This is one of those very rare (nowdays) movies that brings back the real magic cinema experience and it is suitable for all ages. Absolutely stunning visuals, great acting, brilliant directing. Imagine a Salvador Dalí painting in motion; this is the visual feeling of this movie.
It is showing in limited theaters release; I just hope it won't go unnoticed by the American public as "The Fall" is a jewel of movie making but unfortunately not much has been done to advertise it.
Just watch the trailer and I guarantee you'll find yourself at the end looking for the nearest movie theatre that has "The Fall" showings today.
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention: this movie has a personal and emotional meaning to me as the little 6 year old girl playing the lead role is from Romania; her name is Catinca (Kate) Untaru.
A moviegoer wrote:
Catinca Untaru's performance is heartwarming and completely captivating, a truly lovable child-star whose appeal is based upon her authenticity and talent as opposed to her ability to bat her eyelids or wrinkle her nose.
Another one:
"First, Cantinca Untaru as Alexandria is superb. I normally avoid films with children as they are usually cheesy or groan worthy. Cantinca, however, is much like the little boy in Cinema Paradiso, a natural child. When Alexandria says things we believe her, when she does things it is her child like nature we are watching come out. There is nothing stiff or unnatural about this young actress and it is a great credit to Tarsem as a director that he was able to pull this level of acting from a child. While watching the movie, I was amazed at how Tarsem and Cantinca were able to move the audience from laughter to tears and back to laughter so fluidly. Lee Pace puts in an excellent show and does a great job as a suicidal patient in the hospital, but Cantinca is definitely the star of this show.
Tarsem has a great eye for location and he exhibits it well in this movie. It truly was shot all over the world. Along with all the great locations are the beautifully colorful costumes of fashion designer Eiko Ishioka. The costumes are larger than life and beautiful in their symbolism."
Roger Ebert:
"The Fall" is beautiful for its own sake. And there is the sweet charm of the young Romanian actress Catinca Untaru, who may have been dubbed for all I know, (no Roger, she wasn't dubbed. It is her who speaks English as she attended an English-speaking only kindergarden starting with the age of 4, just like my son did) but speaks with the innocence of childhood, working her way through tangles of words. She regards with equal wonder the reality she lives in, and the fantasy she pretends to. It is her imagination that creates the images of Roy's story, and they have a purity and power beyond all calculation. Roy is her perfect storyteller, she is his perfect listener, and together they build a world.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
NV: Mass Shooting Stopped by CCW Permit Holder
If the murderer would have killed two dozen unarmed victims without anybody stopping him, the massacre would have made headline news for weeks at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and pretty much every liberal newspaper in the country. Every anti-gun organization in America would have blamed not the murderer (was he abused as a child? oh, we're so sorry for him) as much as the evil gun he had used to perpetrate the murders. And of course, the same anti-gun activists would have joined forces with their liberal allies in the media in calling for another set of laws further restricting firearms ownership.
But because an armed citizen stopped the murderer in his tracks by making use of the concealed gun he was legally carrying, no news outlet will touch this story with a ten foot pole. It is against the beliefs of the braindead liberals who run the mainstream media that American citizens have the Constitutional right to defend themselves and that guns are used 100 times more often to stop evil before it happens than help criminals in commiting crimes.
So what do the liberals in the media do? They instinctively bury the story, thus lying to the American public. That's why you never hear on radio, see on TV or read in the newspapers stories like this one.
But here is what happened:
http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2...cw-permit.html
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
In the small town of Winnemucca Nevada a man bent on performing a mass shooting at a bar was stopped by an armed CCW permit holder who happened to be in the right place at the right time. The alleged mass murderer had already killed two victims & had injured two others with gunshot wounds, but after reloading to resume his shooting spree he was shot & killed by an armed CCW permit holder who was also at the bar. The alleged mass murderer & his two dead victims were already dead by the time Police arrived on the scene once again proving that when seconds count, only the immediate responders are already on the scene, while first responders (Police) are only minutes away. This is further proof that gun free zones are a travesty that must be ended.
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...D=200880526010
But because an armed citizen stopped the murderer in his tracks by making use of the concealed gun he was legally carrying, no news outlet will touch this story with a ten foot pole. It is against the beliefs of the braindead liberals who run the mainstream media that American citizens have the Constitutional right to defend themselves and that guns are used 100 times more often to stop evil before it happens than help criminals in commiting crimes.
So what do the liberals in the media do? They instinctively bury the story, thus lying to the American public. That's why you never hear on radio, see on TV or read in the newspapers stories like this one.
But here is what happened:
http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2...cw-permit.html
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
In the small town of Winnemucca Nevada a man bent on performing a mass shooting at a bar was stopped by an armed CCW permit holder who happened to be in the right place at the right time. The alleged mass murderer had already killed two victims & had injured two others with gunshot wounds, but after reloading to resume his shooting spree he was shot & killed by an armed CCW permit holder who was also at the bar. The alleged mass murderer & his two dead victims were already dead by the time Police arrived on the scene once again proving that when seconds count, only the immediate responders are already on the scene, while first responders (Police) are only minutes away. This is further proof that gun free zones are a travesty that must be ended.
. . .The officers on scene discovered three adult males who had died from obvious gunshot wounds. Two additional gunshot victims were also located. One of these victims, a 34 year old male, was transported to Humboldt General Hospital via private vehicle. The other victim, a 22 year old female, was transported via Humboldt County Ambulance . . .Here's the Police report on it
. . . The subsequent investigation lead detectives to believe that Villagomez entered the bar and at some point began firing multiple rounds. At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents, Jose Torres age, 20 and his brother Margarito Torres, age 19 both of Winnemucca. At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his . . . handgun and began shooting again. It was at this point that the second shooter, the Reno resident, produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office . . .
Luckily Nevada does not turn places that happen to serve alcohol for on premises consumption into a so-called "Gun Free Zone" or who knows how high the victim count could have been before Police could have arrived to end it. In Arizona & many other States citizens are not currently allowed to carry a defensive weapon into places that serve alcohol. It is long past time that we get rid of gun free zones, places where only the Police & the criminals are arme
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...D=200880526010
The Soros-McClellan Connection
From LGF:
Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:28:40 pm PDT
The hat tip for this post goes to LGF reader John Williams in Texas.
The company that published Scott McClellan’s new Bush-bashing book is Public Affairs Books, and their Editor at Large is a guy named Peter Osnos: About The Century Foundation.
The owner of Public Affairs Books is a company called Perseus Book Group. Here’s their ownership tree: Perseus Books Home.
The firm is owned by Perseus Funds Group, (holding company Perseus LLC) a capital management firm that grew from about $20 million in 1995 to over $2 billion now. Big infusions of cash seemed to help it grow exponentially and it closed funds almost as fast as it opened them. The board has tons of liberals from the Clinton and Carter Administrations with credentials that almost put Osnos’ to shame as far as far left causes go. Their website is here: PERSEUS - merchant bank and private equity fund management.
If you go to the New York Department of State web site and enter “Perseus” in the “Business Organization” search, you get this on page 2 of the results:
Hi, George!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Obama: My Uncle Helped Liberate Auschwitz (Bzzt! Wrong!)
From LGF:
Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:06:17 am PDT
Is there a point at which the media will start calling Barack Obama out for his absolutely stunning lack of historical knowledge, and his willingness to lie at the drop of a hat?
Obama Talks of Family’s Military Service:
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.”
Unless Obama’s uncle was fighting for the Soviet Army, I seriously doubt that he was in a brigade that liberated Auschwitz: The Liberation of Auschwitz.
Monday, May 26, 2008
What the crack are you smoking, Obama?
Barack Obama must be the most gaffe-prone politician in memory. Today, he delivered a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico. After greeting the local Democratic Party dignitaries, he began:
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."
Memorial Day honors those who have died in our nation's military service, our fallen soldiers. Is it possible that Obama does not know this? Can anyone tell me how is it possible fallen heroes can be alive and participating in the audience? Maybe Obama really thinks he is the new Messiah and he can resurrect the dead?
