I am going to stir up quite a storm with this post.

As everyone has no doubt heard, ExxonMobil posted NINE point nine BILLION in profits in the third quarter, and indeed has set an all time record, (one I expect to be broken in short order, say within 18 months), by earning revenues EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!!!!

Why am I going to stir up a storm with this info?

Because I say good for them.

Let’s say that one hundred billion dollars is instead one hundred dollars, making those outrageous profits just under 10 dollars. That’s a profit margin of less than ten percent. Supermarkets survive on less profits, I know, but other business generally need markups of thrity to fifty percent to make it. Except Wal-Mart. They made a deal with Satan so they could keep their profits down for eventually earning all of the profits in the world. One day there will be one company, called McDisneySoftMart. WalMart, for those of you interested, had earnings of 2.7 billion in the second quarter of this year, on sales of 76.8 billion. That is a profit margin of about 3 percent or so.

So I say good for the oil companies. Most business try for a much higher profit margin than 10%. The oil companies could try for 15 percent profit? Would that make us wake up? Probably not.

You know why? Because we love to drive. If you want to know why those evil oil companies made a measley ten percent profit from the work they do getting us fuel for our planes, trains and automobiles, then go look in a mirror.

If it bothers enough people that they are being fairly compensated for their effort and hard work, then maybe people will drive slower or drive less. That is the only way to make the oil companies profits go down.

By the way, before I go, I want to remind everybody that is mad about those profits that those profits directly reflect a certain amount of tax money going into the various government coffers through fuel taxes. By driving you are doing two things that are good.

You are making an American corporation bigger and stronger, and giving the government money to fund programs such as roads and bridges.

And if someday you have a business I will hope for you that you have a profit margin of at least ten percent.

Said Kender @ 11:06 pm Comments (5) | Permalink   

Victor Davis Hanson: Spare us the in-your-sleep moralizing

….Abstract ethics or soapbox lectures demanding superhuman perfection mean little without deeds.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other global humanitarian groups recently expressed criticism over the slated trial of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Such self-appointed auditors of moral excellence were worried that his legal representation was inadequate. Or perhaps they felt the court of the new Iraqi democracy was not quite up to the standards of wigged European judges in The Hague.

Relay those concerns to the nearly 1 million silent souls butchered by Saddam’s dictatorship. Once they waited in vain for any such international human-rights organization to stop the murdering. None could or did.

Now these global watchdogs are barking about legalities - once Saddam is in shackles thanks solely to the American military (which, too, is often criticized by the same utopian-minded groups). The new Iraqi government is sanctioned by vote and attuned to global public opinion. Saddam Hussein was neither. So Amnesty International can safely chastise the former for supposed misdemeanors after it did little concrete about the real felonies of the latter.

…U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan pronounced from on high that the American effort to remove Saddam was “illegal” - this after moral paragons in the Security Council like China and France chose not to sanction the enforcement of their own resolutions.

Annan presided over a callous, scandalous oil-for-food program that starved millions with the connivance of international financial players, among them his own son. Again, it is easier to grandstand on television than curb illicit profits or be firm with a killer in the real world.

Europeans especially demand heaven on earth. The European Union is now pressuring the United States to turn over its exclusive control of the Internet, which it invented and developed, to the United Nations. So far the Americans, so unlike a Saudi Arabia or China, have not blocked users from Net access, and freely adjudicate the World Wide Web according to transparent protocols.

That would never be true of the United Nations. If Iran or Zimbabwe were to end up on the Human Rights Commission, then they would be equally qualified to oversee the computers of millions of Americans. The same European elites who nitpick the United States about its sober stewardship of the Internet would be absolutely impotent once a China or Syria began tampering with millions logging on.

[…]

What do all these recent examples have in common? In the world of utopianism, we see that refined reason, not force, reigns. That may be admirable, but, unfortunately, abstract moralizing has little to do with a real world in which brutes abound.

[…]

Americans are easy targets of Kofi Annan, Amnesty International and Europeans. Our military in the shadows alone protects Westernized civilization, which makes these groups’ existence both possible and sustainable. Private jets, international finance and global commerce - the world of the United Nations diplomat, concerned corporate CEO or international celebrity activist - is a product also of the U.S.-sponsored military-commercial-industrial system. Everyone from Mick Jagger and Bono to Michael Moore and Madonna partake in, and are enriched by, it. But such dependency and familiarity with the solicitous parent America apparently can breed contempt.

So Americans increasingly tune out the U.N., Amnesty International and other once-respected bodies like the Nobel Prize Committee. That’s unfortunate, given the noble charters of these groups. But for all these agencies’ moralizing, they increasingly prove quite immoral themselves.

