so .... HARD."
* "andyesmysoulwillrotinhell," on TMZ.com: "First class a--h---..now
worm food...the world finally makes sense."
* "roewert," on WashingtonPost.com: "Good ridence. Jerry al Falwell was
imbicile who thought that the whole world should think and believe just
like him. Too bad there were so many gullible people in this country who
fell for his nonsense and sent so much money to him. So does this mean
that Pat bin Robertson moves up to the slot of chief idiot? The
Christian taliban marches on...."
More high-mindedly, Alan Wolfe begins a Salon.com dyslogy, "One never
wants to speak ill of the dead, but in the case of Jerry Falwell, how
can one not?"
Curiously, one man who has kind things to say about Falwell is
pornographer Larry Flynt. Access Hollywood quotes Flynt's statement on
Falwell's death:
The Reverend Jerry Falwell and I were arch enemies for
fifteen years. We became involved in a lawsuit concerning
First Amendment rights and Hustler magazine. Without
question, this was my most important battle--the 1988
Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Jerry Falwell case, where after
millions of dollars and much deliberation, the Supreme
Court unanimously ruled in my favor.
My mother always told me that no matter how much you
dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you
will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry
Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything
he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after
the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He
would visit me in California and we would debate together
on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even
though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was
selling.
The most important result of our relationship was the
landmark decision from the Supreme Court that made parody
protected speech, and the fact that much of what we see on
television and hear on the radio today is a direct result
of my having won that now famous case which Falwell played
such an important role in.
The Hustler v. Falwell case involved a gross ad parody, which Chief
Justice William Rehnquist described in his opinion for the court:
Copying the form and layout of these Campari ads,
Hustler's editors chose respondent [Falwell] as the
featured celebrity and drafted an alleged "interview"
with him in which he states that his "first time" was
during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother
in an outhouse.
Since the fake ad was clearly labeled as parody and was obviously
untrue, a jury rejected Falwell's claims of libel and invasion of
privacy. The court held that he could not collect damages for
"intentional infliction of emotional distress," because the parody was
protected by the First Amendment.
This was the right decision, but Flynt is probably also correct in
suggesting that it made possible "much of what we see on television and
hear on the radio today"--which is to say, it contributed to the
coarsening of our culture. That's one irony of Falwell's legacy. Another
is that his foes portrayed him as a hater, in large part because of the
hatred he inspired in them.
Topaz
C. E. Carlson
The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote "Democracy in America"
when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In
ringing tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength
and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of
morality... even with the abundant church attendances he observed in
America. De Tocqueville wrote in French and is credited with this
familiar quote: "AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, and if America
ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have
known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its
churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.
First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful
young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to
commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an
attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the
traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author
Gordon Ginn calls "The final Apostasy", began with a small very
wealthy and determined European political movement. It had a dream,
and the American churches stood in its way.
The World Zionist movement, as its Jewish founders called themselves,
had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even though
most were far from homeless, and many did not want another home. Not
any land would do. World Zionists wanted a specific property that
American Christians called "the Holy Land." But if these Zionists
read "Democracy in America" or any of the journals of any of America's
churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but know that
Jerusalem was not theirs to have. As self proclaimed Jews, they were,
according to the Christian New Testament, the persecutors of Christ
and most of his early followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion.
America's traditional churches in the 19th Century would never stand
for a Jewish occupation of Jesus' homeland.
World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its
religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal
was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I.
Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected
European book publisher The Oxford University Press.
The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and
promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's
role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting
Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters,
and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used
Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed
such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield
Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it
became a best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90
years.
The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation,
subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a
revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King
James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new
worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet
exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed,
well-funded authors of World Zionism.
Scofield's support came from a movement that took root around the turn
of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment over what it
considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches. Some of
these "reformers" were later to serve on Scofield's Editorial
Committee.
Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists, most of
whose credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies. His
mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated
with the Plymouth Brethren and who made no less than six evangelical
trips to the US selling what is today called "Darbyism". It is from
Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian Zionist
theology, which he later planted in the footnotes of the Scofield
Reference Bible. It is possible that Scofield's interest in Darbyism
was shared by Oxford University Press, for Darby was known to Oxford
University.
The Oxford University Press owned "The Scofield Reference Bible" from
the beginning, as indicated by its copyright, and Scofield stated he
received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford's advertisers and
promoters succeeded in making Scofield's bible, with its Christian
Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in
Judeo-Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has
been published in at least four editions since its introduction in
1908 and remains one of the largest selling Bibles ever.
The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but
worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the
first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance
to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the
fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study
Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students
from not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from
Catholic and mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts.
These invariably teach forms of "dispensationalism," which draw their
theory, to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.
Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases
recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible is the huge
Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World
Zionism's crowning achievement.
Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby
and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James
Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy to read footnotes at the
bottom of about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of
the KJE becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of
readers, students become increasingly dependent on the modern language
footnotes...
Scofield's borrowed ideas were later popularized under
the labels and definitions that have evolved into common usage
today pre-millennialism," "dispensationalism," "Judeo-Christianity,"
and most recently the highly political movement openly called
"Christian Zionism."
Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the
questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It
reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a
political animal with the charm and talent for self promotion of a
Bill Clinton. Scofield's background reveals a criminal history, a
deserted wife, a wrecked family, and a penchant for self serving lies.
He was exactly the sort of man the World Zionists might hire to bend
Christian thought, a controllable man and one capable of carrying the
secret to his grave. (See The Incredible Scofield and His Book by
Joseph M. Canfield).
Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology and exposed his
original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views.
Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian
Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics.
(http://virginiawater.org.uk/christchurch)
We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers. Our
own examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction,
focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions
and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to make to
Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations
have further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the
Christian worship of the State of Israel beyond what Schofield would
have dreamed of. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted
the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against
the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian
mass media evangelists or most other American church leaders. We
thank God for the exceptions.
It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition
deifies--makes a God of--the State of Israel, a state that did not
even exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This
writer believes that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race
hatred promoted by Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the
Gulf War nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have
occurred, and a million or more people who have perished would be
alive today.
What proof does WHTT have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to
control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that
were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel
was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield's death. The words
tell us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to
misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of
America.
There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew or cared much
about the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became involved in a
close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New York
lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and
most powerful World Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the
unbreakable thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a
password and a common watering hole, and it appears that Untermeyer
may have been the one who provided the money that Scofield himself
lacked. Scofield's success as an international bible editor without
portfolio and his lavish living in Europe could only have been
accomplished with financial aid and international influence.
This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work
of Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered clues
to the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads
connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it
would still be obvious that that connection was there. It is
significant that Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after
Scofield's death, Oxford accelerated changes to it. Since the death
of its original author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has
gone through several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added
to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield's most significant notes
from the original editions were removed where they apparently failed
to further Zionist aims fast enough. Yet this edition retains the
title, "The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C.I.
Scofield." It's anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an
enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in
genocide against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.
The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand that wrote the
Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible is the content of the
notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them. These
notes are the subject of this paper.
Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of SRB in 1967, at the time of
the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to
the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the
Palestinians' land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the
Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and
outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:
"FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS INEVITABLE
JUDGMENT." (page 1920, footnote (3) to Genesis 12:3.) (our
emphasis
added)
This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief
Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism.
But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition
of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American
churchgoers and students and is used by their leaders as a source for
their preaching and teaching...
All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being
really bad for those who "persecute the Jews," reflects and furthers
the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of
creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is
considered "anti-Semitism," and "anti-Semitism" is a "hate crime"
punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian
Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have
written this footnote...
It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show readers the
lack of logic in Scofield's theology, which has led followers of
Christ so far astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various
Bible references given in support of Scofield's strange writings. But
we will resist the temptation to do this, because others have already
done it quite well, and more importantly because it leads us off our
course.
It is also inviting to dig into Scofield's sordid past as Canfield has
done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable pathological
liar, but we leave that to others, because our interest is not in
Scofield's life, but in saving the lives of millions of innocent
people who are threatened by the continuing Zionist push for perpetual
war.
Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The words in these
1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the
text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to
support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the
Palestinians and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose,
Zionism has completely succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more
recently labeled "Christian Zionists," have remained mute during wars
upon Israel's enemies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and
elsewhere. It is past time to stop the spilling of more blood, some
of it Christian blood...
And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy the Zionists
who rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?
The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars consider
Arabs in general and the Prophet Mohamed in particular to be direct
descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first son and older half-brother of
Isaac, whose son Jacob was later to become known as "Israel." Many
Arabs believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs of to Abraham's
promise, and they correctly believe that present day Israelis have no
Biblical right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also
speaks of Ishmael, so the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter
how Christians viewed the two half brothers in order to prevent
Christians from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.
The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless footnote in
the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect,
substitutes the word "Jews" for the words "The Israelitish people and
Ishmaelitish people," as Scofield originally wrote it. The
Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the
Zionists want to claim the Arabs' part of the presumed birthright
right now! Read it again; "all Jews are natural descendants of
Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity."
And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford bible. On the
same page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note
referring to the New Testament book of John 8:37.
"(2) 8:44 THAT THIS SATANIC FATHERHOOD CANNOT BE LIMITED TO THE
PHARISEES IS MADE CLEAR IN 1Jn3:8" (note SRB 1967 Edition, P1137 to
John 8:44)
Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein Jesus is
speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his
day, and to no one else:
"YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUST OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL
DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE NOT IN THE TRUTH,
BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKEST A LIE, HE SPEAKEST
OF HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND THE FATHER OF IT." John 8:44 King
James Ed.)
Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what
Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they
inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred
text, directing readers to their specious, apostate footnotes. It
seems the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about Pharisees, but
they do not want to bear the burden of being "sons of Satan" all by
themselves. Now here's the text of the verse to which Oxford refers
in order to try to solve this problem:
"HE THAT COMMITETH SIN IS OF THE DEVIL; FOR THE DEVIL SINNETH FROM THE
BEGINNING. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE SON OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED, THAT HE
MIGHT DESTROY THE WORK OF THE DEVIL." (1Jn3:8.King James Edition)
Fine, but this verse, spoken by Jesus to His followers in a speech
about avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford's argument that Jesus
was not talking directly to and about the Pharisee leaders when he
called them "Sons of Satan" in John 8:44. It is a different book
written at a different time to a different audience. This is typical
Christian Zionist diversion.
To find out to whom Jesus is speaking you must read the rest of John
8, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44 is only
one of some 77 verses where Jesus confronted the Pharisees by name and
in many cases addressed them as "satanic" and as "vipers." Oxford
simply ignores most of these denunciations by Jesus, adding no notes
at all, and the Christian Zionists go along without question.
(The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:
"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today.")
These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that have
shaped the doctrine of America's most politically powerful religious
subculture, the "Christian Zionists" as Ariel Sharon calls them, or
the dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or
the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe
themselves. Today's Mid-East wars are not caused by the
predisposition of the peoples, who are no more warlike than any human
tribes. Without the pandering to Jewish and Zionist interests that is
carried out by this subculture--the most vocal being the celebrity
Christian evangelists--there would be no such wars, for there is not
enough support for war outside of organized Zionist Christianity.
Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church, England
is perhaps the most dedicated new
scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as
Christian Zionism. He has quipped, "Judging Christianity by looking
at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by
watching Benny Hill."
Reverend Sizer's remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is
Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting
inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn was
speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the
American Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star
Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3d event by announcing,
"We are on God's side," speaking of Palestine. He shouted, "This is
not a war between Jews and Arabs. It is a war between God and the
Devil." Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a
blood war in which the Israelis are "God" and the Palestinians are
"the Devil."
Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian Zionists who
have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join in
unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many
of Israel's enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from
his knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from
whom he seeks his lavish support-the Judeo-Christians, or Christian
Zionists--do not shrink at his words, because they have been
conditioned to accept them, just as Roman citizens learned to accept
Christian persecution, even burning alive, under Nero. Several
evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement with Hinn "the
line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and
evil."