Sometimes the things that come out of his mouth defy understanding.
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."
Memorial Day honors those who have died in our nation's military service, our fallen soldiers. Is it possible that Obama does not know this? Can anyone tell me how is it possible fallen heroes can be alive and participating in the audience? Maybe Obama really thinks he is the new Messiah and he can resurrect the dead?
Sometimes the things that come out of his mouth defy understanding.
A Tale Of Two Houses (one of glass)
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add
on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas.
In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average
American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and
natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which
last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than
20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a
northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is
nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet
in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through
pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.)
heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no
fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the
electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater
from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground
cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground
purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then
irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the
area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
The owner of the house #1 is Al Gore, world (in)famous environmentalist, pimpus maximus of the man-made global warming scam.
The owner of the house #2 is the person leftist enviro-whacos call (among other names) Bushitler, Chimp, The Anti-Environmentalist Idiot, Global Warming Denier, etc.
Facts verified by Snopes
'Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another"
George Herbert, 1651
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add
on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas.
In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average
American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and
natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which
last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than
20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a
northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is
nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet
in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through
pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.)
heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no
fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the
electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater
from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground
cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground
purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then
irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the
area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
The owner of the house #1 is Al Gore, world (in)famous environmentalist, pimpus maximus of the man-made global warming scam.
The owner of the house #2 is the person leftist enviro-whacos call (among other names) Bushitler, Chimp, The Anti-Environmentalist Idiot, Global Warming Denier, etc.
Facts verified by Snopes
'Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another"
George Herbert, 1651
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Show this picture to your liberal friend (everyone has one) who argues the Second Amendment is useless and outdated
Click on the picture to expand:
And do not forget to take your liberal gun hating friend at the range and teach him how to shoot. This activity turns more liberals into conservatives in a single day than Fox News and talk radio in an entire year.
And do not forget to take your liberal gun hating friend at the range and teach him how to shoot. This activity turns more liberals into conservatives in a single day than Fox News and talk radio in an entire year.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Two robberies with two very different endings
Robbery #1 - Victim is disarmed, the way Obama wants Americans to be
(05-15) 11:19 PDT Gardena, CA (AP) --
A videotape of a store owner pleading for her life as she is shot repeatedly by a masked gunman was released by authorities who say they have no leads in the killing.
A surveillance camera recorded the murder of Hae Sook Roh, 51, of Harbor City. She was gunned down in her T-shirt store around 6:45 p.m. Monday by a man who got away with only a small amount of cash, authorities said Thursday.
The security video showed a left-handed man with a bandanna over his face running into the store, demanding money, shooting the woman and rifling the cash register, authorities said. He paused to fire twice more at the screaming woman on the floor before fleeing.
She was shot three times in the torso and died at a hospital.
"The video shows her pleading for her life and in pain and the suspect didn't care. He had no regard for life," sheriff's Deputy Ed Hernandez said.
"You can see pretty much in the video, she pretty much put her hands up and backed up," sheriff's Lt. Dave Coleman said. "This is just ruthless. It was unprovoked and ruthless. She didn't do anything."
The gunman and an accomplice were seen running from the store, authorities said.
"We're still trying to get somebody to identify these guys. Detectives are working around the clock to get any leads but we have nothing yet," Hernandez said.
The city has offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to their arrest and conviction.
Robbery #2 - Victim is armed, the way the US Constitution says Americans have the right to be
Two gunmen walk into a liquor store, one customer with a gun is already inside. Things go bad. The customers, the employees end up shaken. One bad gun runs away, the other was not so lucky.
The best part is the interview with the police officer. Watch the video:
(05-15) 11:19 PDT Gardena, CA (AP) --
A videotape of a store owner pleading for her life as she is shot repeatedly by a masked gunman was released by authorities who say they have no leads in the killing.
A surveillance camera recorded the murder of Hae Sook Roh, 51, of Harbor City. She was gunned down in her T-shirt store around 6:45 p.m. Monday by a man who got away with only a small amount of cash, authorities said Thursday.
The security video showed a left-handed man with a bandanna over his face running into the store, demanding money, shooting the woman and rifling the cash register, authorities said. He paused to fire twice more at the screaming woman on the floor before fleeing.
She was shot three times in the torso and died at a hospital.
"The video shows her pleading for her life and in pain and the suspect didn't care. He had no regard for life," sheriff's Deputy Ed Hernandez said.
"You can see pretty much in the video, she pretty much put her hands up and backed up," sheriff's Lt. Dave Coleman said. "This is just ruthless. It was unprovoked and ruthless. She didn't do anything."
The gunman and an accomplice were seen running from the store, authorities said.
"We're still trying to get somebody to identify these guys. Detectives are working around the clock to get any leads but we have nothing yet," Hernandez said.
The city has offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to their arrest and conviction.
Robbery #2 - Victim is armed, the way the US Constitution says Americans have the right to be
Two gunmen walk into a liquor store, one customer with a gun is already inside. Things go bad. The customers, the employees end up shaken. One bad gun runs away, the other was not so lucky.
The best part is the interview with the police officer. Watch the video:
Thursday, May 22, 2008
If this doesn't prove liberalism is a mental disorder...
...then I don't know what else does:
Activist goes to court to ask that Bush be arrested at convention
By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune
May 22, 2008
Long-time Minneapolis peace activist and sometime-gadfly Ed Felien asked a Hennepin County District Court judge on Thursday to compel the county attorney to arrest President Bush when his plane lands for the GOP convention in September.
Felien, a former Minneapolis City Council member, said Bush should be investigated and prosecuted for murder because of troop deaths in Iraq, conspiracy to fix oil prices and conspiracy to distribute drugs by controlling the opium trade in Afghanistan.
He acknowledged his request was unusual, but also said, "the purpose of the prosecuting attorney is not to achieve convictions, but to seek justice."
At the end of a 30-minute hearing, Judge Gary Larson said he would rule in the normal course of business, but he did not provide a time frame. Felien's request certainly had the feel of a very long shot.
In his response to the court, Deputy Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Diamond said the notion that the president could be taken into custody and prosecuted is "highly doubtful."
Although he said a number of county residents no doubt shared Felien's views, a court-ordered arrest and prosecution would be an "extraordinary remedy."
He repeatedly emphasized that the county attorney bears the sole discretion of when to prosecute crimes. "Not everything a county attorney can do is something a county attorney should do," Diamond said.
He argued, too, that Felien's request raises serious separation of powers issues. A totalitarian state exists when a "judge is deciding not just the outcome but who should be investigated and prosecuted," Diamond said.
During Felien's nearly 20 minutes of wide-ranging argument, Larson advised him several times to slow down so the court reporter could capture his words.
Felien touched on Bush family history, claiming the family has influential ties to "Saudi princes" as well as Afghanistan drug lords and the Mafia. He introduced numerous news articles to the judge regarding the Bush family and oil prices.
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law," Felien said.
In his written filings, Felien said the president "has fraudulently represented a war against Iraq as essential for our national interests when in reality the war only benefits his private interests. With his Saudi friends he has cornered the supply of oil and raised prices. And through his longtime family contacts with the CIA and the Mafia he has arranged for the transporting of heroin into Hennepin County," Felien wrote in a petition.
Felien was publisher of the now-extinct Pulse, a weekly alternative newspaper. He still publishes South Side Pride, three separate monthly newspapers in South Minneapolis.
The White House did not return a call seeking comment.
Activist goes to court to ask that Bush be arrested at convention
By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune
May 22, 2008
Long-time Minneapolis peace activist and sometime-gadfly Ed Felien asked a Hennepin County District Court judge on Thursday to compel the county attorney to arrest President Bush when his plane lands for the GOP convention in September.
Felien, a former Minneapolis City Council member, said Bush should be investigated and prosecuted for murder because of troop deaths in Iraq, conspiracy to fix oil prices and conspiracy to distribute drugs by controlling the opium trade in Afghanistan.
He acknowledged his request was unusual, but also said, "the purpose of the prosecuting attorney is not to achieve convictions, but to seek justice."