[emphasis added]

Said jcrue @ 1:49 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

Once Upon A time, In A Land Far Away… A regional panjandrum by the improbable name of Muhammad bin Saud met a fellow panjandrum cum mystic, then a radical islamist, by the equally improbable name of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and decided together that the Arabian Peninsula had just too much freedom in the way Islam was practiced. Deciding that their fellow Islamic Arabs had just gotten too far off the beaten path to true salvation (can you see a cult beginning?) a plan to conquer everyone was put-together. The year? Around 1750 AD (the AD is Anno Domini, an Un PC designation meaning After Christ, for those raised in the PC version C.E. meaning Common Era). The TM’s (Two Muhammads) put their plan into action and for the next 150 years, the family of Saud waxed and waned until the advent of another Saud, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud who in that year captured Riyadh from the rival Al Rashid clan. Indeed, some of the worst trepidations visited on Muslims were visited at the hands of the Wahhabists Riyadh was the Al Saud ancestral capital, Saud was able to finalize his conquests by 1927, and the kingdom became Saudi Arabia.

The religious movement founded by Muhammad ibn abd al Wahhab is known today as the radical-islamofascistic sect Wahhabism, although the practitioners of that sect would disagree with that definition. They (and the Kingdom) prefer to call it Salafism and its members Salafists:

The term “Wahhab” (Wahhābīya) refers to the movement’s founder Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab. It is rarely used by members of this group today, although the Saudis did use it in the past.

The Wahhabis claim to hold to the way of the “Salaf as-Salih”, the ‘rightly guided or pious predecessors’ as earlier propagated mainly by Ibn Taymiyya, his students Ibn Al Qayyim and later by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and his followers.

The term is considered offensive by some members who prefer to call themselves al-Muwahhidun (the monotheists) or the movement Salafism.

Saudi Arabia and its people are quite backwards in terms of social progress. They still practice beheading, amputation of feet and hands for theft, lashing, sometimes for months depending on the number of lashes prescribed by the “judge” who is really just a religious figure appointed by the King on the advice of the Supreme Judicial Council. All law is compatible with Shari’a (Islamic law) and is enforced by religious police (”mutaween” police) from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. In fact, these animals (one hesitates to call them police) prevented a number of school children from escaping from a burning dormitory because the girls weren’t clad in headscarves and black robes as prescribed by religious law. Nor would these animals allow men to approach the girls to rescue them from certain death because they were unclad. As a result, 15 children died in the fire.

In 1938, oil was discovered on the Arabian Peninsula and the power to grow Wahhabism as envisioned by the TM’s was closer and closer to fruition. In 1945, one of our most sophisticated Presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt deigned to meet with Saud following the allied conference at Yalta. Oil revenue made the Kingdom rich beyond belief and allowed the expansion via funding construction of mosques and Qur’an schools around the world. Including schools in all of the western countries.

This growing of Islam via building of mosques, and the establishment of madrassas an Islamic religious school. A simple Google^TM search will yield over 10,900,000 internet sites mentioning “Islamic Schools.”

What is taught in these schools is not the 3 Rs to be sure. The Islamic Schools League of America lists as it’s vision:

The Islamic Schools’ League of America envisions and works towards the day when Islamic schools will be the preferred centers for learning and leadership that nurture and encourage America’s youth to develop their innate creativity and inquisitive nature in the pursuance of academic excellence while anchoring their hearts and souls in a moral framework of a God-centered life.

Really? Subjugating women, executing gays, cutting hands and feet off of thieves? That kind of “moral framework?” How about the dreaded religious police that allowed the 15 children to die? That kind of moral framework?

This is the problem with the Saudi’s. I probably need not mention that the Saudi’s have been the largest contingent by far of terrorists striking the WTC and Pentagon, of terrorists caught/killed in Iraq, and captured here in the United States as proponents of terrorism, money laundering in support of terrorism and the trashing of banking laws to support terrorists. Indeed, while the Kingdom purports to support the United States, and the WOT, the fact of the matter is that the scoundrels have actively supported the very institutions behind the terrorists. A survey last year showed that almost half of all Saudis support Osama Bin Laden

A good blog friend Joerg Wolf who writes for Atlantic Review has penned an excellent piece on the Saudis, their support of terrorism and how the United States is, one must assume through sheer stupidity and indifference, turning a blind eye to the practices of the Salifists. Joerg makes an excellent point:

According to the State Department, religious freedom is non-existent in Saudi Arabia. While Eritrea was punished for lack of religious freedom under the Religious Freedom of Information Act, Saudi Arabia got another waiver for half a year.

This cannot continue unless we are willing (and I for one am not) to submit to Islam in dhimmitude.