An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement with the
fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James
Dobson and hundreds more. Yet Hinn's profit-seeking fanaticism is not
as shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist
Convention who occupy the highest positions in the area of
conservative religious thought. Land may have stopped short of
branding all Muslims as devils, but he attacked their leader and
Prophet and stated that, according to Baptist Bible interpretation,
the Palestinian people have no legal rights to property in Palestine.
(see note)...
Christian Zionism may be the most bloodthirsty apostasy in the entire
history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame on its leaders:
they have already brought the blood of untold numbers innocent people
down upon the spires and prayer benches of America's churches.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
z
> "Jerry Falwell's dead," announces Amanda Marcotte, the left-wing hate
> blogress who briefly worked for the presidential campaign of the
> extravagantly coiffed John Edwards. "Guess god [sic] liked the ACLU
> better after all."
After all; fundamentalist Muslims say the WTC got hit because God was
mad at the US' decadent ways; and Falwell said the WTC got hit because
God was mad at the US' decadent ways.
z
> WHY JUDEO-CHRISTIANS SUPPORT WAR
Whipped for two beers
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/A35C80E8-9B0C-4B4E-9B65-AADE67DD1C5C/
(Includes pictures to give any True Believer a hard-on)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian-Iranian Mamand Mamandy had a brutal meeting with police
after drinking two beers while on holiday in Iran.
It's getting better now, but I am still in great pain," Mamandy, 35,
told Aftenposten.no. "My brother is a doctor, and treated me after the
whipping. I was in great pain and could not sleep."
Mamandy, a Kurd, explained that he was visiting his mother in Baneh,
Iran in April when he was arrested by police.
"We were on an outing with family and friends, six or seven in the
evening, and were having a barbecue and enjoying ourselves. Altogether
I drank two beers. The police happened to drive by," Mamandy said.
He said that he was immediately arrested and taken to the police
station where he was sentenced to 130 lashes. This sentence, for beer
drinking, was carried out publicly according to news agency Iran Focus.
z
> CNN doctors also said there is growing evidence that the AIDS infected fags
> can actually pass this disease of death by sitting on toilet seats.
Luckily, that's less of a risk to you, personally, than transmission
by anal sex.
Topaz
At least they don't have drunk drivers. Maybe it's extreme to outlaw
beer but it's their business if they want to. Alcohol has in fact
destroyed a lot of lives.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
z
> At least they don't have drunk drivers.
or women drivers.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>Lanny Davis had a point, didn't he?
>
>No, had "good germans" gassed nazis, millions of lives
>would be saved.
>
>"Jews" wasn't the focus----"Gassing" was
The New York Times Web site has begun to feature a series of blogs, with
reader comments posted below the entries by Times writers. Apparently either
the comments are unedited or the Times has very low standards as to what it
will allow, as evidenced by these posted comments about a blog entry on Paul
Wolfowitz's ouster at the World Bank (quoting verbatim):
"Let us be honest. The issue of 'corruption' at the World Bank is not what
motivated Paul Wofowitz at the World Bank any more than that issue drove his
fellow neocon, John Bolton, at the UN. In each case these were covers for the
real agenda which was to bring both institutions into line with the imperial
policies of the U.S. and its puppeter in the area of foreign policy, Israel.
Mr. Wolfowitz as a Straussian is committed to the 'noble' lie to govern the
great unwashed, i.e., you and me. As a Likudnik, he is also committed to the
notion that Israel's interests and those of the U.S. are indistinguishable.
Hence by pursuing the interests of the Jewish State, he claims to be advancing
those of the US. As Mearsheimer and Walt point out, it is impossible for the
interests of two states to be indistinguishable. So Mr. Wolfowitz emerges as
the head of a fifth column of Likudniks in the U.S. As such he is a dangerous
man who should be locked up for life--since the death penalty is morally
abhorrent."--John Walsh
"The finance minister from Israel should be avoided at all costs. Surely no
explanation is needed."--Frederick
"PW was from the beginning Israel's candidate for the Pentagon job and for the
World Bank. In both jobs, his agenda was Israel's primarily and only
secondarily America's. The amazing thing is that it took so long to get rid of
him, another example of the paralyzing control that the Israel Lobby has on
America. The shocking thing about Wolfowitz and the other neocons is the
extraordinary lack of shame: How can anyone take any pride in one job's if
their work is done for an alien power and indeed one can not be critized for
anything because he is beyond criticism protected by the special nonsense of
anti-Semitic charges against the critics. The same is true of all the neocon
journalists who have sheltered him. In what sense can they can feel pride in
their work which directly involves USA's loss of blood and treasury. It sounds
like collaboration to me and most Europeans."--Keyran Moran
"First Wolfie fabricated stories about the floral bouquet welcome American
troops would receive from Iraqis. Was he really this stupid or did he just
plan this deception for the benefit of Israel where members of his family
live? Then Wolfie is nailed for corruptly getting his gal friend a big pay
raise at the World Bank. How is it that lowlife characters such as Wolfie
continue to be handed high flying jobs with great responsibilities. He is
obviously unfit for any of these positions. As an Asst Secretary of Defense he
couldn't even correctly tally the death toll in Iraq when questioned by a
congressional committee. Something is wrong with a political system that
continues to appoint this slimebag to high office."--Chuck Johnson
Aside from the vicious tone of these missives, they are factually wrong. Far
from being a Likudnik, Wolfowitz is actually to the left of Ariel Sharon when
it comes to Israeli-Palestinian relations.
Ubiquitous
> At least they don't have drunk drivers. Maybe it's extreme to outlaw
>beer but it's their business if they want to. Alcohol has in fact
>destroyed a lot of lives.
Gee, I thought you said it was The Jews who did that?
But back to the thread topic ... do we have more news from the anti-war
left? Why yes we do! What have these champions of peace gone and done
in Washington state? Why, they've gone and burned American flags that
decorated the graves of veterans. They replaced some of the flags with
Nazi Swastikas. But ... remember this. It is the right that is full of
hate, not the left. Got that?
Ubiquitous
treating him:
Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme
voices is savaged and ridiculed--especially people like me
who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes
disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.
Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the
blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful--and
politically successful--tone that right-wing radio talk-show
hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably
furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big
lies and smear tactics.
Remember that scene in "Forrest Gump" in which Jenny's hippie boyfriend slaps
her around, then offers the excuse that "it's just this war and that lying son
of a bitch, Johnson! I would never hurt you. You know that"?
Here it is in real life, with Joe Klein as Jenny, the berserk bloggers as the
hippie boyfriend, and GWB as LBJ. Except that Klein is making excuses for his
abusers. He must suffer from battered wife syndrome.
Ubiquitous
fall yesterday, as the Associated Press reports:
Roberts strode briskly out of the Penobscot Bay Medical Center in
Rockport, Maine, wearing a blue sport coat, open collar shirt and
slacks. He waved to onlookers before getting into a waiting sports
utility vehicle for a short trip to a dock, where he then took a
pontoon boat to his summer home on Hupper Island, near Port Clyde,
Maine...
Roberts was hospitalized after he fell on a dock near his home on
Monday. He had a prior unexplained seizure in 1993...
The incident occurred around 2 p.m. on a dock near Roberts' summer
home in Port Clyde on Maine's Hupper Island. He had just gotten
off a boat and was returning home after running errands.
Not everyone wishes the chief justice well. This uncredited post appeared last
night on the political gossip site Wonkette:
Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine.
No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed.
A Wonkette reader calling himself "Sluggo" writes: "Me, I think that the
falling kisser down, slobbering into s drool cup and noggin banging fit was
caused by a visit from the ghost of MLK."
Matthew Sheffield [1] notes some other hateful online missives, including this
gem from DemocraticUnderground.com:
And this is why Republicans win. We're too nice.
"Oooh lets wish him well. Let's hope for a speedy recovery." BULLSHIT.
I hope the guy has a serious illness that doesn't kill him, but
lays him just low enough to linger until we have a Democratic
president take office in 09, THEN he can take his well-deserved
dirt nap. These people are evil, corrupt, ruthless tools of
corporate america and they will stop at nothing to grant their
masters all manner of legal goodies via the Supreme Court at the
expense of average working americans like me. I hope they get
everything coming to them, and moreso.
You wanna win? You gotta be heartless and ruthless. Roberts is
a joke as a supreme court justice, let alone chief justice. Frankly,
I'd rather see that fat prick Scalia bite the big one, but we're
not that lucky. Hey, maybe a bunch of those self-important cretins
will die prematurely when the Democratic president takes office
in 09.
Just saying what everyone's thinking, or SHOULD be thinking. Remember
who the enemy is.
We're sure he's a compassionate misanthrope, though.
[1]: http://tinyurl.com/267vbd
z
> Chief Justice John Roberts is said to be fine after suffering a seizure and a
> fall yesterday, as the Associated Press reports:
> Not everyone wishes the chief justice well. This uncredited post appeared last
> night on the political gossip site Wonkette:
>
> Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine.
> No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed.
Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter "joked" during a
Thursday speech that liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
should be poisoned. "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice
Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said at Philander Smith College in
Little Rock, Ark. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/27/ann-coulter-we-need-som_n_14588.html
"In the letter, Robertson asked his supporters to pray for liberal
U.S. Supreme Court Justices to retire: "Would you join with me and
many others in crying out to our Lord to change the Court? ... One
justice is 83 years old, another has cancer, and another has a heart
condition."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200501040010
"On the July 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show,
Michael Savage reacted to news that Chief Justice John Roberts had
suffered a seizure that day by raising the possibility that "his
health was in some way tampered with by the Democrats."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708010001?f=h_latest
Ubiquitous
surprisingly, they tried to silence any contrary voices in the crowd.
In particular, a uniformed man tried to ask a question at the end of a
panel called "The Military and Progressives." What did the uniformed man
have to say? That the surge in Iraq was actually working ... contrary to
what the panel had just concluded. The moderator wouldn't allow the
panelists to address the statement but rather demanded that the man give
his name, the name of his commander and the name of his unit.
Name, commanding officer and unit! That, my friends, was just plain,
unadulterated intimidation. It was like these liberal candy asses were
telling this soldier "How dare you come into this meeting and tell us
that you are actually doing a good job in Iraq? Don't you know that
nobody wants to hear that? You, sir, will be punished for this
transgression."
No more questions were taken. The moderator left the stage. End of
debate. You just have to love the Angry Left.
IAAH
> Liberals had their annual YearlyKos convention in Chicago last week. Not
> surprisingly, they tried to silence any contrary voices in the crowd.
>
> In particular, a uniformed man tried to ask a question at the end of a
> panel called "The Military and Progressives." What did the uniformed man
> have to say? That the surge in Iraq was actually working ... contrary to
> what the panel had just concluded. The moderator wouldn't allow the
> panelists to address the statement but rather demanded that the man give
> his name, the name of his commander and the name of his unit.
>
> Name, commanding officer and unit! That, my friends, was just plain,
> unadulterated intimidation. It was like these liberal candy asses were
> telling this soldier "How dare you come into this meeting and tell us
> that you are actually doing a good job in Iraq? Don't you know that
> nobody wants to hear that? You, sir, will be punished for this
> transgression."
>
> No more questions were taken. The moderator left the stage. End of
> debate. You just have to love the Angry Left.
>
Wow, you're an idiot. That soldier was breaking the
UCMJ and he was being told so by a superior officer,
that he chose to ignore (after he was harassing Wesley
Clark and was told not to). Why is it okay for this
soldier to directly break regulations?
BTR1701
IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
I didn't see this. How does asking a question during a public political
debate violate the UCMJ? And which superior officer was he defying? And
how was he harassing Wesley Clark? By just asking an uncomfortable
question? Is that the new standard for harassment? Making a politician
uncomfortable or embarrassing them in public?
IAAH
WEARING the uniform as a partisan at a political event
violates the UCMJ. And the superior officer that he
defied was the one who attempted to convince him not to
disobey the UCMJ in the first place.
You can attempt to shift the issue all you like - that
soldier broke regs and should face the consequences.
The UCMJ is explicit in stating that soldiers cannot
participate in partisan political events, except as a
spectator when not in uniform. The moderator at the
event was aware of this and did what he could to
protect that soldier from his own ignorance (or stupidity).