At the end of a 30-minute hearing, Judge Gary Larson said he would rule in the normal course of business, but he did not provide a time frame. Felien's request certainly had the feel of a very long shot.
In his response to the court, Deputy Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Diamond said the notion that the president could be taken into custody and prosecuted is "highly doubtful."
Although he said a number of county residents no doubt shared Felien's views, a court-ordered arrest and prosecution would be an "extraordinary remedy."
He repeatedly emphasized that the county attorney bears the sole discretion of when to prosecute crimes. "Not everything a county attorney can do is something a county attorney should do," Diamond said.
He argued, too, that Felien's request raises serious separation of powers issues. A totalitarian state exists when a "judge is deciding not just the outcome but who should be investigated and prosecuted," Diamond said.
During Felien's nearly 20 minutes of wide-ranging argument, Larson advised him several times to slow down so the court reporter could capture his words.
Felien touched on Bush family history, claiming the family has influential ties to "Saudi princes" as well as Afghanistan drug lords and the Mafia. He introduced numerous news articles to the judge regarding the Bush family and oil prices.
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law," Felien said.
In his written filings, Felien said the president "has fraudulently represented a war against Iraq as essential for our national interests when in reality the war only benefits his private interests. With his Saudi friends he has cornered the supply of oil and raised prices. And through his longtime family contacts with the CIA and the Mafia he has arranged for the transporting of heroin into Hennepin County," Felien wrote in a petition.
Felien was publisher of the now-extinct Pulse, a weekly alternative newspaper. He still publishes South Side Pride, three separate monthly newspapers in South Minneapolis.
The White House did not return a call seeking comment.
John Voight on Israel
Bravo, John Voight.
You are a man of great courage to come out and speak the truth without fearing the revenge of the neo-communist, America-hating moonbats who own and rule Tinseltown.
Hats off to you, Sir!
You are a man of great courage to come out and speak the truth without fearing the revenge of the neo-communist, America-hating moonbats who own and rule Tinseltown.
Hats off to you, Sir!
The Architect Skewers Obamamessiah
Obama's Troubling Instincts
By KARL ROVE
May 22, 2008
Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It's not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions.
On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.
By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.
Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking.
Is Mr. Obama's first instinct to dismiss North Korea, the world's worst nuclear proliferator, as an insignificant threat? Is his immediate reaction to treat Venezuela as a wayward child, rather than as an adversary willing to destabilize the hemisphere? Is his memory so short he has forgotten the Castro brothers' willingness to aid revolutionary movements? Is he so shortsighted as to ignore the threat to Mideast stability that Syria's meddling in Lebanon and support for Hamas and Hezbollah represents?
Mr. Obama's Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet – eagerly and without precondition – during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China.
I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.
The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.
The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield.
Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.
Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.
But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn't work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he'd make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?
If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.
If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.
Picked up from WSJ
With every day passing, Obama showing revealing himself as damaged goods while the leadership of the Dhimmicratic party seems to start having buyers remorse.
Too late and too bad for them.
By KARL ROVE
May 22, 2008
Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It's not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions.
On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.
By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.
Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking.
Is Mr. Obama's first instinct to dismiss North Korea, the world's worst nuclear proliferator, as an insignificant threat? Is his immediate reaction to treat Venezuela as a wayward child, rather than as an adversary willing to destabilize the hemisphere? Is his memory so short he has forgotten the Castro brothers' willingness to aid revolutionary movements? Is he so shortsighted as to ignore the threat to Mideast stability that Syria's meddling in Lebanon and support for Hamas and Hezbollah represents?
Mr. Obama's Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet – eagerly and without precondition – during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China.
I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.
The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.
The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield.
Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.
Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.
But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn't work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he'd make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?
If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.
If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.
Picked up from WSJ
With every day passing, Obama showing revealing himself as damaged goods while the leadership of the Dhimmicratic party seems to start having buyers remorse.
Too late and too bad for them.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
We're saved! Congress passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices.
No, this isn't a joke.
This is what the esteemed members of our Democrat Congress led by the genial leader Nancy Pelosi are doing for a living: perfecting the art of being stupid.
This is what the esteemed members of our Democrat Congress led by the genial leader Nancy Pelosi are doing for a living: perfecting the art of being stupid.
Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemens!U.S. House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices
The House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.
The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.
The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto.
The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force to aggressively investigate gasoline price gouging and energy market manipulation.
"This bill guarantees that oil prices will reflect supply and demand economic rules, instead of wildly speculative and perhaps illegal activities," said Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, who sponsored the legislation.
The lawmaker said Americans "are at the mercy" of OPEC for how much they pay for gasoline, which this week hit a record average of $3.79 a gallon.
The White House opposes the bill, saying that targeting OPEC investment in the United States as a source for damage awards "would likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. refiners."
The administration said less oil going to refineries would limit available gasoline supplies and raise fuel prices.
Foreign investment in U.S. oil infrastructure has declined in the last decade. But the state-owned oil companies of several OPEC nations are owners of U.S. refineries, and those investments could be affected if the legislation becomes law, said Arlington, Virginia-based FBR Capital Markets Corp.
The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to carryout a study on the effects of prior oil company mergers on energy prices.
The Senate would still have to approve the House measure.
The Senate previously approved similar legislation as part of a broad energy bill. However, the OPEC-suing provision was removed after White House opposition in order to get the underlying energy legislation signed into law.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Party of the Weak Horse
By Jeffrey Lord
Published 5/20/2008 12:08:15 AM
It was as if a dentist had just jabbed at an exposed nerve in a rotting tooth, inducing a shrill howl from his helpless patient.
President Bush, saluting Israel on its 60th birthday, stood before the Israeli Knesset last week and recalled a simple fact of history. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Within minutes, Democrats in America were howling in rage that Bush, who had done nothing more than recount historical fact, was calling Senator Barack Obama, their presumptive presidential nominee, an appeaser. From Obama to Pelosi to John Kerry to Joe Biden to Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton (the latter undoubtedly already in a mood of "see-I-told-you-so") all felt the instinctive need to defend both Obama and their party from the sting of an appeasement charge.
What makes the instant reaction so telling is that the only American mentioned, and not even by name, was long-ago 1930s U.S. Senator William Borah from Idaho. Borah was -- wait for it -- a Republican. That being the case, why the instant outrage from 21st century Democrats?
There is a reason, and a considerable reason at that. Modern Democrats have long since adopted Borah's isolationist, pacifist philosophy lock, stock and barrel. In the 1930s, with FDR in the White House, it was the GOP that was stuck in appeasement mode as Hitler began his rise. It was a position so untenable, so politically damaging, that Republicans spent twenty years in presidential exile while Democrats Roosevelt and Harry Truman drilled the gospel of internationalism, American exceptionalism, and a strong military into the very political bones of Americans.
Yet the idea of appeasement did not die. While Republicans eventually won back the White House at last by nominating Eisenhower, the commanding general of D-Day fame, the forces of appeasement were regrouping. With FDR's one-term ex-vice president Henry Wallace at the head of the pack, the appeasement wing began to establish itself inside the Democrat party.
There was, at first, a ferocious struggle. Truman was appalled, labeling Wallace privately as "a pacifist 100 percent. He wants us to disband our armed forces, give Russia our atomic secrets and trust a bunch of adventurers in the Kremlin.... I do not understand a 'dreamer' like that." Wallace and his followers, Truman concluded, were "becoming a national danger." But Truman prevailed, and it was presumed that the ideas Wallace represented had finally faded in the trials of the Cold War.
Like a virus biding its time, however, the appeasement philosophy of Wallace lay dormant inside the Democrats' body politic, quietly out of sight through two Stevenson nominations and the presidency of JFK. But it finally began to manifest itself during LBJ's term, angrily exploding into public view over the issue of Vietnam. In time, led by Wallace supporter George McGovern, the appeasement disease took over the Democrats' body and soul.
Osama bin Ladin has famously described America as a "weak horse." His point, that what looks like a strong champion in fact tires easily and gives up, is surely still his conception of America. With good reason. Within America itself, modern Democrats have indelibly fixed their image as America's own weak horse, the political party for which appeasement and running up the white flag has become a historical reflex.