It is said that no one is as blind as those that will not see and this certainly applies to the apologists for the Saudi royal family and the practice of Wahhabism. It is an absolute fact that we are totally dependent, as a people and as an economy, on oil. Yet, we are more dependent on foreign oil (read Saudi and our non-friends the Venezuelans) than we were even in the long gas lines of the Carter years. Because the Saudi’s own fully 25 percent of the known supplies of oil in the world, it is felt that we must cater to this socially, economically and politically backward government. Enough, perhaps, with a major drive towards energy independence, much as we did at Oak Ridge during WWII to develop nuclear power, we could wean ourselves from Saudi influence.

I also believe we should shut down every Islamic school in America (so should the English and the Europeans) as an absolute threat to western civilization, not because of the religious teachings of Islamic schools, but because Wahhbism preaches hate, overthrow of other forms of government and the establishment of the Wahhabi sect. It will be argued of course, that we are a free society with full freedom of religion. However, freedom of religion is not allowed in Saudi Arabia and 100 percent of the population is Islamic. Further, if you have so much as a stamp in your passport from Israel, you will not be allowed into Saudi Arabia. The belief in freedom of religion does not extend to making a suicide pact with ourselves. It is rapidly reaching a moral imperative that we do something about this pernicious sect, while we still can. I wonder if the The Islamic Schools’ League of America envisions and works towards the day when Islamic schools will be the preferred centers for learning and leadership that nurture and encourage America’s youth to develop their innate creativity and inquisitive nature in the pursuance of academic excellence includes their innate inquisitive nature when it comes to learning about God from a non-Wahhabi instructor? Somehow, I think not!

Said GM @ 5:00 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

My blogbuddy Jim Lynch at bRight & Early has been handicapping the possibilities for the next Supreme Court nomination by President Bush. He’s been collating tons of data on possible nominees, including that from a survey of bloggers he’s conducted over the last few days. Check out his recent SCOTUS posts for the latest. Jim has been doing yeoman’s work on this (obviously, he had NOTHING else to do this weekend… LOL).

Do visit his site, early and often, for the latest on the next SCOTUS nominee.

STOP THE ACLU also has a short list, with names and data.

Said The MaryHunter @ 8:15 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

Jonathan Steele writing in The Guardian seems upset that the Iraqi people told him and all the other naysayers to shove it. Steele writes:

The result was delayed by more than a week after officials said preliminary results showed an “unusually high” number of yes votes but, after checking, the election commission said it was satisfied the constitution had passed.”

Oh, I see, the fact that the vast majority of Iraqi’s want their own government, not terror by a minority sect, not by Zarqawi or other “insurgents” causes one to think that the vote should only have barely carried, if at all.

Iraqi voters overwhelmingly passed the new Constitution by a substantial margin of 79% to 21% and in doing so, said business as usual won’t cut it anymore. The legal wrangling for the constitution allowed for rejection of the Constitution if 65% of the voters in at least three provinces voted “No” on the issue. When the vote was counted, two provinces rejected the issue and one voted “No” by a margin of 55% to 45%, short of the 65% required. The two provinces rejecting the constitution were Sunni strongholds of Anbar and Salaheddin and a third (a near miss electoral wise) Nineveh, did not. Nineveh is the location of the city of Mosul where feelings have run high, but has a mixed religious base of both Sunni and Shia.

It is obvious that the minority Sunni’s are angry and upset about loosing the power they held under Saddam and are worried about a couple of real issues under the new Constitution. One of those is sharing oil wealth based on where the oil is located. Most of the oil in Iraq is located in Shia and Kurdish dominated provinces and how they spend the money derived from sales is an issue, one that really must be looked at in the future for all Iraqi’s, not just based on “who is in power.”

Nevertheless, this is not a killer issue unless made so by the Sunni. It is precisely Sunni intransigence that allowed the current interim government to be established by boycotting the January elections. The Sunni realized the folly of that and overwhelmingly voted in the October election, but in insufficient numbers to defeat the draft constitution.

Naysayers, have long held that the Iraqi people are incapable of voting for themselves, that civil war is on the brink, that Iraq is “united” in wanting to throw out the Coalition troops, and that there is an “insurgency” going on. Nothing could be further from the truth. Michael Yon, on the ground with troops discusses the election in the recent Weekly Standard (and his site here)and lays out the issues, the vote and the results.

Jonathan Steele however will have none of it. Steele writes:

But many observers fear the constitution will undermine Iraq as a state. It minimizes the role of the army by devolving security to local militias, is obscure about who is in charge of taxation, leaves oil revenues to the provinces, and allows local religious authorities the final say on family matters. The state will only have control over “current” oil production; future development can be sold to foreign companies.

The Iraqi people have spoken, get used to it Jonathan!