DOD Directive 1344.10
(http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf)
Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1
http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
Members of the AF of the USA do NOT show up at partisan
political events wearing their uniform. Period. It
doesn't matter which side you're on.
BTR1701
IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
How was he a partisan other than just asking a question the Democrats
obviously didn't like?
> You can attempt to shift the issue all you like
I'm not attempting to do anything. I'm merely asking for the facts since
I didn't see the debate.
> DOD Directive 1344.10
> (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf)
>
> Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1
> http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
>
> Members of the AF of the USA do NOT show up at partisan
> political events wearing their uniform. Period. It
> doesn't matter which side you're on.
Okay, but that doesn't explain why the host committee tried to stifle
his question and then shut down the debate the moment he asked it.
Whether he violated military policy is a separate issue from why the
debate hosts acted as they did.
And I still am not sure how what this soldier did rose to level of
harassment toward Wesley Clark.
IAAH
Read the cites.
He violated the UCMJ, despite the efforts of others to
head that off.
>
>
>> You can attempt to shift the issue all you like
>
> I'm not attempting to do anything. I'm merely asking for the facts since
> I didn't see the debate.
>
>> DOD Directive 1344.10
>> (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf)
>>
>> Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1
>> http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
>>
>> Members of the AF of the USA do NOT show up at partisan
>> political events wearing their uniform. Period. It
>> doesn't matter which side you're on.
>
> Okay, but that doesn't explain why the host committee tried to stifle
> his question and then shut down the debate the moment he asked it.
They tried to protect him from himself. If he wants to
violate the UCMJ there is NO reason why another member
of the military should help him out, and no reason why
they should enable that kind of irresponsibility.
But that's beside the point. UCMJ violation here,
there's no doubt. I wouldn't take that kind of
disruption from someone who was that disrespectful of
the UCMJ as a soldier, either. I find it interesting
that nobody on the right is asking that soldier for an
explanation of his misconduct and instead making that
there was misconduct where there was none.
> Whether he violated military policy is a separate issue from why the
> debate hosts acted as they did.
No, it doesn't seem like it is.
>
> And I still am not sure how what this soldier did rose to level of
> harassment toward Wesley Clark.
Not leaving him alone when asked.
Gregg Luze
G
BTR1701
IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <CpudnfwIK_20W13b...@giganews.com>,
> > IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> >> DOD Directive 1344.10
> >> (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf)
> >>
> >> Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1
> >> http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
> >>
> >> Members of the AF of the USA do NOT show up at partisan
> >> political events wearing their uniform. Period. It
> >> doesn't matter which side you're on.
> > Okay, but that doesn't explain why the host committee
> > tried to stifle his question and then shut down the debate
> > the moment he asked it.
> They tried to protect him from himself.
Well, that's a typical liberal response, I'll give you that. They're
always trying to impose themselves on our lives "for our own good".
But he's a big boy and the debate wasn't a military event so it wasn't
any of their business.
> > Whether he violated military policy is a separate
> > issue from why the debate hosts acted as they did.
> No, it doesn't seem like it is.
Yes, it is. You just accept it as appropriate that the debate host
committee should have "protected him from himself". Besides, asking him
publicly for his name, commanding officer and unit hardly protects him
from anything.
> > And I still am not sure how what this soldier did
> > rose to level of harassment toward Wesley Clark.
> Not leaving him alone when asked.
So basically then the entire press corps harasses the president on a
daily basis. Or is Wesley Clark the only politician who is allowed to
ask to be left alone under pain of a harassment charge?
IAAH
> In article <bsCdnbQVybHbi1zb...@giganews.com>,
> IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <CpudnfwIK_20W13b...@giganews.com>,
>>> IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
>
>>>> DOD Directive 1344.10
>>>> (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf)
>>>>
>>>> Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1
>>>> http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Members of the AF of the USA do NOT show up at partisan
>>>> political events wearing their uniform. Period. It
>>>> doesn't matter which side you're on.
>
>>> Okay, but that doesn't explain why the host committee
>>> tried to stifle his question and then shut down the debate
>>> the moment he asked it.
>
>> They tried to protect him from himself.
>
> Well, that's a typical liberal response, I'll give you that.
And there's the response that confirms your prejudices.
Buh bye.
> They're
> always trying to impose themselves on our lives "for our own good".
You haven't managed to give one good reason why the
moderator should have enabled the breaking of regulations.
>
> But he's a big boy and the debate wasn't a military event so it wasn't
> any of their business.
And that's the end of it. Since it wasn't a military
event, that soldier had NO BUSINESS being there in
uniform, and since it was THEIR event, not his, that
pretty much makes it all their business.
End of story.
Ubiquitous
N.Y.):
CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux pinned back the
former First Lady to explain how she could "sustain black support "
while running against an African-American. Ironically, thanks to
Sen. Barack Obama's mixed white and Kenyan parentage and campaign
mischief, it is he who usually gets to field the "black enough"
question.
Although [Hillary] Clinton moon-walked away from Malveaux's direct
question, she came before the 2,700-member journalist group with
her designer set of promises. As president she said she would "call
for a national response" to the crisis of neglect facing young
black men. As part of her Youth Opportunity Agenda, she says the
initiative flows from her belief that "it takes a [white] village
to raise a child."
The word white in brackets appears in Payne's column, meaning that he added it
to the quote. Oddly enough, not only did Mrs. Clinton not refer to a "white
village," she claims "it takes a whole village to raise a child" is an African
proverb (though its actual origins are a matter of some dispute). What exactly
is Payne trying to say by adding this racial modifier to her quote?
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> Liberals had their annual YearlyKos convention in Chicago last week. Not
>> surprisingly, they tried to silence any contrary voices in the crowd.
>>
>> In particular, a uniformed man tried to ask a question at the end of a
>> panel called "The Military and Progressives." What did the uniformed man
>> have to say? That the surge in Iraq was actually working ... contrary to
>> what the panel had just concluded. The moderator wouldn't allow the
>> panelists to address the statement but rather demanded that the man give
>> his name, the name of his commander and the name of his unit.
>>
>> Name, commanding officer and unit! That, my friends, was just plain,
>> unadulterated intimidation. It was like these liberal candy asses were
>> telling this soldier "How dare you come into this meeting and tell us
>> that you are actually doing a good job in Iraq? Don't you know that
>> nobody wants to hear that? You, sir, will be punished for this
>> transgression."
>>
>> No more questions were taken. The moderator left the stage. End of
>> debate. You just have to love the Angry Left.
>
>Wow, you're an idiot.
In other words, you have nothing of value to contribute to this dicussion.
Thanks for saving us from wasting our valuable time.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
It's called "projection". Look it up sometime.
BTR1701
IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <bsCdnbQVybHbi1zb...@giganews.com>,
> > IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <CpudnfwIK_20W13b...@giganews.com>,
> >>> IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> DOD Directive 1344.10
> >>>> (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf)
> >>>>
> >>>> Section j of Paragraph 1-10 of AR 670-1
> >>>> http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Members of the AF of the USA do NOT show up at partisan
> >>>> political events wearing their uniform. Period. It
> >>>> doesn't matter which side you're on.
> >
> >>> Okay, but that doesn't explain why the host committee
> >>> tried to stifle his question and then shut down the debate
> >>> the moment he asked it.
> >
> >> They tried to protect him from himself.
> >
> > Well, that's a typical liberal response, I'll give you that.
>
> And there's the response that confirms your prejudices.
> Buh bye.
Ah, so from that response, I take it that you have none of your own? I
guess you're truly unique in all of mankind-- the only person in human
history without bias of any kind.
> > They're always trying to impose themselves on our
> > lives "for our own good".
> You haven't managed to give one good reason why the
> moderator should have enabled the breaking of regulations.
You haven't given one good reason why it's any of the moderator's
business.
> > But he's a big boy and the debate wasn't a military
> > event so it wasn't any of their business.
> And that's the end of it. Since it wasn't a military
> event, that soldier had NO BUSINESS being there in
> uniform, and since it was THEIR event, not his, that
> pretty much makes it all their business.
The fact that an audience member was violating his employer's policies
is not their business just because they're the one putting on the event,
any more than it would be their business if I went there and asked a
question that pissed my boss off. My personal relationship with my
employer is none of the host committee's business.
IAAH
The difference is that I'm not using ad-hom. That would
be you.
>
>>> They're always trying to impose themselves on our
>>> lives "for our own good".
>
>> You haven't managed to give one good reason why the
>> moderator should have enabled the breaking of regulations.
>
> You haven't given one good reason why it's any of the moderator's
> business.
Because THAT'S HIS JOB. You know what a moderator DOES,
don't you?
>
>>> But he's a big boy and the debate wasn't a military
>>> event so it wasn't any of their business.
>
>> And that's the end of it. Since it wasn't a military
>> event, that soldier had NO BUSINESS being there in
>> uniform, and since it was THEIR event, not his, that
>> pretty much makes it all their business.
>
> The fact that an audience member was violating his employer's policies
> is not their business just because they're the one putting on the event,
> any more than it would be their business if I went there and asked a
> question that pissed my boss off. My personal relationship with my
> employer is none of the host committee's business.
Since it is THEIR committee, it is if they want it to
be. That's the nature of a private event. They have no
obligation to tolerate an audience member being a dick.
Since you've decided to utterly disregard the point
(which is the breach of UCMJ that the moderator refused
to countenance) can I assume that you have no defense left?
BTR1701
IAAH <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Nah, you too. See below.
> >>> They're always trying to impose themselves on our
> >>> lives "for our own good".
> >> You haven't managed to give one good reason why the
> >> moderator should have enabled the breaking of regulations.
> > You haven't given one good reason why it's any of the
> > moderator's business.
>
> Because THAT'S HIS JOB. You know what a moderator DOES,
> don't you?
Really? The moderator's job is to protect the candidate's carefully
polished images by shutting down the debate if anyone in the audience
has the gall to go off-script and ask something which might make them
look bad?
Hmmm... it's been a while since I watched a debate but the last one I
saw, that wasn't the moderator's job at all.
> >>> But he's a big boy and the debate wasn't a military
> >>> event so it wasn't any of their business.
> >
> >> And that's the end of it. Since it wasn't a military
> >> event, that soldier had NO BUSINESS being there in
> >> uniform, and since it was THEIR event, not his, that
> >> pretty much makes it all their business.
> > The fact that an audience member was violating his
> > employer's policies is not their business just because
> > they're the one putting on the event, any more than it
> > would be their business if I went there and asked a
> > question that pissed my boss off. My personal relationship
> > with my employer is none of the host committee's business.
> Since it is THEIR committee, it is if they want it to
> be. That's the nature of a private event.
They can do whatever they want but that doesn't mean the personal
relationships of the audience members are any of their business and any
criticism of their behavior in that regard is legitimate.
The fact that it's a private event hardly makes them immune from
criticism for their behavior. Not sure where you got that from. If you
come to my house for a party and I start asking your wife all about the
details of your sex life, then kick you out if you refuse to answer, I
hardly think you'd be sympathetic to someone who told you to chill out,
because it's my private event so anything I deem to be my business is
automatically makes it so.
> They have no obligation to tolerate an audience member
> being a dick.
So asking a question of a politician that makes them embarrassed or
uncomfortable is now considered "being a dick"? Nah, you don't have any
biases at all. What was I thinking?
Oh, and what is it you were saying about not engaging in "ad-hom"? Looks
like you're wallowing down here with the rest of us now. Welcome to the
sty.
[And while calling someone a "dick" is indeed "ad-hom", what I wrote
really isn't. It actually *is* a hallmark of liberalism to advocate for
and enact laws that restricts people's behavior for their own good and
to protect them from themselves. 'Cause only a liberal knows what's good
for you, dontcha know. You can't be trusted to decide these things for
yourself.]
_There@there.net LJ
it
to the quote. Oddly enough, not only did Mrs. Clinton not refer to a "white
village," she claims "it takes a whole village to raise a child" is an
African
proverb (though its actual origins are a matter of some dispute). What
exactly
is Payne trying to say by adding this racial modifier to her quote?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the
liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our
military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for
them, it's failing.