IT'S FAIR TO ASK for examples. Sadly, there are many.
Beginning with Truman's baseline description of Henry Wallace in 1948 ("He wants us to disband our armed forces, give Russia our atomic secrets and trust a bunch of adventurers in the Kremlin...."), the names and issues after the JFK/LBJ era that reflect not just a consideration but a devotion to appeasement by Democrats would show -- and only in part -- the following:
* 1971: A young John Kerry testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He tells lawmakers of U.S. Vietnam policy: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" confidently asserting that "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."
* 1972: The Democrats' platform for their nominee, one-time Henry Wallace supporter Senator George McGovern, states: "The majority of the Democratic Senators have called for full U.S. withdrawal by October 1, 1972. We support that position. If the war is not ended before the next Democratic Administration takes office, we pledge, as the first order of business, an immediate and complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Indo-China. All U.S. military action in Southeast Asia will cease. After the end of U.S. direct combat participation, military aid to the Saigon Government, and elsewhere in Indo-China, will be terminated." Nixon defeats McGovern in a 49-state landslide.
Read the rest here
Monday, May 19, 2008
Giving New Wings To Our Newest NATO Ally: US Expected OK 48 F-16 Fighter Planes To Romania
The Pentagon is expected to send 24 new Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighters and another 24 used F-16 from older generations that will need further upgrades.
The US Congress was briefed about this military contract. The total amount of the deal is $ 4.5 Billion and the Congress has 30 days to oppose it - but such veto is very unlikely.
Participating to this deal are Lockheed Martin, Boeing Co, BAE Systems Plc, Raytheon Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, Pratt & Whitney - a divison of United Technologies Corp, General Electric Co, Goodrich Corp and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
The Romanian Defense Ministry has started the aquisition program called "The Multi-Role Aircraft" evaluated at 3.5 Billion Euro with the purpose of replacing the aging and outdated MIG Lancer russian fighter planes scheduled for dismantling in 2010.
So far, the Romanian air defense is considering the US made F-16, F-18, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the EU manufactured Eurofighter Typhoon si and the French Rafale.
Translated in English from Ziare.com
Romania: a steadfast US ally in the war against Islamofascism.
Just don't expect the American liberal media to admit Bush didn't go to war alone...
Romanian Troops on patrol in Afghanistan
Romanian Special Forces toops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan
Fred Thompson: California, here we come…
Great piece about liberal activist judges legislating from the bench authored by my favorite
2008 ex-Presidential candidate, Fred Thompson:
Nowadays everyone feels entitled to their Andy Warhol-esque “15 minutes of fame.” Fairly normal people will bust a gut to get a few seconds on television. Physical harm is likely for anyone standing between a camera and blow-hard politicians desirous of hawking legislation they and everyone else know will never be enacted. The rich and vacuous, seeking to make a difference, weigh in against the world’s problems to great fanfare amidst black ties and eco-talk press conferences.
And all of them seem to be making lots and lots of money.
Now, consider the plight of the poor jurist in all this, especially appellate judges. Often a lot smarter and making a fraction of the money than the lawyers who appear before them, they labor in obscurity with only their clerks and a handful of others in the legal community appreciating their brilliance and understanding how truly important they are.
Picture them as they retire to their chambers to study some obscure point of law that nobody cares about but the litigious ingrates in the case before them. His Honor has little opportunity for grand gestures or heroic initiatives.
The judge’s job is simply to apply to the circumstances of the cases that are brought to their court the laws that have been written by lesser mortals. The job requires restraint, modesty, and reverence for the established rules of society. The judge is obliged to uphold the status quo until the people decide to change it. Where is the glory in that, for Pete’s sake?
Then, like manna from Heaven, “The Case” comes before his court – the case that can change his ignominious plight. With a few of his like-minded colleagues, he can, in effect, reshape the legal landscape, become a leader of a great cause, get the publicity equivalent to the cover of Rolling Stone, and be hailed be the mainstream press. It dawns on him that he and his buddies on the court can do things that those politicians could never achieve – things that the unenlightened, unwashed herd, otherwise known as “the people” would probably never choose to do.
Now that’s real power! That’s delivering “change we deserve.” All he and a few of his colleagues have to do is discover in their constitution a right previously unknown that has been hiding there in plain sight for about 150 years.
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the California supreme court majority and their recent opinion in the same-sex marriage complaints filed by multiple San Francisco gay couples.
Rest of the article here
2008 ex-Presidential candidate, Fred Thompson:
Nowadays everyone feels entitled to their Andy Warhol-esque “15 minutes of fame.” Fairly normal people will bust a gut to get a few seconds on television. Physical harm is likely for anyone standing between a camera and blow-hard politicians desirous of hawking legislation they and everyone else know will never be enacted. The rich and vacuous, seeking to make a difference, weigh in against the world’s problems to great fanfare amidst black ties and eco-talk press conferences.
And all of them seem to be making lots and lots of money.
Now, consider the plight of the poor jurist in all this, especially appellate judges. Often a lot smarter and making a fraction of the money than the lawyers who appear before them, they labor in obscurity with only their clerks and a handful of others in the legal community appreciating their brilliance and understanding how truly important they are.
Picture them as they retire to their chambers to study some obscure point of law that nobody cares about but the litigious ingrates in the case before them. His Honor has little opportunity for grand gestures or heroic initiatives.
The judge’s job is simply to apply to the circumstances of the cases that are brought to their court the laws that have been written by lesser mortals. The job requires restraint, modesty, and reverence for the established rules of society. The judge is obliged to uphold the status quo until the people decide to change it. Where is the glory in that, for Pete’s sake?
Then, like manna from Heaven, “The Case” comes before his court – the case that can change his ignominious plight. With a few of his like-minded colleagues, he can, in effect, reshape the legal landscape, become a leader of a great cause, get the publicity equivalent to the cover of Rolling Stone, and be hailed be the mainstream press. It dawns on him that he and his buddies on the court can do things that those politicians could never achieve – things that the unenlightened, unwashed herd, otherwise known as “the people” would probably never choose to do.
Now that’s real power! That’s delivering “change we deserve.” All he and a few of his colleagues have to do is discover in their constitution a right previously unknown that has been hiding there in plain sight for about 150 years.
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the California supreme court majority and their recent opinion in the same-sex marriage complaints filed by multiple San Francisco gay couples.
Rest of the article here
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Guns and Judges: Electing the Supreme Court in 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
By Sandy Froman
The political “hot button” issues of guns and judges have become intertwined in this election year. The fate of both issues will be decided by the candidate we elect as president. Why? Because over a four-year term, that president will likely appoint at least two and possibly three justices to the United States Supreme Court. Simply stated, this year when we elect a president, we will also cast our ballot for the next Supreme Court.
Everyone concerned about the Second Amendment and judicial accountability should heed John McCain’s speech to the NRA on May 16. The presumptive Republican nominee will speak directly to guns owners about the Second Amendment at the NRA’s Celebration of American Values event at the NRA Annual Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky.
And in America today, there has never been a greater opportunity or a greater threat to gun rights. In March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the watershed case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a lawsuit challenging the DC gun ban. Residents of the District of Columbia are categorically prohibited from possessing handguns and operable long guns (rifles and shotguns) in their homes, even for self-defense.
The Heller case turns on whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms refers to private, law-abiding citizens, or whether it is a right of the people “collectively” to have guns only when they serve in the National Guard or a state-sponsored militia unit. The Court is scheduled to decide the case the third week in June.
Whatever the Court decides, that decision will shape gun rights in America for generations to come. The Heller decision will become the definitive standard for gun rights in America. The Second Amendment is the insurance policy on American liberty. And whether you own guns or not, you cannot afford for a single minute to think that it doesn’t matter to you, your family or the security of this country.
Just like other controversial decisions, such as those on religious liberty and free speech, the Heller decision will lead to many more questions than it answers.
When the Court decided Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 it created the doctrine of separation of church and state. For over 60 years this nation has grappled with what that doctrine means, in a raging cultural battle.
When the Court declared a previously unnoticed right to abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, America’s courts and presidential politics were thrust into an issue that still stirs deep passions and is ever present in political debates.
From now on, the same will be true of the Second Amendment. The Heller decision will launch 30 years of defining the nature and scope of gun rights in our courts. The Heller holding will likely be narrow, and will leave open countless other questions, such as what kinds of guns are protected, how far that right extends beyond your home, and whether the Second Amendment controls state law. At least some of these questions will find their way up to the Supreme Court years later. Who sits on the Court when those cases arrive matters a great deal to those of us who believe in the value of widespread lawful gun ownership in America.
That’s why the 2008 presidential election has unprecedented importance for gun owners. Despite their campaign rhetoric purporting to support the right to keep and bear arms, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are categorically opposed to our Second Amendment rights. Hillary Clinton opposed the 2005 tort reform law that saved the American gun industry from bankruptcy. Barack Obama has declared his opposition to all concealed carry laws. He has refused to repudiate his answer to a 1996 questionnaire, where he answered “yes” to a question asking if he supported laws banning “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” And Senator Obama’s true contempt for gun owners came out when he described us as “clinging” to our guns out of bitterness.
In contrast, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain joined bipartisan majorities on a Congressional amicus brief in the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller for the proposition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Both Clinton and Obama refused to sign that brief, instead supporting the District of Columbia’s law that prohibits its law-abiding residents from possessing any operable firearm at home, even for self-defense.
The president of the United States appoints all federal judges. Senator McCain has stated he will appoint justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito, and Antonin Scalia, all of whom seem likely to vote to uphold individual gun rights. Senator Obama, on the other hand, has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists and wants the Court to uphold the DC gun ban.
So who Americans elect as president this year will determine the fate of the Second Amendment. In electing a president we also elect a Supreme Court, and in the coming years the makeup of the High Court will be crucial in defining our rights.
For that reason I’m honored to serve on Senator McCain’s Justice Advisory Committee, and will do everything I can to make sure that America’s 90 million gun owners elect a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices faithful to the text of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.
Gun owners are very sensible people. America’s heartland is filled with people devoted to faith, family and classic American values like lawful gun ownership for hunting, recreation and self-defense. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could learn a lot from them, but I doubt they’ll be joining us at the NRA convention.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/SandyFroman/2008/05/15/guns_and_judges_electing_the_supreme_court_in_2008?page=full&comments=true
By Sandy Froman
The political “hot button” issues of guns and judges have become intertwined in this election year. The fate of both issues will be decided by the candidate we elect as president. Why? Because over a four-year term, that president will likely appoint at least two and possibly three justices to the United States Supreme Court. Simply stated, this year when we elect a president, we will also cast our ballot for the next Supreme Court.
Everyone concerned about the Second Amendment and judicial accountability should heed John McCain’s speech to the NRA on May 16. The presumptive Republican nominee will speak directly to guns owners about the Second Amendment at the NRA’s Celebration of American Values event at the NRA Annual Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky.
And in America today, there has never been a greater opportunity or a greater threat to gun rights. In March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the watershed case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a lawsuit challenging the DC gun ban. Residents of the District of Columbia are categorically prohibited from possessing handguns and operable long guns (rifles and shotguns) in their homes, even for self-defense.
The Heller case turns on whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms refers to private, law-abiding citizens, or whether it is a right of the people “collectively” to have guns only when they serve in the National Guard or a state-sponsored militia unit. The Court is scheduled to decide the case the third week in June.
Whatever the Court decides, that decision will shape gun rights in America for generations to come. The Heller decision will become the definitive standard for gun rights in America. The Second Amendment is the insurance policy on American liberty. And whether you own guns or not, you cannot afford for a single minute to think that it doesn’t matter to you, your family or the security of this country.
Just like other controversial decisions, such as those on religious liberty and free speech, the Heller decision will lead to many more questions than it answers.
When the Court decided Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 it created the doctrine of separation of church and state. For over 60 years this nation has grappled with what that doctrine means, in a raging cultural battle.
When the Court declared a previously unnoticed right to abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, America’s courts and presidential politics were thrust into an issue that still stirs deep passions and is ever present in political debates.
From now on, the same will be true of the Second Amendment. The Heller decision will launch 30 years of defining the nature and scope of gun rights in our courts. The Heller holding will likely be narrow, and will leave open countless other questions, such as what kinds of guns are protected, how far that right extends beyond your home, and whether the Second Amendment controls state law. At least some of these questions will find their way up to the Supreme Court years later. Who sits on the Court when those cases arrive matters a great deal to those of us who believe in the value of widespread lawful gun ownership in America.
That’s why the 2008 presidential election has unprecedented importance for gun owners. Despite their campaign rhetoric purporting to support the right to keep and bear arms, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are categorically opposed to our Second Amendment rights. Hillary Clinton opposed the 2005 tort reform law that saved the American gun industry from bankruptcy. Barack Obama has declared his opposition to all concealed carry laws. He has refused to repudiate his answer to a 1996 questionnaire, where he answered “yes” to a question asking if he supported laws banning “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” And Senator Obama’s true contempt for gun owners came out when he described us as “clinging” to our guns out of bitterness.
In contrast, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain joined bipartisan majorities on a Congressional amicus brief in the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller for the proposition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Both Clinton and Obama refused to sign that brief, instead supporting the District of Columbia’s law that prohibits its law-abiding residents from possessing any operable firearm at home, even for self-defense.
The president of the United States appoints all federal judges. Senator McCain has stated he will appoint justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito, and Antonin Scalia, all of whom seem likely to vote to uphold individual gun rights. Senator Obama, on the other hand, has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists and wants the Court to uphold the DC gun ban.
So who Americans elect as president this year will determine the fate of the Second Amendment. In electing a president we also elect a Supreme Court, and in the coming years the makeup of the High Court will be crucial in defining our rights.
For that reason I’m honored to serve on Senator McCain’s Justice Advisory Committee, and will do everything I can to make sure that America’s 90 million gun owners elect a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices faithful to the text of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.
Gun owners are very sensible people. America’s heartland is filled with people devoted to faith, family and classic American values like lawful gun ownership for hunting, recreation and self-defense. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could learn a lot from them, but I doubt they’ll be joining us at the NRA convention.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/SandyFroman/2008/05/15/guns_and_judges_electing_the_supreme_court_in_2008?page=full&comments=true
Friday, May 16, 2008
World of Wifecraft
Hypnotizing WoW-obsessed husbands to believe that by doing chores around the house they're completing "quests" and earning "experience points."
Not hilarious, but cute.
Not hilarious, but cute.
The Ten Commandments Of Obamamessiah
He is Come! Or so many claim.
Senator Barack Obama has been labeled the Messiah, or a Secular Messiah, since in many ways he is either positioning himself as a Savior of the American people, and his devotees are acting in a curious religiously fashion. Especially since his Tennessee campaign motto is “Faith, Hope, Change.”
The clever folks at Exurban league have created this:
Senator Barack Obama has been labeled the Messiah, or a Secular Messiah, since in many ways he is either positioning himself as a Savior of the American people, and his devotees are acting in a curious religiously fashion. Especially since his Tennessee campaign motto is “Faith, Hope, Change.”
The clever folks at Exurban league have created this:
And I can’t help reproducing the Book of The Obamassiah, of unknown authorship (I’ve seen it by several people on different sites, though first at HotAir):
The Book of The Obamassiah
The Obamassiah shall reveal himself to us by his teachings, which will be the spoken word in the form of the finest silk and silver.
Do not fear if the words of the Obamassiah are not at first clear, you need only to hear them and believe. Be not afraid if the feeling of a cool breeze runs up one’s leg. Do not fear if the words of his glory remove you from your senses and fainting occurs.
Our savior shall become known to us by the wreath of arugala upon his head and his ears for they shall take the form of the handles of a jug of the finest wine.
I. Thou shalt not speak the middle name of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist and it shall not be tolerated.
II. Thou shalt not mention past associations of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For despite any recent or current friendship his holiness may have with them, he was only a child when they ran afoul of the law. Or he missed that sermon.