Larry Jay
http://www.cafepress.com/fartotheleft.160157175
--
Trust your politicians, Do You?
If I were you, I'd think again on that one.
IAAH
I did. Do you know what ad-hominem even IS?
>
>>>>> They're always trying to impose themselves on our
>>>>> lives "for our own good".
>
>>>> You haven't managed to give one good reason why the
>>>> moderator should have enabled the breaking of regulations.
>
>>> You haven't given one good reason why it's any of the
>>> moderator's business.
>> Because THAT'S HIS JOB. You know what a moderator DOES,
>> don't you?
>
> Really? The moderator's job is to protect the candidate's carefully
> polished images by shutting down the debate if anyone in the audience
> has the gall to go off-script and ask something which might make them
> look bad?
No, that's not it. Let's see if you can figure it out.
>
> Hmmm... it's been a while since I watched a debate but the last one I
> saw, that wasn't the moderator's job at all.
>
>>>>> But he's a big boy and the debate wasn't a military
>>>>> event so it wasn't any of their business.
>>>> And that's the end of it. Since it wasn't a military
>>>> event, that soldier had NO BUSINESS being there in
>>>> uniform, and since it was THEIR event, not his, that
>>>> pretty much makes it all their business.
>
>>> The fact that an audience member was violating his
>>> employer's policies is not their business just because
>>> they're the one putting on the event, any more than it
>>> would be their business if I went there and asked a
>>> question that pissed my boss off. My personal relationship
>>> with my employer is none of the host committee's business.
>
>> Since it is THEIR committee, it is if they want it to
>> be. That's the nature of a private event.
>
> They can do whatever they want but that doesn't mean the personal
> relationships of the audience members are any of their business and any
> criticism of their behavior in that regard is legitimate.
But this was not about a personal relationship. It was
about a professional association. MAYBE if it was a
person MARRIED to a soldier, it would be personal
business - but since that's not the case, it's a moot
point.
>
> The fact that it's a private event hardly makes them immune from
> criticism for their behavior. Not sure where you got that from. If you
> come to my house for a party and I start asking your wife all about the
> details of your sex life, then kick you out if you refuse to answer, I
> hardly think you'd be sympathetic to someone who told you to chill out,
> because it's my private event so anything I deem to be my business is
> automatically makes it so.
But if I'm violating the law to which I am voluntarily
and immediately subject while being a dick, why should
I expect any sympathy from anyone?
>
>> They have no obligation to tolerate an audience member
>> being a dick.
>
> So asking a question of a politician that makes them embarrassed or
> uncomfortable is now considered "being a dick"? Nah, you don't have any
> biases at all. What was I thinking?
I don't know what you were thinking - so far you
haven't been much on explanation. It wasn't the
'question' that was issue. It was the immediate and
wilful violation of the UCMJ that was the issue.
>
> Oh, and what is it you were saying about not engaging in "ad-hom"? Looks
> like you're wallowing down here with the rest of us now. Welcome to the
> sty.
No, I have facts on my side. That soldier violated the
UCMJ, correct? Another soldier should try to stop
that, correct? If not, why not?
>
> [And while calling someone a "dick" is indeed "ad-hom",
No, because I didn't say anyone was wrong for being a
dick. You're being a dick, and I'm not saying you're
wrong because of excessive dickishness.
I said the soldier was a dick for knowingly and
wilfully violating the UCMJ - which is a factual event.
>
what I wrote
> really isn't. It actually *is* a hallmark of liberalism to advocate for
> and enact laws that restricts people's behavior for their own good and
> to protect them from themselves. 'Cause only a liberal knows what's good
> for you, dontcha know. You can't be trusted to decide these things for
> yourself.]
The Bush admin. (not so liberal) has enacted laws
beyond easy counting advocating the restriction of
personal behaviour.
Ubiquitous
at Wikipedia now have the ability to track who is making online changes to
entries.
Of interest is the fact that it has been determined that someone used a
computer inside the headquarters of the Democrat Party to alter the entry for
Rush Limbaugh on Wikipedia. The Democrat operative edited the entry to
describe Limbaugh as "idiotic" and "ridiculous," and said that his listeners
were "legally retarded."
And, of course, there's more! Investigators have also found that someone using
a computer at The New York Times edited the entry for President Bush by adding
the word "Jerk."
Why bring this up? Just to tell you that if some conservative did this to the
entry for a liberal icon on Wikipedia, for instance, if someone were to
alter Ted Kennedy's entry to describe that moment where he was wandering up
and down a dirt road worrying about his political career while Mary Jo
Kopechne suffocated in the back seat of his car, it would be surely labeled
"hate speech" by the left.
Remember, only conservatives are capable of hate speech.
Ubiquitous
>Unfortunately true, but the right-wingers still have a commanding lead.
You might want to get that selective memory of yours checked by a doctor
and/or psychologist. You're welcome.
Yesterday I brought you news about the recent Yearly Kos convention in
Chicago. That's the convention of leftist bloggers where they silenced a
uniformed soldier to keep him from expressing his opinion on the war in Iraq –
needless to say, he didn't agree with the leftist panel that was discussing
"the Military and Progressives."
Then there's a writer for Daily Kos, who referred to our troops as "morally
retarded", a clear indication of what the Left really think of our troops.
Now I have another little goody for you. It's a blog called Duvallbuck's
Diary. In this blog you will find an incredibly moronic piece of complete
bullshit. The writer says that he would "rather die in a terrorist attack then
have a CIA operative outed by the Office of the Vice President because her
husband wrote an op-ed telling the truth about lies told by President Bush."
Now, never mind that the aforementioned op-ed actually lied about the
truths being told by President Bush. We don't want to confuse this leftist
blogger with any facts. He seems to be quite on the edge already.
And, as usual .. .there's more! This blogger also says that he would rather
die in a terrorist (we assume he means "Islamic" terrorist) that have to
endure any of the following:
- The domestic surveillance of any citizen's email, phone calls, medical
records, library usage or financial transactions.
- Forsaking the Geneva conventions in the name of our nation.
- Giving up anyone's right of habeas corpus.
A few more people like him in our country and he may get his wish.
Ubiquitous
Here is a story to brighten your weekend: Early this afternoon we received an
email from one of our most loyal readers. We'll withhold his name, because our
purpose here isn't to make him look silly. Suffice it to say that he writes us
several times a week, his nickname for President Bush is "Chimpy," and the
following message, which we quote verbatim is actually quite a bit more
temperate than his usual fare:
No wonder the entire world sees this fool for the complete
moron that he is.
I now see that his supporters, such as your august self, have truly,
really, fundamentally no shame and no sense of embarrassment. Bush
makes us all look like dopes--after all he was elected twice (ooops,
make that stole the election twice--my bad)
If only his idiot gaffs were the worst of it...
He is truly worthless as a president and as a man!
Our correspondent sent us a link to a blog called First Draft, in which
someone styling himself "Holden Caulfield" says of the president, "Christ,
what a dumbass," and links to the following Reuters dispatch:
Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing
gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former
South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian
violence in Iraq.
"It's out there. All we can do is reassure people, especially
South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor,
chief executive officer of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, said
as Bush's comments received worldwide coverage. . . .
"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead
because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has
a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference
in Washington on Thursday. . . .
References to his death--Mandela is now 89 and increasingly
frail--are seen as insensitive in South Africa.
So, what did President Bush actually say? Here's the quote in context, from
the White House transcript:
Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in
Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's
brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when
somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well,
Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.
He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families,
and people are recovering from this. So there's a psychological
recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them. And
I understand it's hard work for them. Having said that, I'm not
going the give them a pass when it comes to the central
government's reconciliation efforts.
In this context, it is clear that the literal meaning of "Where's Mandela?" is
"Where is the Iraqi who will play the role in his country that Mandela played
in postapartheid South Africa?" This was a pithy metaphor, not an
"embarrassing gaffe."
Now, how did Reuters get the story wrong? There are, it seems to us, three
explanations:
1) Stupidity. The reporter was so bone-headedly literal-minded that he simply
did not understand the rhetorical device Bush was employing.
2) Laziness. The reporter wasn't actually at the press conference and didn't
bother to check the context of the quote.
3) Dishonesty. The reporter knew full well that Bush was speaking
metaphorically and deliberately twisted his meaning in order to fit the
stereotype that Bush "has a reputation for verbal faux pas."
In the case of the particular Reuters dispatch "Caulfield" links to, laziness
is the most likely answer. It's datelined Johannesburg, so the reporter surely
was not at the press conference. But ultimately the explanation for the
"worldwide coverage" this "gaffe" has received is either stupidity or
dishonesty. Some journalist either failed to understand or deliberately
misrepresented Bush's remark. And the joke is on people like our Bush-hating
correspondent, who gullibly eat this stuff up.
Ubiquitous
"My Grandfather's Son" , a predictable theme has emerged: that Justice Thomas
is a "bitter" and "angry" man, who really has no reason to feel that way.
After all, as a USA Today editorial sneers, "Are we meant to feel sympathy for
the plight of a Yale-educated Supreme Court justice with enormous power, long
summer holidays and seven-figure book contracts?"
Perfectly encapsulating this attitude is a letter to the editor that appeared
in yesterday's New York Times (second letter):
If Justice Clarence Thomas had lost his bid in 1991 to be
appointed to the Supreme Court as a result of Anita Hill's
testimony about his behavior as her supervisor, it might
be understandable that he remembers that testimony with
anger and bitterness. However, he was appointed in spite of
Professor Hill's allegations.
It seems that Justice Thomas has spent the last 16 years
reliving that testimony and nurturing his wounds, as he
reports in his memoir, "My Grandfather's Son." Perhaps no
one warned the Supreme Court nominee that those hearings
would be political and acrimonious.
To Justice Thomas, I say: You received the appointment you
sought. You are being "touchy" and overreacting to "slights."
It is time to move on. The country needs you to focus your
energy, attention and intelligence on the work of the
Supreme Court.
Janet G. Puente
Newtown, Pa., Oct. 2, 2007
A point of personal privilege: We know Justice Thomas, having met him in 1993;
and the caricature of him as "angry" and "bitter" is wildly at odds with our
own experience. We have always found him to be warm, gracious and avuncular.
The last time we saw him, at the Heritage Foundation on Monday, he was
ebullient, smiling widely and laughing often. When we arrived, he greeted us
with a vigorous handshake and a "Hey, buddy!" If he is bitter and angry, he
certainly hides it well.
This is not to say that he has always been at peace with himself and the
world. As a younger man, he went through periods of rage and confusion, as
many intelligent and intense young men do. Yet his memoir--which ends in 1991,
with his taking a seat on the Supreme Court--is not a lament but a story of
struggle and redemption.
It has its bitter chapters, and the bitterest is Chapter 9, "Invitation to a
Lynching," in which, in a last-ditch attempt to prevent Thomas's appointment
to the high court, a disgruntled former employee named Anita Hill reappears on
the scene with tales of ribaldry. This was a bitter experience not, as USA
Today and Janet Puente smugly suggest, because it was an effort to thwart
Thomas's ambitions, but because it was an attempt to destroy him personally.
As Thomas testified on Oct. 11, 1991:
I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is
disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur
in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt
was searched for by staffers of members of this committee,
was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this
body validated it and displayed it at prime time over our
entire nation.
How would any member on this committee, any person in this
room, or any person in this country would like sleaze said
about him or her in this fashion? Or this dirt dredged up
and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner,
how would any person like it?
The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am
not here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my
life, and my integrity. I think something is dreadfully
wrong with this country when any person, any person in
this free country would be subjected to this.
This is not a closed room. There was an FBI investigation.
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters
privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus.
It's a national disgrace.
And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a
high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in way deign to
think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have
different ideas, and it is a message that unless you
kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.
You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee
of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
Justice Thomas says that Hill's claims were false. We believe him because we
know him to be a man of character and integrity. Also because there was no
evidence to substantiate her claims, because (as National Review Online's
Matthew Franck points out) his corroborating witnesses were persuasive, and
because, as noted Tuesday [1], her statements since the release of his book
reinforce his portrayal of her and undermine her credibility further.