III. Thou shalt not mention praise of the Obamassiah by murderers and tyrants. To do so exposes thine as a racist, it is a sign that thine has truly lost one’s bearings.
IV. Thou shalt not mention the schooling of the Obamassiah at any point in his existence. To do so exposes thine as a racist.
V. Thou shalt not question the Obamassiah more than eight times. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For the time of his holiness is of a value beyond your own.
VI. Thou shalt not question the past of the Obamassiah family arrival or his birth. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For events in time matter not if they occur differently than his holiness speaks of them. It matters only that you believe.
VII. Thou shalt not question the words of the Obamassiah’s spouse. For if her words mirror those of the past associations of his holiness then thine is a racist twice over for the mention of them. (see II)
VIII. The purveyors of words to the people shall cast only praise on the Obamassiah. To turn from this exposes thine as a racist and a soldier of the unbeliever and thine should be cast out and lose any source of livelihood.
IX. Thou shalt not question the patriotism of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For by not displaying any outward love for his land only proves his love for his land.
Those unenlightened to the truth, and the light, and the way of the Obamassiah shall cling to armaments and religions other than that of the Obamassiah and will mistrust his glory for they understand it not.
This is the word of the Obamassiah.
Put him in jail and throw the key away : Jim McGovern (D-MA) working with FARC
Today's corrupt superdelegate: Jim McGovern (D-MA)... analysis of computer hard drive shows he was working with FARC terrorists
A computer hard drive recovered from a killed terrorist shows Dem superdelegate Jim McGovern may have been working with terrorists to undermine the government of Columbia, a US ally. Wall Street Journal: A hard drive recovered from the computer of a killed Colombian guerrilla has offered more insights into the opposition of House Democrats to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
A military strike three weeks ago killed Raúl Reyes, No. 2 in command of the FARC, Colombia's most notorious terrorist group. The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia's elected and popular government.
Mr. McGovern's press office says the Congressman is merely working at the behest of families whose relatives are held as FARC kidnap hostages. However, his go-between's letters reveal more than routine intervention. The intervenor with the FARC is James C. Jones, who the Congressman's office says is a "development expert and a former consultant to the United Nations." Accounts of Mr. Jones's exchanges with the FARC appeared in Colombia's Semana magazine on March 15. This Mr. Jones should not be confused with the former Congressman and ambassador to Mexico of the same name from Oklahoma.
According to Politico, McGovern is a Dem superdelegate supporting Hilary Clinton. Photo via media.washingtonpost.com .
.
Gateway Pundit has more. Interpol confirmed the computer had not been tampered with, contradicting claims by anti-US dictator Hugo Chavez.
This isn't the first time a Dhimmicrat worked with the enemy against the interests and security of America. Here is another story involving one of the most disgusting and despicable characters in the entire American politics history:
This isn't the first time a Dhimmicrat worked with the enemy against the interests and security of America. Here is another story involving one of the most disgusting and despicable characters in the entire American politics history:
Ted Kennedy and the KGB
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/15/2008
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Paul Kengor, the author of the New York Times extended-list bestseller God and Ronald Reagan as well as God and George W. Bush and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. He is also the author of the first spiritual biography of the former first lady, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. He is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College.
FP: Paul Kengor, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.
Kengor: Always great to be back, Jamie.
FP: We’re here today to revisit Ted Kennedy’s reaching out to the KGB during the Reagan period. Refresh our readers’ memories a bit.
Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.
FP: Tell us about this document.
Kengor: It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.
The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”
Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions.
So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.
Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.
FP: Did you have the document vetted?
Kengor: Of course. It comes from the Central Committee archives of the former USSR. Once Boris Yeltsin took over Russia in 1991, he immediately began opening the Soviet archives, which led to a rush on the archives by Western researchers. One of them, Tim Sebastian of the London Times and BBC, found the Kennedy document and reported it in the February 2, 1992 edition of the Times, in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.”
But this electrifying revelation stopped there; it went no further. Never made it across the Atlantic. Not a single American news organization, from what I can tell, picked up the story. Apparently, it just wasn’t interesting enough, nor newsworthy.
Western scholars, however, had more integrity, and responded: they went to the archives to procure their own copy. So, several copies have circulated for a decade and a half.
I got my copy when a reader of Frontpage Magazine, named Marko Suprun, whose father survived Stalin’s 1930s genocide in the Ukraine, alerted me to the document. He apparently had spent years trying to get the American media to take a look at the document, but, again, our journalists simply weren’t intrigued. He knew I was researching Reagan and the Cold War. He sent me a copy. I first authenticated it through Herb Romerstein, the Venona researcher and widely respected expert who knows more about the Communist Party and archival research beyond the former Iron Curtain than anyone. I also had a number of scholars read the original and the translation, including Harvard’s Richard Pipes.
Of course, all of those steps were extra, extra, extra precautions, since the reporter for the London Times had done all that work in the first place. He went into the archive, pulled it off the shelf, and the Times ran with the story. This wasn’t rocket science. I simply wanted to be extra careful, especially since our media did not cover it at all. I now understand that that blackout by the American media was the result of liberal bias. At first I didn’t think our media could be that bad, even though I knew from studies and anecdotal experience that our press is largely liberal, but now I’ve learned firsthand that the bias is truly breathtaking.
FP: So what shockwaves did your exposure of this document set off in the media?
Kengor: Well, I thought it would be a bombshell, which it was, but only within the conservative media.
I prepared myself to be pilloried by the liberal mainstream media, figuring I’d be badgered with all kinds of hostile questions from defenders of Ted Kennedy. I still, at this very moment, carry photocopies and the documentation with me in my briefcase, ready for access at a moment’s notice. I’ve done that for two years now. The pages may soon begin to yellow.
I need not have bothered with any of this prep, since the media entirely ignored the revelation. In fact, the major reviewers didn’t even review the book. It was the most remarkable case of media bias I’ve ever personally experienced.
I couldn’t get a single major news source to do a story on it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. Not one covered it.
The only cable source was FoxNews, Brit Hume’s “Grapevine,” and even then it was only a snippet in the round-up. In fact, I was frustrated by the occasional conservative who didn’t run with it. I did a taping with Hannity & Colmes but they never used it, apparently because they were so focused on the mid-term elections, to the exclusion of almost any other story or issue. The Hannity & Colmes thing was a major blow; it could’ve propelled this onto the national scene, forcing the larger media to take note. That was the single greatest disappointment. I think Sean Hannity might have felt that I wasn’t hard enough on Senator Kennedy during the interview. He asked me, for instance, if what Kennedy did could be classified as treason. I told him honestly, as a scholar, that I really couldn’t answer that question. I honestly don’t know the answer to that; I’m not a constitutional scholar. I don’t have the legal background to accuse someone of being a traitor. I was trying to be as fair as possible.
Rush Limbaugh, God bless him, appreciated it. He talked about it at least twice. So did blogs like Michelle Malkin’s HotAir. Web sources like FrontPage hit it hard. But without the mainstream news coverage, the story never made the dent I expected it would.
I should note that Ed Klein of Parade magazine recently contacted me. He himself got a rude awakening on the media’s liberal bias when he wrote a negative book on Hillary Clinton. I’ve not heard back from him. But he’s a rare case of journalistic objectivity.
If I may vent just a little more on the mainstream press, Jamie: There’s a bias there that really is incredibly troubling. Over and over again, I’ve written and submitted the most careful op-eds, trying to remove any partisan edge, on issues like Reagan and Gorbachev privately debating the removal of the Berlin Wall (I have de-classified documents on this in The Crusader as well), on Reagan’s fascinating relationship with RFK, on various aspects of the Cold War that are completely new, based on entirely new evidence from interviews and archives. When I submit these op-ed to the major newspapers, they almost always turn them down. The first conservative source that I send them to always jump at them. The liberals, however, are very close-minded. Nothing is allowed to alter the template. You can construct the most fair, iron-tight case, and they turn it down. This is not true for everything I write on the Cold War era, but no doubt for most of it. And certainly for the case of Senator Kennedy and this KGB document.