You are under no obligation to believe him or to disbelieve her. But no one
has suggested that her charges were substantial enough to hold up in court,
even civil court. To be sure, Senate confirmation is a political proceeding,
not a judicial one, so that the standard is political: not reasonable doubt or
preponderance of the evidence but merely whether enough senators can be
induced to switch their vote. This standard is so low as to be almost
subterranean, but Hill failed to meet even it. Her testimony changed at least
three votes; she would have needed three more.
Even by political standards, Justice Thomas was treated unjustly, for Hill's
charges never should have seen the light of day under the procedures designed
to protect nominees from unsubstantiated accusations.
To our mind the most telling detail about Hill in Thomas's book is something
he mentions only in passing, on page 242: that when she approached the
Judiciary Committee with her accusations, "she initially requested that her
name be withheld from the members." ANONYMOUS character assassination was too
low a tactic even for Joe Biden, who said no.
Hill gave a confidential statement to the FBI, which conducted an
investigation and presented the results to the committee. The charges became
public not because senators, after due deliberation, decided they were worth
airing, but because some rogue senator or staffer decided to leak them to
reporters.
Just days before--and we'd completely forgotten about this, as it was
overshadowed by the Hill circus--someone at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, where Thomas then served, leaked a copy of a
draft opinion Thomas had written. As he explains on page 246:
This breach of confidentiality was unprecedented. One of
the hallmarks of the federal judiciary had always been the
absolute secrecy in which it worked. Leaks were unthinkable--until
now. The case in question involved preferences given to
women by the Federal Communications Commission in awarding
radio-station licenses, and it was clear that my opinion
had been leaked by a person or persons who wanted to portray
me as unsympathetic to women's causes.
With this pair of leaks, Thomas's political foes managed to violate the
integrity of the FBI, the Senate and the D.C. Circuit--that is, of all three
branches of government. This behavior was unethical, unconscionable and
possibly criminal, and no one has ever been held to account for it.
Thomas's opponents believed that the end justified the means, as a former foe
tells the justice on page 232:
Years later a young woman who had worked for one of the
many groups opposed to my nomination approached Virginia.
"We didn't think of your husband as human, and I'm sorry,"
she said, tears streaming down her face. "We thought that
anything was justified because our access to abortions and
sex was at risk." The woman went on to explain that she had
subsequently had a religions conversion and now felt that
it was her duty to apologize to us.
Now, those who remain unrepentant are reduced to arguing, pathetically, that
Justice Thomas--and the rest of us--should countenance the means because they
failed to realize the end.
They are uncomfortable being reminded of this travesty because they know it
implicates them. In "On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of
Lynching in the Twenty-First Century," Sherrilyn Ifill writes of the impunity
with which people committed that atrocity:
The willingness of lynchers to act publicly is tremendously
significant. It reflects the lynchers' certainty that they
would never face punishment for their acts. The willingness
of the crowd to participate in lynching--to cheer, to yell
their encouragement, or just to stand and watch without
intervention--is perhaps equally terrible.
To be sure, the lynching of Clarence Thomas was only a figurative one, and he
managed to slip the metaphorical noose. But we can understand why those who
cheered his tormentors on would now feel put upon by his refusal to pretend
the whole thing never happened. They imagine him to be "angry" and "bitter"
because he holds up a mirror to the darkness in their own souls.
[1]: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010681
--
If black Democrats--and white Democrats, for that matter--cannot disagree
respectfully with a conservative who happens to be black, they have no moral
authority when it comes to combating racism in other manifestations.
z
> They are uncomfortable being reminded of this travesty because they know it
> implicates them. In "On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of
> Lynching in the Twenty-First Century," Sherrilyn Ifill writes of the impunity
> with which people committed that atrocity:
>
> The willingness of lynchers to act publicly is tremendously
> significant. It reflects the lynchers' certainty that they
> would never face punishment for their acts. The willingness
> of the crowd to participate in lynching--to cheer, to yell
> their encouragement, or just to stand and watch without
> intervention--is perhaps equally terrible.
I remember an account of a lynching in the last century, where the
victim cried out " My God, this is just like being nominated to the US
Supreme Court and having a Confirmation Hearing where several
witnesses testify against me!" I tell you, it shook me to my core.
Ubiquitous
the Angry Left is employing gutter tactics against the Republican
front-runner. One ugly theme has emerged:
* "Could the United States, for that matter, elect a
cross-dresser? The Rudy Giuliani surge would be comic
if its broader implications were not so grave."
--James Carroll, Boston Globe, Oct. 29
* "Rudy's acceptance of Pat Robertson's endorsement is
equally foolish. Not only has it made utterly transparent
that Giuliani isn't just a cross dresser but also a man
capable of practicing the oldest profession as well
as any Jezebel ..."
--Gloria Feldt, Puffington Host, Nov. 9
* "Rudy Giuliani did Hillary imitations, complete with
mincing steps and effete hand gestures, looking just
like the cross-dresser we know him to be."
--Stanley Fish, New York Times Web site, Nov. 11
* "The old guard, Pat Robertson, has just endorsed the
cross-dressing former mayor of New York to defeat
what he called Islamic 'blood lust.' "
--Andrew Sullivan, Times (London), Nov. 11
They make Giuliani sound like Boy George. In fact, he's more like Monty
Python, having donned a dress on a couple of occasions purely for comic
effect.
It's especially sad to see Andrew Sullivan, who styles himself a champion
of gay rights, resort to a rank appeal to homophobia in order to score
cheap partisan points.
Ubiquitous
Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself. The
people, or various factions among them, have indulged in Clinton hatred,
Reagan hatred, Nixon hatred, LBJ hatred, FDR hatred, Lincoln hatred, and
John Adams hatred, to mention only the more extravagant hatreds that we
Americans have conceived for our presidents.
But Bush hatred is different. It's not that this time members of the
intellectual class have been swept away by passion and become votaries
of anger and loathing. Alas, intellectuals have always been prone to
employ their learning and fine words to whip up resentment and demonize
the competition. Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride
intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a
virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a
rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of
good moral hygiene.
This distinguishing feature of Bush hatred was brought home to me on a
recent visit to Princeton University. I had been invited to appear on a
panel to debate the ideas in Princeton professor and American Prospect
editor Paul Starr's excellent new book, "Freedom's Power: The True Force
of Liberalism." To put in context Prof. Starr's grounding of
contemporary progressivism in the larger liberal tradition, I recounted
to the Princeton audience an exchange at a dinner I hosted in Washington
in June 2004 for several distinguished progressive scholars,
journalists, and policy analysts.
To get the conversation rolling at that D.C. dinner--and perhaps
mischievously--I wondered aloud whether Bush hatred had not made
rational discussion of politics in Washington all but impossible. One
guest responded in a loud, seething, in-your-face voice, "What's
irrational about hating George W. Bush?" His vehemence caused his fellow
progressives to gather around and lean in, like kids on a playground who
see a fight brewing.
Reluctant to see the dinner fall apart before drinks had been served, I
sought to ease the tension. I said, gently, that I rarely found hatred a
rational force in politics, but, who knows, perhaps this was a special
case. And then I tried to change the subject.
But my dinner companion wouldn't allow it. "No," he said, angrily. "You
started it. You make the case that it's not rational to hate Bush." I
looked around the table for help. Instead, I found faces keen for my
response. So, for several minutes, I held forth, suggesting that however
wrongheaded or harmful to the national interest the president's policies
may have seemed to my progressive colleagues, hatred tended to cloud
judgment, and therefore was a passion that a citizen should not be proud
of being in the grips of and should avoid bringing to public debate.
Propositions, one might have thought, that would not be controversial
among intellectuals devoted to thinking and writing about politics.
But controversial they were. Finally, another guest, a man I had long
admired, an incisive thinker and a political moderate, cleared his
throat, and asked if he could interject. I welcomed his intervention,
confident that he would ease the tension by lending his authority in
support of the sole claim that I was defending, namely, that Bush hatred
subverted sound thinking. He cleared his throat for a second time. Then,
with all eyes on him, and measuring every word, he proclaimed, "I . . .
hate . . . the . . . way . . . Bush . . . talks."
And so, I told my Princeton audience, in the context of a Bush hatred
and a corollary contempt for conservatism so virulent that it had addled
the minds of many of our leading progressive intellectuals, Prof. Starr
deserved special recognition for keeping his head in his analysis of
liberalism and progressivism. Then I got on with my prepared remarks.
But as at that D.C. dinner in late spring of 2004, so again in early
autumn 2007 at dinner following the Princeton panel, several of my
progressive colleagues seized upon my remarks against giving oneself
over to hatred. And they vigorously rejected the notion. Both a
professor of political theory and a nationally syndicated columnist
insisted that I was wrong to condemn hatred as a passion that impaired
political judgment. On the contrary, they argued, Bush hatred was fully
warranted considering his theft of the 2000 election in Florida with the
aid of the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore; his politicization
of national security by making the invasion of Iraq an issue in the 2002
midterm elections; and his shredding of the Constitution to authorize
the torture of enemy combatants.
Of course, these very examples illustrate nothing so much as the damage
hatred inflicts on the intellect. Many of my colleagues at Princeton
that evening seemed not to have considered that in 2000 it was Al Gore
who shifted the election controversy to the courts by filing a lawsuit
challenging decisions made by local Florida county election supervisors.
Nor did many of my Princeton dinner companions take into account that
between the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, 10 of 16
higher court judges--five of whom were Democratic appointees--found
equal protection flaws with the recount scheme ordered by the
intermediate Florida court. And they did not appear to have pondered
Judge Richard Posner's sensible observation, much less themselves
sensibly observe, that while indeed it was strange to have the U.S.
Supreme Court decide a presidential election, it would have been even
stranger for the election to have been decided by the Florida Supreme
Court.
As for the 2002 midterm elections, it is true that Mr. Bush took the
question of whether to use military force against Iraq to the voters,
placing many Democratic candidates that fall in awkward positions. But
in a liberal democracy, especially from a progressive point of view,
aren't questions of war and peace proper ones to put to the people--as
Democrats did successfully in 2006?
And lord knows the Bush administration has blundered in its handling of
legal issues that have arisen in the war on terror. But from the common
progressive denunciations you would never know that the Bush
administration has rejected torture as illegal. And you could easily
overlook that in our system of government the executive branch, which
has principal responsibility for defending the nation, is in wartime
bound to overreach--especially when it confronts on a daily basis
intelligence reports that describe terrifying threats--but that when
checked by the Supreme Court the Bush administration has, in accordance
with the system, promptly complied with the law.
In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy.
Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims--who pride
themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance--to reduce
complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and
evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides
of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a
political opponent.
Prof. Starr shows in "Freedom's Power" that tolerance, generosity, and
reasoned skepticism are hallmarks of the truly liberal spirit. His
analysis suggests that the problem with progressives who have succumbed
to Bush hatred is not their liberalism; it's their betrayal of it. To be
sure, Prof. Starr rejects Bush administration policies and thinks
conservatives have the wrong remedies for what ails America today. Yet
at the same time his analysis suggests, if not a cure for those who have
already succumbed, at least a recipe for inoculating others against
hating presidents to come.
The recipe consists above all in recognizing that constitutional
liberalism in America "is the common heritage of both modern
conservatives and modern liberals, as those terms are understood in the
Anglo-American world," writes Prof. Starr. We are divided not by our
commitment to the Constitution but by disagreements--often, to be sure,
with a great deal of blood and treasure at stake--over how to defend
that Constitution and secure its promise of liberty under law.
The conflict between more conservative and more liberal or progressive
interpretations of the Constitution is as old as the document itself,
and a venerable source of the nation's strength. It is wonderful for
citizens to bring passion to it. Recognizing the common heritage that
provides the ground for so many of the disagreements between right and
left today will encourage both sides, if not to cherish their opponents,
at least to discipline their passions and make them an ally of their
reason.
| Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's
| Hoover Institution and a professor at George Mason University
| School of Law.
Gar D'Loo
web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Men of good will understand that hatred must be earned through
malevolent conduct; and they do not bestow their hatred lightly nor
withdraw it without good cause. Bush and Cheny have earned our full
measure of hatred; and their names must lead all the rest in the
Docket of War Crimes trials.
--Gar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shroyer
wrote:
> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> for them, it's failing.
I agreed with the rest of it, so no comment there. But this - may I
ask to what you refer as "victory" in Iraq? I ask not to stir up
trouble, but because I'm genuinely curious. I've heard this said a
number of times, and honestly cannot figure out what is being referred
to as "victory". :-? Seriously, honestly - assume me a dolt if you
must in order to respond as if I'm being serious, but perhaps I am a
dolt, I dunno', because I _am_ being serious. :-?
garre...@yahoo.com
> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> for them, it's failing.
It is simply breathtaking to watch the malice and negligence with
which the Bush Administration and the Angry Right have been
attempting to turn their criminal blunder in Iraq into a victory.
Too
bad for all of us, Bush is an incompetent failure.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>There's almost a year to go before the presidential election, and already
>the Angry Left is employing gutter tactics against the Republican
>front-runner. One ugly theme has emerged:
Last week we noted that opponents of Rudy Giuliani have been reduced to
falsely describing the former mayor as a "cross-dresser." Last Thursday, CBS's
"The Early Show" provided a forum for another homophobic line of attack. This
is from a "report" in which Mo Rocca, whom co-host Harry Smith describes as a
"political satirist, blogger and contributor to CBS News," interviews Sam
Chwat of the New York Speech Center:
Rocca: Is America ready for a president with a lisp? Rudy
Giuliani has a lisp... What kind of a lisp does Rudy Giuliani have?
Chwat: His is more of the dentalized type where his tongue
comes too close to the front teeth, sort of like this...
Rocca: If a lisp also connotes weakness, is that something that
can be a detriment to someone who's trying to become the leader
of the free world?
Chwat: Absolutely. And if you've got an enemy, he will use
whatever you're using against him, you know, any part of a
signature style he will use to mock you or make into a
caricature of you.
Rocca: So he can call Kim Jong Il despicable but Kim Jong Il
can say, "Baby talk, baby talk, it's a wonder you can walk,"
and tease Giuliani, and that's humiliating.
Chwat: Exactly.
(Excerpt from cartoon featuring Daffy Duck)
Rocca: I have here the oath of office. If Rudy Giuliani is
elected, this is going to be a very important moment, a first
impression for many around the globe of President Giuliani.
I, Rudolph Giuliani, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully
executive [sic in transcript] the office of president of the
United States.
Chwat: Try it like this. I, Rudy Giuliani, do sholemnly shwear.
Rocca: I, Rudy Giuliani, do sholemnly shwear.
It is unimaginable that a mainstream network would give this sort of treatment
to, say, Barney Frank or John Edwards. We're not going to feign outrage again;
the truth is that we find this all sort of amusing. But it is a reminder of
just what a sham left-wing political correctness is. People who claim to
oppose "homophobia" or other forms of prejudice often turn out merely to want
a monopoly on it.
KiniK
garre...@yahoo.com
> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> for them, it's failing.
"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil
war inside Iraq would literally be a QUAGMIRE. Once we got to Baghdad,
what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government
would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a
Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba'ath
Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United
States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept
the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense
at all."
-Dick Cheney April 1991
Ubiquitous
Party, but they seem to have a majority on the City Council of Berkeley,
Calif. The New York Times reports that the council is waging war on the city's
Marine recruiting station. It has reserved a free parking space right in front
of the station for Code Pink, the in-your-face anti-Iraq outfit that protests
the Marines regularly:
In taking on the Marines, the council also directed the city
attorney to investigate legal means of ousting the recruiting
station, calling the Marines "uninvited and unwelcome intruders"
in this bastion of liberal politics, 1960s free speech and
high-minded nonbinding resolutions.
The Daily Californian, student newspaper of the University of California,
notes an invidious analogy that the Times and other mainstream news outlets
seem to have missed:
The author of the initiative, Berkeley-based lawyer Sharon
Adams, modeled the initiative after current zoning law that
restricts the location of adult-oriented businesses.
"In the same way that many communities limit the location of
pornographic stores, that's the same way we feel about the
military recruiting stations," said PhoeBe sorgen [sic], an
initiative proponent and a member of the city's Peace and
Justice Commission. "Teenagers that really want to find them
will be able to seek them out and find them, but we don't
want them in our face."
The military as porn? These guys lack even the moral humility of Jimmy Carter.
And here is a question: How come Republican presidential candidates always get
questioned about things like whether South Carolina should display the
Confederate flag, but no one ever bothers the Democrats to take a stand on
anti-American symbolism on their side of the political fence?
--
Disgruntled Customer
> The military as porn? These guys lack even the moral humility of Jimmy Carter.
> And here is a question: How come Republican presidential candidates always get
> questioned about things like whether South Carolina should display the
> Confederate flag, but no one ever bothers the Democrats to take a stand on
> anti-American symbolism on their side of the political fence?
You're assuming that unquestioning, blind support of the military is always and only in the best interests of the Fatherland. Given that the Marines actually do go around killing people and blowing things up, sometimes under questionable legitimacy, perhaps their activities should be subject to scrutiny and debate.
> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the
> liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our
> military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for
> them, it's failing.
Which military victory? The initial, illegal invasion? Or the subsequent morass we are currently stuck in for the next century?
--
Feh. Mad as heck.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> enscribed:
>> The military as porn? These guys lack even the moral humility of Jimmy
>> Carter. And here is a question: How come Republican presidential
>> candidates always get questioned about things like whether South
>> Carolina should display the Confederate flag, but no one ever bothers
>> the Democrats to take a stand on anti-American symbolism on their side
>> of the political fence?
>
>You're assuming that unquestioning, blind support of the military is always
and only in the best interests of the Fatherland. Given that the Marines
actually do go around killing people and blowing things up, sometim
A weak attempt at changing the subject, but not at all unexpected.
We've long been critical of universities that act as if gay rights are more
important than the defense of America--that banish ROTC or military recruiters
from campus as a protest against the federal law prohibiting open
homosexuality among servicemen.
San Jose State University has gone one better. It has banned blood drives on
campus as "discriminatory," reports the San Mateo County (Calif.) Times:
The rise of AIDS in the 1980s prompted the FDA to prohibit
donations from men who had sex with men any time after 1977.
These days, groups such as the American Red Cross say that
lifetime prohibition is excessive, since modern blood testing
will catch any diseases contracted more than three weeks
before the donation.
They've lobbied for years for officials to relax the restriction
on blood donation to one year after the latest sexual activity,
but to no avail.
Gay rights groups on several college campuses, including
Stanford's, have held protests on the issue in recent years.
At San Jose State, it was an employee's complaint last year
that prompted [SJSU president Don] Kassing's office to
investigate whether the rule made blood drives discriminatory.
They decided it did, since gay men were being treated differently
than other groups of people with similar risk factors.
"What San Jose State has done is to take an institutional
position based on principles, based on values," said Larry
Carr, the university's associate vice president for public
affairs.
Well, how satisfying that must be for San Jose State University. Yet the paper
reports "local blood banks say that position comes at a steep cost"--some
1,000 pints of blood a year gathered in drives on the campus. All this to
protest a rule that clearly is not discriminatory in intent, and whose
continued existence surely represents an abundance of caution rather than any
antigay animus.
But hey, if patients suffer because there's not enough blood, that's just a
price that has to be paid for this principled stand. Don Kassing's conscience
simply will not allow him to do the right thing.
--
Disgruntled Customer
> In article <13qetf4...@corp.supernews.com>, now...@nowhow.com wrote:
> >Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> enscribed:
>
> >> The military as porn? These guys lack even the moral humility of Jimmy
> >> Carter. And here is a question: How come Republican presidential
> >> candidates always get questioned about things like whether South
> >> Carolina should display the Confederate flag, but no one ever bothers
> >> the Democrats to take a stand on anti-American symbolism on their side
> >> of the political fence?
> >
> >You're assuming that unquestioning, blind support of the military is always
> and only in the best interests of the Fatherland. Given that the Marines
> actually do go around killing people and blowing things up, sometim
>
> A weak attempt at changing the subject, but not at all unexpected.
Directly on your original subject. You were ranting about how dare they criticize the Marines.
> We've long been critical of universities that act as if gay rights are more
Now in you're ranting about evil gays.
> San Jose State University has gone one better. It has banned blood drives on
> campus as "discriminatory," reports the San Mateo County (Calif.) Times:
>
> The rise of AIDS in the 1980s prompted the FDA to prohibit
> donations from men who had sex with men any time after 1977.
> These days, groups such as the American Red Cross say that
> lifetime prohibition is excessive, since modern blood testing
> will catch any diseases contracted more than three weeks
> before the donation.
If Red Cross is right, why is FDA doing what they do? It also raises the question of how do they know if a donor declines to state.
> Well, how satisfying that must be for San Jose State University. Yet the paper
> reports "local blood banks say that position comes at a steep cost"--some
> 1,000 pints of blood a year gathered in drives on the campus. All this to
I wonder how many criminal cases could be solved if we just forced lawyers to testify everything discussed with clients.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> enscribed:
>> In article <13qetf4...@corp.supernews.com>, now...@nowhow.com wrote:
>> >Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> enscribed:
>> >> The military as porn? These guys lack even the moral humility of Jimmy
>> >> Carter. And here is a question: How come Republican presidential
>> >> candidates always get questioned about things like whether South
>> >> Carolina should display the Confederate flag, but no one ever bothers
>> >> the Democrats to take a stand on anti-American symbolism on their side
>> >> of the political fence?
>> >
>> >You're assuming that unquestioning, blind support of the military is
>> >always and only in the best interests of the Fatherland. Given that the
>> >Marines actually do go around killing people and blowing things up,
>> >sometim
>>
>> A weak attempt at changing the subject, but not at all unexpected.
>
>Directly on your original subject.
No, it wasn't. Not even close.
>You were ranting about how dare they criticize the Marines.
That certainly is an imaginative interpretation of what I wrote.
>> We've long been critical of universities that act as if gay rights are more
>
>Now in you're ranting about evil gays.
That certainly is an imaginative interpretation of what I wrote.
>> San Jose State University has gone one better. It has banned blood drives
>> on campus as "discriminatory," reports the San Mateo County (Calif.) Times:
>>
>> The rise of AIDS in the 1980s prompted the FDA to prohibit
>> donations from men who had sex with men any time after 1977.
>> These days, groups such as the American Red Cross say that
>> lifetime prohibition is excessive, since modern blood testing
>> will catch any diseases contracted more than three weeks
>> before the donation.
>
>If Red Cross is right, why is FDA doing what they do? It also raises the
>question of how do they know if a donor declines to state.
Perhaps if you had read my next sentence (which you accidentally seemed to
have deleted), you wouldn't have needed to ask:
Well, how satisfying that must be for San Jose State University.
Yet the paper reports "local blood banks say that position comes
at a steep cost"--some 1,000 pints of blood a year gathered in
drives on the campus. All this to protest a rule that clearly is
not discriminatory in intent, and whose continued existence surely
represents an abundance of caution rather than any antigay animus.
>> Well, how satisfying that must be for San Jose State University. Yet the
>> paper reports "local blood banks say that position comes at a steep
>> cost"--some 1,000 pints of blood a year gathered in drives on the campus.
>> All this to
>
>I wonder how many criminal cases could be solved if we just forced lawyers to
>testify everything discussed with clients.
And there you go off on another tangent unrelated to this discussion.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>They are a tiny minority of the nation as a whole, and even of the Democratic
>Party, but they seem to have a majority on the City Council of Berkeley,
>Calif. The New York Times reports that the council is waging war on the
>city's Marine recruiting station. It has reserved a free parking space right
>in front of the station for Code Pink, the in-your-face anti-Iraq outfit
>that protests the Marines regularly:
>
> In taking on the Marines, the council also directed the city
> attorney to investigate legal means of ousting the recruiting
> station, calling the Marines "uninvited and unwelcome intruders"
> in this bastion of liberal politics, 1960s free speech and
> high-minded nonbinding resolutions.