FP: How about trying to place some op-eds on the Kennedy document?
Kengor: Here again, all the mainstream sources turned me down. I had no alternative but to place the op-eds in the conservative outlets. Liberal editors blacklisted the piece. I began by sending a piece to the New York Times, where the editor is David Shipley, who’s extremely fair, and in fact has published me before, including a defense I wrote on the faith of George W. Bush. This one, however, he turned down. He liked it. It certainly had his intention. But he said he wouldn’t be able to get it into the page.
I sent it to the Boston Globe, three or four times, actually. I got no response or even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. It was as if the piece was dispatched to the howling wilderness of Siberia—right into the gulag—airbrushed from history.
The most interesting response I got was from the editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, another very fair liberal, a great guy, who since then has retired. He published me several times. We went back and forth on this one. Finally, he said something to the effect, “I just can’t believe that Ted Kennedy would do something this stupid.” My reply was, “Well, he apparently did.” I told the editor that if he was that incredulous, then he or someone on his staff should simply call Kennedy’s office and get a response. Hey, let’s do journalism and make news! It never happened.
For the record, one news source, a regional cable outlet in the Philadelphia area, called CN8, took the time to call Kennedy’s office. The official response from his office was not to deny the document but to argue with the interpretation. Which interpretation? Mine or Chebrikov’s? Kennedy’s office wasn’t clear on that. My interpretation was not an interpretation. I simply tried to report what Chebrikov reported to Andropov. So, I guess Kennedy’s office was disputing Chebrikov’s interpretation, which is quite convenient, since Chebrikov is dead, as is Andropov. Alas, the perfect defense—made more perfect by an American media that will not ask the senator from Massachusetts a single question (hard or soft) on this remarkable incident.
FP: So, Kennedy’s office/staff did not deny the document?
Kengor: That’s correct. They have not denied it. That’s important. Because if none of this had ever happened, and if the document was a fraud, Kennedy’s office would simply say so, and that would be the end of it.
FP: Tell us about the success the book has had in the recent past and the coverage it has received outside of the U.S.
Kengor: The paperback rights were picked up by the prestigious HarperPerennial in 2007, which I’m touting not to pat myself on the back but to affirm my point on why our mainstream press should take the book and the document seriously. The book has also been or is in the process of being translated into several foreign-language editions, including Poland, where it was released last November. It is literally true that more Polish journalists have paid attention to the Kennedy revelation than American journalists. I’ve probably sold about 20 times more copies of the book in Poland, where they understand communism and moral equivalency, than in Massachusetts.
FP: One can just imagine finding a document like this on an American Republican senator having made a similar offer to the Nazis. Kennedy has gotten away with this. What do you think this says about our culture, the parameters of debate and who controls the boundaries of discourse?
Kengor: History is determined by those who write it. There are the gatekeepers: editors, journalists, publishers. The left’s ideologues are guarding the gate, swords brandished, crusaders, not open to other points of view. The result is a total distortion of “history,” as the faithful and the chosen trumpet their belief in tolerance and diversity, awarding prizes to one another, disdainful and dismissive of the unwashed barbarians outside the gate.
You can produce a 550-page manuscript with 150-pages of single-space, 9-point footnotes, and it won’t matter. They could care less.
FP: So, this historical revelation is not a revelation?
Kengor: That’s right, because it is not impacting history—because gatekeepers are ignoring it.
Another reason why the mainstream media may be ignoring this: as I make clear in the book, this KGB document could be the tip of the iceberg, not just with Kennedy but other Democrats. John Tunney himself alluded to this in an interview with the London Times reporter. That article reported that Tunney had made many such trips to Moscow, with additional overtures, and on behalf of yet more Democratic senators. Given that reality, I suppose we should expect liberal journalists to flee this story like the plague—at least those too biased to do their jobs.
For the record, I’ve been hard on liberal journalists in this article, and rightly so. But there are many good liberal journalists who do real research and real reporting. And it’s those that need to follow up on this. I’m a conservative, and so I’m not allowed into the club. Someone from inside the boys’ club needs to step up to the plate.
FP: All of this is in sync with David Horowitz’s and Ben Johnson’s new book, Party of Defeat, isn’t it? As the book demonstrates, many Democrats are engaging in willful sabotage in terms of our security vis-à-vis Islamo-Fascism today. And as the Kennedy-KGB romance indicates, a good portion of Democrats have always had a problem in reaching out to our enemies, rather than protecting our national security. Your thoughts?
Kengor: Obviously, as you know and suggest, this does not apply to all Democrats, needless to say. But there are many liberal Democrats who were dupes during the Cold War and now are assuming that role once again in the War on Terror. President Carter comes to mind, as does John Kerry, as does Ted Kennedy, to name only a few. When I read President Carter’s recent thoughts on Hamas, it transported me back to 1977 and his stunning statements on the Iranian revolution, or to 1979 and his remarks on the Soviets and Afghanistan. Many of these liberals and their supporters on the left literally see the conservative Republican in the Oval Office as a greater threat to the world than the insane dictators overseas that the likes of Reagan and George W. Bush were/are trying to stop. That’s not an exaggeration. Just ask them.
History is repeating itself, which can happen easily when those tasked to report and record it fail to do so because of their political biases.
FP: Paul Kengor, thank you for joining us.
Kengor: Thank you Jamie.
American public opinion on Islamist issues
American public opinion on Islamist issues
What do Americans think about demands for Sharia courts, or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to carry dogs or passengers carrying alcohol? These and other questions relating to Islamist demands were the subject of a poll sponsored by Act for America and conducted by Moore Information.1. Seven out of ten respondents (69%) disagreed with FBI translator hiring practices favoring Muslims over qualified Christians, Jews and other qualified linguist/analysts.
2. Seven out ten respondents (71%) disagreed with employers giving Muslim workers time off for daily and weekly prayer.
3. Nine out of ten respondents (89%) disagreed that separate Sharia law courts should be permitted in legal systems in the West.
4. Eight out of ten respondents (79%) disagreed that Muslim cab drivers can reject fares whose actions may violate their Islamic beliefs.
5. Three out of four respondents (74%) disagreed that criticizing or mocking the Prophet Mohammed or Islam constitutes hate speech.
6. Nearly nine out of ten respondents (89%) disapproved of the practice of Banks engaging in Shariah Compliant Financing, which would require the banks to devote 2.5% or more of earnings to questionable Islamic charitable contributions with direct or indirect ties to terrorist organizations.
7. Over three-fifths of respondents (61%) disagreed that Muslim chaplains in our prison systems have the right to indoctrinate inmates in hate and violence under Freedom of Religion.
8. Two thirds of respondents (67%) indicated the increase in Islamic terrorism around the world was due to Militant Muslims because of their aggressive and violent actions toward non-Muslims.
9. Three out of four respondents (74%) approved of Congress conducting hearings to review materials distributed in some American mosques that advocate hatred for Jews and Christians, and encourage Muslims to take up the cause of holy war against all unbelievers, to see if they violate federal laws applying to tax-exempt organizations or laws relating to terrorism.10. Eight out of ten respondents (81%) approved the designation as a terrorist organization of Jaamat ul-Fuqra (JF) that runs a network of secret compounds through North America and has engaged in terrorist attacks and crime to support their violent extremist doctrine.We note that ACT for America has launched a national petition drive- click here- urging Congress to conduct investigations into Question 9- hate-filled materials in American Mosques, 3 out of 4 Mosques (100) evaluated by the Mapping Sharia project have been rated as ‘extremist'. Further to Q. 1- bias in hiring by the FBI in favor of Muslim translators over qualified Christian, Jews and Others, Rep. Sue Myrick, leader of the House Anti-Terror Caucus has made this an issue in her "Wake Up America" agenda released on April 18th. The Myrick proposal calls for a GAO audit to determine the extent of such hiring discrimination and possible remedies.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
McCain Or Obama: That Is (Not) The Question...
The more I hear the neo-marxist, racist, gun grabbing, anti-American and Islamofascist terrorist appeasing crap that's coming out of Obama's pie hole, the more I start to like McCain.