Some Berkeley, Calif., officials are having second thoughts about their recent
show of hatred for the military, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
A week after blasting the Marines as "unwelcome intruders" in
Berkeley, two City Council members want the city to back off
the declaration that ignited the wrath of the nation's right
wing and inspired a Republican senator to try to sever Berkeley's
federal funding.
Council members Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli on Monday
proposed that Berkeley rescind its letter to the U.S. Marine
Corps that stated that the downtown Berkeley recruiting center
"is not welcome in our city," and publicly declare that Berkeley
is against the war but supports the troops.
"We support the troops" is like "I love you"--an expression that people
sometimes say with deep feeling, and sometimes merely mouth because it is
expected. For Berkeley now to say "We support the troops" is like saying "I
love you" after uttering brutally hurtful words. Even if there is an element
of sincerity to it, how can anyone possibly trust it?
Disgruntled Customer
> show of hatred for the military, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
That's up to Berkeley to decide.
> "We support the troops" is like "I love you"--an expression that people
> sometimes say with deep feeling, and sometimes merely mouth because it is
Or as Buffy Ste. Marie pointed out
UNIVERSAL SOLDIER
Buffy Sainte-Marie
I wrote "Universal Soldier" in the basement of The Purple Onion coffee house in Toronto in the early sixties. It's about individual responsibility for war and how the old feudal thinking kills us all. Donovan had a hit with it in 1965.
He's five feet two and he's six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He's all of 31 and he's only 17
He's been a soldier for a thousand years
He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain,
a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
and he knows he shouldn't kill
and he knows he always will
kill you for me my friend and me for you
And he's fighting for Canada,
he's fighting for France,
he's fighting for the USA,
and he's fighting for the Russians
and he's fighting for Japan,
and he thinks we'll put an end to war this way
And he's fighting for Democracy
and fighting for the Reds
He says it's for the peace of all
He's the one who must decide
who's to live and who's to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls
But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can't go on
He's the universal soldier and he
really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can't you see
this is not the way we put an end to war.
bo_da...@mactan.org
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
himself." -John Stuart Mill
Disgruntled Customer
> degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
> nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
> which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
> own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
> being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
> himself." -John Stuart Mill
Stated while safely in London, an entire ocean away from the war he was commenting on. It's easy to be brave when it's someone else to do the killing and dying.
Hatto von Aquitanien
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6432&name=World-Jewish-Congress
--
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-updated
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis
Governor Swill
>"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
>degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
>nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
>which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
>own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
>being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
>himself." -John Stuart Mill
The only thing uglier than war is the man safely away from it in the
comfort of his club paying for it and ordering ever more young men to
risk death by becoming murderers.
Swill
Hatto von Aquitanien
Hardly the ugliest thing there is. Have a look at the role of the World
Zionist Organization in perpetrating 9/11.
http://politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6433&name=Ronald-S-Lauder
bo_da...@mactan.org
You have proven that yourself since you condemn those who fight and
have since the beginning fought for your freedom and security. What
Mills' said is universally and for all time the truth. It makes you
feel ashamed, doesn't it...
bo_da...@mactan.org
Or the one sitting at his keyboard enjoying the freedom that other men
far better than he have died for.
>Swill
A proper name for your posts.
bo_da...@mactan.org
<ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>Governor Swill wrote:
>
>> bo_da...@mactan.org used a stick in the sand to babble
>>>"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
>>>degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
>>>nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
>>>which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
>>>own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
>>>being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
>>>himself." -John Stuart Mill
>>
>> The only thing uglier than war is the man safely away from it in the
>> comfort of his club paying for it and ordering ever more young men to
>> risk death by becoming murderers.
>>
>> Swill
>
>Hardly the ugliest thing there is. Have a look at the role of the World
>Zionist Organization in perpetrating 9/11.
...or the heinous crimes against humanity committed by your fellow
Nazis
Hatto von Aquitanien
Oh no! Not Ilse Koch's commie-skin lampshades and pure Jew-fat hand soap!
Did anybody ever come up with a Jewess-hair sock? How about a pound of Jew
sausage? Hey, if that sounds offensive, remember, I am not the one who made
the shit up!
http://vehme.blogspot.com/search?q=auschwitz
Defendario
No one gives me my freedom except myself, hero.
I won't thank a man for murdering my brother from another mother in a
place on the other side of the world. How could that possibly make
anyone free?
>> Swill
>
> A proper name for your posts.
Then we ought to call yours toxic waste. It's mind poison.
Defendario
Nice to see that you recognize zioNism as a form of National Socialism,
being more properly described as judeoFascism or zioNazism. It's mainly
a kult of AshkeNazi zhids from fUSSR and East Europe who are terrorizing
Arabs and stealing their land.
They learnt from their oppressors well, these jooz.
Hatto von Aquitanien
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/11/ideological-bigotry-on-internet.html
Scroll down to "Justice Denied" and be sure to follow the links.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Google full text of this book:
http://books.google.com/books/princeton?hl=en&q=Gas+Chamber&vid=ISBN0691007977&btnG.x
Your search - Gas Chamber - did not match any documents.
<quote>
This concluding volume of a three-volume reassessment of the last five
centuries of German history develops the theme of power into what Gordon A.
Craig calls a "masterly account of the dramatic, tragic and often shameful
history of Germany in the most recent age" (New York Times Book Review). It
deals with the period of nationalism and imperialism, from the abortive
attempt of popular forces to found a liberal national state and Bismarck's
German unification through the Prussian military monarchy to the
expansionist programs of the age of William II and Hitler's world conquest.
Reviews:
"[A] masterly account of the dramatic, tragic and often shameful history of
Germany in the most recent age, which will probably become one of the most
widely read of Holborn's works."--New York Times Book Review
"At a time when most historians are devoting their energies primarily to
small segments of our past, it is heartening to have a person of Professor
Holborn's stature present us with his interpretation of the sweep of
history and of a country whose impact on many phases of Western
civilization has been highly significant."--H. J. Grimm, American
Historical Review
"Dr. Holborn is to be congratulated for his emphasis on the socioeconomic
factors in German history. This is the first major work in English on the
subject in which adequate attention is given to various facets of German
historical development and particularly to economic factors."--L.L. Snyder,
Annals of the American Academy
"The work is persuasive because it evinces the author's first-hand knowledge
of the country and its culture. . . . Wisdom, serenity, and compassion as
well as great historical intelligence and perspicacity have molded
it."--Fritz Stern, The Yale Review</quote>
<quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajo_Holborn
Hajo Holborn (b. Berlin, May 18, 1902, d. Bonn, June 20, 1969) was a
German-American historian and specialist in Modern German History.
Life
Holborn was born the son of the German physicist and "Direktor der
Physikalisch-Technischen Reichsanstalt", Ludwig Holborn, and later became a
scholar of Friedrich Meinecke at Berlin University, where he achieved Dr.
phil. in 1924. After habilitation at Heidelberg in 1926, he became
Privatdozent there until he was called back to Berlin as Carnegie Professor
of History and International Relationships at the private Deutsche
Hochschule für Politik, where he worked until his dismission in 1933.
To avoid the Nazi terror, that same year he fled to the United Kingdom and
emigrated to the United States in 1934. Shortly after coming to America, he
became a guest professor of German history at Yale. He taught Diplomatic
History at Tufts University, Mass., (1936?1942) and was a guest professor
at the University of Vienna, Austria (1955). During the Second World War he
worked as a citizen of the United States (since 1940) for the Office of
Strategic Services as special assistant to the chief of its Research and
Analysis Branch, William L. Langer. At the conclusion of the war he became
Randolph W. Townsend professor at Yale until 1959, when he held the title
of Sterling Professor of History at Yale University, where he continued to
teach and compose until his death in 1969.
In 1967 Holborn became the first president of the American Historical
Association, who was not born in the United States. Several specialists of
German and European History in America (e.g. Peter Gay) were Holborn's
classroom students.</quote>
Governor Swill
>>comfort of his club paying for it and ordering ever more young men to
>>risk death by becoming murderers.
>
>Or the one sitting at his keyboard enjoying the freedom that other men
>far better than he have died for.
That would be you.
Swill
bo_da...@mactan.org
<ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
But your kind of thinking is what initiated it. It's your horse,
boy, you break it.
bo_da...@mactan.org
"All the territorial possessions of all the political establishments
in the earth--including America, of course-- consist of pilferings
from other people's wash. No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no
nation, howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not stolen."
-Samuel Clemens
>They learnt from their oppressors well, these jooz.
But there are so few of them in the world. Why do you fear them so?
bo_da...@mactan.org
<ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
George Washington did far greater things -- What's your point?
Hatto von Aquitanien
Hardly. I wasn't alive when the Nazi party existed. None of my ancestors
were members of the Nazi party, nor were they Nazi sympathizers. I did not
have anything to do with the creation of the World Zionist Organization,
and I do not even believe in the existence of ancient "Zion". I come from
a real nation called the United States of America. I know who my ancestors
were, and the accounts of our history are verifiable and reliable. It is
the Zionists who created this mess, not me. It is they who need "the myth
of the Nation", not me.
bo_da...@mactan.org
<ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>bo_da...@mactan.org wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:00:31 -0500, Governor Swill
>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The only thing uglier than war is the man safely away from it in the
>>>comfort of his club paying for it and ordering ever more young men to
>>>risk death by becoming murderers.
>>
>> Or the one sitting at his keyboard enjoying the freedom that other men
>> far better than he have died for.
>>
>>>Swill
>>
>> A proper name for your posts.
>
>http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/11/ideological-bigotry-on-internet.html
>
>Scroll down to "Justice Denied" and be sure to follow the links.
I refuse to be taken in by one who tries to cover an untruth with more
untruth.
__
"You can survive on charm for about 5 minutes, after that, you'd
better know something." Bob Randall USMC
bo_da...@mactan.org
Because it was not forcefully applied it didn't in the case of the
3000+ killed on 9/11, but it has worked very well since and will
continue to be employed as long as necessary.
>>> Swill
>>
>> A proper name for your posts.
>
>Then we ought to call yours toxic waste. It's mind poison.
No, my posts are made as an antidote to the venom of those such as you
who hate America.
Hatto von Aquitanien
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:01:27 -0500, Hatto von Aquitanien
> <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>
>>bo_da...@mactan.org wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:00:31 -0500, Governor Swill
>>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The only thing uglier than war is the man safely away from it in the
>>>>comfort of his club paying for it and ordering ever more young men to
>>>>risk death by becoming murderers.
>>>
>>> Or the one sitting at his keyboard enjoying the freedom that other men
>>> far better than he have died for.
>>>
>>>>Swill
>>>
>>> A proper name for your posts.
>>
>>http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/11/ideological-bigotry-on-internet.html
>>
>>Scroll down to "Justice Denied" and be sure to follow the links.
>
> I refuse to be taken in by one who tries to cover an untruth with more
> untruth.
Are you saying the Sudeten German genocide did not happen?
bo_da...@mactan.org
I have twenty-two years of military service and action in two wars;
all to preserve your freedom.
>Swill
Yes, your posts and the opinions contained in them are pure
unadulterated swill.
Hatto von Aquitanien
<quote>
http://www.infowars.net/pictures/Sept06/040906Pearlman2.jpg
The White House, President George W. Bush
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 20, 2001
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
en Español En Español
View the President's Remarks
Listen to the President's Remarks
9:00 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress,
and fellow Americans:
In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on
the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already
been delivered by the American people.
We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save
others on the ground -- passengers like an exceptional man named Todd
Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer,
here tonight. (Applause.)
We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working
past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of
candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers -- in English, Hebrew,
and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who
have made the grief of strangers their own.
My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for
itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong. (Applause.)
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom.
Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring
our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be
done. (Applause.)
I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of
America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and
Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless
America." And you did more than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion
to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military.
Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and
Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and for
your service to our country. (Applause.)
And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring
of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem
playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's
Brandenburg Gate.
We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our
embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo.
We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and
Africa and Latin America.
Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own:
dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of
India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds
of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain.
(Applause.) Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so
honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity
of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend. (Applause.)
On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against
our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they
have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans
have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city
on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never
before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a
single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom
itself is under attack.
Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked
our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of
loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the
same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and
Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.
Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not
making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical
beliefs on people everywhere.
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been
rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a
fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The
terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill
all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians,
including women and children.
This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to
many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian
Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands
of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from
their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like
Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are
sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to
plot evil and destruction.
The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports
the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we
see al Qaeda's vision for the world.
Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have
fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for
owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders
dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long
enough.
The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are
currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the
Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it
is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying
terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is
committing murder.
And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the
Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda
who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals,
including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign
journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately
and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over
every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to
appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access
to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer
operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The
Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists,
or they will share in their fate.
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We
respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans,
and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its
teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of
Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are
traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.
The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many
Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every
government that supports them. (Applause.)
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will
not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped
and defeated. (Applause.)
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here
in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are
self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our
freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each
other.
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such
as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the
Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of
Asia and Africa.
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way
of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful,
retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against
us, because we stand in their way.
We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind
before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th
century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by
abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path
of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that
path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of
discarded lies. (Applause.)
Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct
every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of
intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial
influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to
the defeat of the global terror network.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive
liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the
air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and
not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated
strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign,
unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes,
visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will
starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them
from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will
pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation,
in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you
are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation
that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the
United States as a hostile regime.
Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will
take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today,
dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local
governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These
efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce
the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me -- the
Office of Homeland Security.
And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to
strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a
true patriot, a trusted friend -- Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. (Applause.)
He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to
safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that
may come.
These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a
threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where
it grows. (Applause.)
Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence
operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve
our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from the
damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've
called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is
coming when America will act, and you will make us proud. (Applause.)
This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not
just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's
fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism,
tolerance and freedom.
We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of
police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world.
The United States is grateful that many nations and many international
organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support.
Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic
world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world:
An attack on one is an attack on all.
The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if
this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be
next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can
threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what --
we're not going to allow it. (Applause.)
Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your
lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and
I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.
I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have
come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first
responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair
treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious
faith. (Applause.)
I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your
contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of
information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing
direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may
need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it.
I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may
accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long
struggle.
I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy.
Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch
its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and
creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of
our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today.
(Applause.)
And, finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their
families, for those in uniform, and for our great country. Prayer has
comforted us in sorrow, and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead.
Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for
what you will do. And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you,
their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will
do together.
Tonight, we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together
to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on
domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come
together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying, with direct
assistance during this emergency. (Applause.)
We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs
to track down terror here at home. (Applause.) We will come together to
strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists
before they act, and find them before they strike. (Applause.)
We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's
economy, and put our people back to work.
Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all
New Yorkers: Governor George Pataki, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
(Applause.) As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work
with Congress, and these two leaders, to show the world that we will
rebuild New York City. (Applause.)
After all that has just passed -- all the lives taken, and all the
possibilities and hopes that died with them -- it is natural to wonder if
America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know
there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will
define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of
America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this
will be an age of liberty, here and across the world. (Applause.)
Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our
grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear
are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our
time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation --
this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and
our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our
courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
(Applause.)
It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to
normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even
grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of
us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll
remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing.
Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will
carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.
And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George
Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was
given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my
reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. (Applause.)
I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I
will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle
for freedom and security for the American people.
The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain.
Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know
that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.)
Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the
rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all
that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the
United States of America.
Thank you. (Applause.)
END 9:41 P.M. EDT
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
</quote>
Disgruntled Customer
Read what he wrote and consider the context in which he wrote it. He was in London far away from the American Civil War, yet he writes of "nothing which is more important than his own personal safety." His own personal safety was never in doubt. Americans were dying in large numbers because of the stupidity and vanity of their generals. They were also dying for politicians hiding in Richmond and Washington, politicians telling the soldiers how important the soldiers die to preserve their society, with the politicians atop those societies.
So today we have Marines killing and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. The initial attack on Afghanistan can be argued over, but the Marines going there today to die are dying because some asshole politicians got a hard on for invading Iraq and abandoned the campaign in Afghanistan half completed. And now to show our patriotism and our "support for troops" we are demanded to eagerly send some other mothers' children to die in defense of stupid politicians. And how do we "support the troops" in Iraq? Do we lie to them about how they are winning and doing wondrous good in our name? Or do we tell them the truth, that we threw away their lives just to control Mideast oil so that we don't have to be bothered implementing alternatives? That they are still there dying because an AWOL shit head and his dependency chicken-hawks don't have the balls to admit they fucked up?
What do you want? Truth or comfort?
Governor Swill
>>>far better than he have died for.
>>
>>That would be you.
>
>
>I have twenty-two years of military service and action in two wars;
>all to preserve your freedom.
What's your beef with me? Did you just jerk your knee because
somebody told you to? War is ugly. It has always been ugly. The
uglier the better because sometimes it's necessary. But I'm not
putting lipstick on a pig just to make it seem more attractive than it
is. War, like defecation, is one of the ugly necessities of life.
Swill
Hatto von Aquitanien
War is something the Rothschilds do for amusement. The US has not been
involved in a necessary war since 1812.
Ben C.
news:qv91r3dv6vpetdg8s...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:16:48 -0500, Governor Swill
> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>bo_da...@mactan.org used a stick in the sand to babble
>>>>The only thing uglier than war is the man safely away from it in the
>>>>comfort of his club paying for it and ordering ever more young men to
>>>>risk death by becoming murderers.
>>>
>>>Or the one sitting at his keyboard enjoying the freedom that other men
>>>far better than he have died for.
>>
>>That would be you.
>
>
> I have twenty-two years of military service and action in two wars;
> all to preserve your freedom.
Which two wars?
The Revolutionary War, Mexican-American War, The Civil War, WWII...which
two of these wars, that were the only ones which preserved my freedom, did
you fight in?
Ben C.
news:-NednbR06caUhSza...@speakeasy.net...
> War is something the Rothschilds do for amusement. The US has not been
> involved in a necessary war since 1812.
Really...1812?
http://www.answers.com/topic/war-of-1812
"Known at the time as 'Madison's war' after the US president who prosecuted
it so badly. This war was a failed attempt by the young USA to seize Canada
while Britain was engaged fighting Napoleon in Europe."
I would have at least said the Civil War or maybe even WWII since we were
attacked but I guess the war of 1812 was the last necessary war.
Ben C.
news:rN2dnfwDhrSgOC3a...@speakeasy.net...
YA!!!!! Godwin's Law strikes again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Defendario
Not exactly a reputable historical source, this Sam Clemens. Was he a
joo? The given name Samuel is suspicious, to say the least!
;-)
>> They learnt from their oppressors well, these jooz.
>
> But there are so few of them in the world.
It's a good thing, but could still be made better.
> Why do you fear them so?
Not fear, yid. Loathe.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Aren't you calling Godwin's law a bit late?
Hatto von Aquitanien
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
I am not a defender of slavery. As a matter of fact, I am currently
attempting to publicize the plight of those subjected to the rising rebirth
of the despicable trade in human souls. My position is more along the
lines of my Quaker and Pennsylvania Deutsch heritage. I do not believe the
Civil War was necessary in order to put an end to slavery.
I believe that US involvement in WWII was intentionally induced by the
traitorous swine, Roosevelt.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Dude, you are starting to cross the line. My bone to pick is with the
Zionists.
http://politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6434&name=Zionist-Movement
I will grant that the willingness of the grater Jewish community to stand by
the scum in the face of overwhelming evidence of their treachery does not
speak will of them as a whole.
Glasshouse
"Hatto von Aquitanien" <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in message
> Ben C. wrote:
>
>> "Hatto von Aquitanien" <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in message
>> news:-NednbR06caUhSza...@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>> War is something the Rothschilds do for amusement. The US has not been
>>> involved in a necessary war since 1812.
>>
>> Really...1812?
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/war-of-1812
>>
>> "Known at the time as 'Madison's war' after the US president who
>> prosecuted it so badly. This war was a failed attempt by the young USA to
>> seize Canada while Britain was engaged fighting Napoleon in Europe."
>>
>> I would have at least said the Civil War or maybe even WWII since we were
>> attacked but I guess the war of 1812 was the last necessary war.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
>
> I am not a defender of slavery. As a matter of fact, I am currently
> attempting to publicize the plight of those subjected to the rising
> rebirth
> of the despicable trade in human souls. My position is more along the
> lines of my Quaker and Pennsylvania Deutsch heritage. I do not believe
> the
> Civil War was necessary in order to put an end to slavery.
>
> I believe that US involvement in WWII was intentionally induced by the
> traitorous swine, Roosevelt.
That is an awfully big blindfold you are putting on there. Beliefs are
things that have no facts to support them. They are great and useful except
when there is truth around. There are a lot of facts about Roosevelt and
WWII that do not support your conclusion.
Defendario
Same here. I have some difficulty in resisting the temptation to poke
the buggers with sticks from time to time.
The Twain crack was lifted from Kurt Vonnegut, who has Eichmann saying
it about Abe Lincoln.
> http://politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6434&name=Zionist-Movement
>
> I will grant that the willingness of the grater Jewish community to stand by
> the scum in the face of overwhelming evidence of their treachery does not
> speak will of them as a whole.
>
Of course it doesn't. But then, the willingness of Americans generally
to stand by Bushler and he NeoCons does not speak well of us either.
Get the drift?
Hatto von Aquitanien
See #2
http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/B0170700.html
NOUN: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence
in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. 2. Mental acceptance of
and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His
explanation of what happened defies belief. 3. Something believed or
accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets
accepted by a group of persons.
> They are great and useful except when there is truth around.
So you have no belief in what is True?
> There are a lot of facts about Roosevelt and WWII that do not support your
> conclusion.
As you will. I have seen more than enough to convince me that the commonly
accepted history of WWII is extremely flawed.
bo_da...@mactan.org
While I don't see any quotation marks that does appear to be a direct
quote from Hitler's writings.
Glasshouse
>"Hatto von Aquitanien" <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in message
>> Glasshouse wrote:
>> That is an awfully big blindfold you are putting on there. Beliefs are
>> things that have no facts to support them.
>
> See #2
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/B0170700.html
> NOUN: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or
> confidence
> in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. 2. Mental acceptance of
> and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His
> explanation of what happened defies belief. 3. Something believed or
> accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets
> accepted by a group of persons.
I think you see this definition proving that truth can (or does) underlie
belief. It does say that beliefs are refered to and or thought to be truths
but it doesn't say that beliefs are truths. But, I will back off of this
and use belief the way you define it so as not to get into a war of
definitions.
>> They are great and useful except when there is truth around.
>
> So you have no belief in what is True?
As you define the word belief as in having basis in truth, then yes I do
believe in what is true. It would be stupid not too. As I define belief
then no I don't have belief in what is true. I wouldn't need to want truth
to be true. It would be be true no mater what I believed. What I do is
take what has been proven to be true (by people I believe are correct) and
fasion new beliefs about my world until I learn of new truths.
>> There are a lot of facts about Roosevelt and WWII that do not support
>> your
>> conclusion.
>
> As you will. I have seen more than enough to convince me that the
> commonly
> accepted history of WWII is extremely flawed.
Extremely? Ok look, I know that you think you have found some secrete that
just isn't getting out but ask yourself, "How many people would need to keep
quiet and lie to maintain the commonly accepted history IF the real history
was largely different." You may find out it is a lot more people than seems
plausible.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Quoting out of context again, I see.
"I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal
from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party
were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of
Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany." ~ Dr.
Heinrich Brüning (who preceded Hitler as chancellor), to Winston Churchill
Disgruntled Customer
> "Hatto von Aquitanien" <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in message
> > Hardly. I wasn't alive when the Nazi party existed. None of my ancestors
> > were members of the Nazi party, nor were they Nazi sympathizers. I did
> > not
> YA!!!!! Godwin's Law strikes again.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Only applies when a loon compares others Nazis, not when a loon announces they are one.