Sorry folks. I'll take the old crazy McCain any day over the Islamian...err...Manchurian candidate.
Even if McCain is sometime misguided and pisses everyone off with his ideas about illegal immigration or with his pampering of the terrorists we foster at Gitmo, at least we all know he is a true patriot. There is no doubt about that, and almost every broken bone in his body testifies to this truth.
That can't be said about the candidate who wrote in his book (I quote): "The Muslim Call to Prayer Is One of the Prettiest Sounds on Earth"
Listen to Obama's Prettiest Sound On Earth
Not the American Anthem. Not a church choir singing hymnals. Nope. For Obama, a muslim call to prayer is the prettiest.
Obama, President of the United States? NOT in MY lifetime.
Sorry folks. I'll take the old crazy McCain any day over the Islamian...err...Manchurian candidate.
Even if McCain is sometime misguided and pisses everyone off with his ideas about illegal immigration or with his pampering of the terrorists we foster at Gitmo, at least we all know he is a true patriot. There is no doubt about that, and almost every broken bone in his body testifies to this truth.
That can't be said about the candidate who wrote in his book (I quote): "The Muslim Call to Prayer Is One of the Prettiest Sounds on Earth"
Listen to Obama's Prettiest Sound On EarthNot the American Anthem. Not a church choir singing hymnals. Nope. For Obama, a muslim call to prayer is the prettiest.
Obama, President of the United States? NOT in MY lifetime.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Local Election (or Erection?) Poster In Bucharest, Romania
The poster reads:
Top: "This is the naked truth about the 5th District". (observe the pictures with trash on the streets, stray dogs, roads in disrepair, etc.)
Bottom left: The electoral sign of the National Liberal Party
Bottom right: Save the 5th District toghether with the candidate Christian Banu
Maybe Dems could use Hillary to pose for a a similar poster?
Never mind.
Really bad idea...Horrific, if I think about it.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Just in case you're wondering "Is Islam A Peaceful Religion?"
The answer is: it is so peaceful, it makes your OWN MOTHER try to kill you if you decide to leave "Allah, the true God"
Just watch the video if you still have doubts:
Any doubts we're NOT dealing with a "small minority" of extremists who "are corrupting the peaceful teachings of Islam"?
When are we gonna face the truth that we are at war with a death cult where the majority of its members shares the same psychotic and murderous Islamofascist doctrine and only an isolated and ostracized minority among them muslims shares our humanistic values like forgiveness, compassion, freedom and respect for other people values?
Also read:
Just watch the video if you still have doubts:
Any doubts we're NOT dealing with a "small minority" of extremists who "are corrupting the peaceful teachings of Islam"?
When are we gonna face the truth that we are at war with a death cult where the majority of its members shares the same psychotic and murderous Islamofascist doctrine and only an isolated and ostracized minority among them muslims shares our humanistic values like forgiveness, compassion, freedom and respect for other people values?
Also read:
Murderous Mothers. The Hidden Female Face of Honor Killing
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Jews For Preservation Of Firearms Ownership: INNOCENTS BETRAYED
Here is a fragment from JFPFO's award-winning movie INNOCENTS BETRAYED. One hundred seventy million (170,000,000) civilians were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone. One hundred seventy million men, women, and children who were defenseless to protect themselves. One hundred seventy million victims of gun control.
You have never seen anything like Innocents Betrayed. This story has never been told in a documentary film. View the Innocents Betrayed website.
You have never seen anything like Innocents Betrayed. This story has never been told in a documentary film. View the Innocents Betrayed website.
'We are going to tell you about global warming … you horrible people'
Propaganda-driven kids attack think tank
Students at a California public school have written a series of letters to Chicago's Heartland Institute, which works to discover and develop free-market solutions to society's problems, attacking its members for "destroying our planet" by refusing to endorse the politics of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" film.
According to students in the sixth-grade class of teacher Michael Steria at David A. Brown Middle School, the institute consists of "fools" and "horrible people."
"I think your (sic) fools for denying G.W. you know it could kill us all & you're just adding to it. I want you to help stop G.W. not increase it," said one letter.
"We are going to tell you about global warming. I don't care if you don't want to read, but I'm making you read it you horrible people," said another.
Officials at the school, a part of the Lake Elsinore School District, declined to respond to WND requests for a comment. Officials at the district office also declined to respond.
But Maureen Martin, a senior fellow for legal affairs for the institute, told WND that it was heart-breaking to see the results of such indoctrination of students.
"It's tragic," she said. "The kids were terrified."
She said some of the students expressed their belief they would be dead in 10 years.
The district's allowance of such teachings is "shameful, especially when there's a divide in the scientific opinion," she said.
She said the lessons reflected probably don't even meet the requirements of the state's educational guidelines, which for sixth graders demand lessons in earth sciences and the scientific methods of examining data. (continued below)
The nine letters, apparently written by about 25 students (teamwork, you know…) reveal the students were all quite expert on the subject, having read "10 articles" on the effects of air pollution on fetuses, natural disasters quadrupling in the past 10 years, and "Global Warming Denier Group Funded by Big Oil Hosting Climate Change Denial Conference."
The letters collected here were sent to us by Michael Steria, an earth science teacher at David A. Brown Middle School.
> Download copies of the letters (pdf)
Among the students' other comments:
* "We feel that it is wrong what you are doing. We know that you know that global warming is NOT we repeat NOT a myth, And we think it is selfish that you would take money over yours and your peers lives."
* "We feel upset because you are making Global Warming worse instead of helping it. We know that almost half of the country knows that G.W. is a crisis. We know that you could help the environment with the $800,000 you have."
* "We feel that they are destroying our planet by saying G.W. is not a crisis. You think GW is not a crisis but it is; you know deep down that it's a real thing that's happening. Everyone has a part in helping GW, and you're making worse."
* "I do not think that what you are doing is right because you are telling people that global warming is not a crisis. If this is not a crisis, how come floods have occurred in asia, Mexico, and India. Plus, how can you explain why the glacier glaciers are melting. they can't melt themselves, because they are in the coldest region in the world."
The rest of the article here:
Propaganda-driven kids attack think tank
Disband the public education system. It is bloated, inefficient, corrupt and politicized.
Terminate NEA and Teachers Crime Syndicate. They are the Democrat Party string puppet and the only reason for its existence is to benefit its own leaders and the Democrat politicians they support at the detriment of our children.
Terminate the college professor tenure system. 60's and '70s Marxist radicals like Ayers or Churchill propped each other in overpaid lifetime jobs and are continuing to indoctrinate our youth to hate America, capitalism and the spirit of freedom and self reliance this country was founded upon.
Will any American President have the courage and the political support to save this country from being destroyed by the liberal termites in the educational system?
Friday, May 9, 2008
The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
The abuse and humiliation suffered by law abiding American citizens at the hands of a dictatorial and incompetent Democrat-run local government, is only a glimpse of America's future under President Barak Hussein Obama.
If elected president, Barak Hussein Obama's plans to:
-Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons (that includes self-loading hunting and target rifles, shotguns and any type of pistol).
-Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
-Ban the possession of guns in inner cities.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Remember this video coming November election day!
If elected president, Barak Hussein Obama's plans to:
-Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons (that includes self-loading hunting and target rifles, shotguns and any type of pistol).
-Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
-Ban the possession of guns in inner cities.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Remember this video coming November election day!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
ALERT! Obama Backs U.N. Bill to Disarm Americans
This is just in from Sen. Coburn's office:
Obama has authored a bill, and it is now in the Senate, to give the United Nations .7% of our GNP to be used to feed hungry 3rd worlders, AND to use UN force to disarm you and me and all gun owners.
No one in the media has brought this to the attention of the general public.
Obama has authored a bill, and it is now in the Senate, to give the United Nations .7% of our GNP to be used to feed hungry 3rd worlders, AND to use UN force to disarm you and me and all gun owners.
No one in the media has brought this to the attention of the general public.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 4/24/2008: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718.
This ladies and gentleman is the Barack Obama vision for