XPosted at GM’s Corner

Said GM @ 3:14 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

CDR Salamander had me going for a second today with his headline Southern Baptist terror cell arrested in Denmark.

Naw, just kidding silly; they were — wait for it — young Muslim men.

As you may remember, Denmark’s Queen Margrethe gets the point and has the intestinal fortitude to step up to the plate and speak the truth: That Islam needs to be opposed, period.

“It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and very lazy,”

“We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance,” she said.

“And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction.”

Many Americans could take a lesson from her and their newspaper, which has been threatened by Islamotards for publushing cartoons about Mohammed. Amen to that.

Note: I would like to mention at this point that I think the “prophet” Mohammed was a disgusting pedophile who also enjoyed sexual relations with pigs. You can send me my “fartwa” now, as Rottweiler would say.

At any rate, CDR Salamander’s whole post is quite informative for those interested in the spread of Islam in Europe. Hint: you should be very interested.

Said Kit Jarrell @ 12:59 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

Oh how I love the Religion of Peace. This tolerant and loving religion once again shows its love and tolerance:

Unidentified assailants attacked a group of high school girls on Saturday in Indonesia’s tense province of Central Sulawesi, (search) beheading three and seriously wounding a fourth, police said.

He said the heads of the three dead girls were found several miles from their bodies.

Oh those Christian Schoolgirls are an evil and dangerous bunch that must be wiped off the face of the earth. Besides being educated, and Christians, there is a possibility that they might .. GASP.. become mothers of other educated Christians. Can you imagine being the jihadist retard that actually thinks that brutally butchering teenage girls somehow ensures himself a place in heaven? The next time a leftist screams about Christiains in this country as the American Taliban I want them to look at American and tell me all about the beheadings going on here. How poor widdle Muslims are facing death daily at the hands of Christian “Crusaders”. Speaking of Crusaders, apparently our friends at Dhimmicratic Underground are worried that such stories are used by the American Government Crusaders to incite violence against the “evil doers”.

Reporting of such horrific acts is placed “up front and center” to scare the sheeple enough to sacrifice their kids to kill the evildoers (Crusade against those savages?).

Yes. God forbid that we bring such people to justice, whether to a courtroom, or preferably by sending them straight to Hell were they can enjoy their time with Allah. Oh the left, always lamenting when we wish to defeat our enemies instead of embracing them….

You can read more about our friendly Muslims at The Religion of Peace (and white-knuckled terror).

Cross Posted @ Parrot Check.

Said Duncan Avatar @ 11:27 am Comments (77) | Permalink   

The same U.N. that fails the world it is supposed to serve has now (two days after the fact) decided to get around to condemning the recent remarks, made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, concerning the annihilation of Israel.

(CNN) — The U.N. Security Council has condemned recent comments by Iran’s president that Israel should be “wiped off the map” but did not say if the world body planned any action against Iran.

In a written statement, the council pointed out that all members of the United Nations “have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against … any state.”

Now there’s something you can sink your teeth into, another strongly worded condemnation ought to do the trick. Right?

This would be analogous to a young pre-school age child telling his teacher, “I want to kill you and string your guts all over the place” and then the teacher replying, “Now, we don’t say that here!”.

How effective was this recent condemnation of the Iranian president’s remarks? Let’s read on:

Meanwhile, thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state’s destruction.

Demonstrators held banners with anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian slogans. One banner read “Death to Israel, death to America,” The Associated Press reported.

Quite effective, wouldn’t you say?

Here is Russia’s response:

The embassy said Ahmadinejad “did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict.”

“It’s absolutely clear that, in his remarks, Mr. Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories,” Reuters quoted the embassy statement as saying.

This is equal to the parent of that child I mentioned earlier saying, “He didn’t mean it. He’s a good boy.”.

Anyone, with half of a brain, can tell you that a child that would make such a statement needs to be looked at a little closer, because the statements he makes today, could very well be indicative of future malicious behaviors.

The same holds true of Iran, but with greater consequences.

Cross Posted at Political Yen/Yang

Said LASunsett @ 6:40 am Comments (1) | Permalink   

Crossposted at Part-Time Pundit by John Bambenek

During the press conference this afternoon, US Prosecutor Fitzgerald emphasized that no one knew that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA and that her cover has been blown. He said that she needed that cover and the blowing of that cover has harmed national security. After reading the indictment and listening to the press conference. Libby was charged with perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators.

If Libby leaked the name of a covered operative why is he not charged as such? The prosecutor during the press conference, Fitzgerald said he was “the first person in the chain of phone calls” that released her name to the public. Why is he not charged for leaking the name? Fitzgerald is saying that’s essentially what he did. The first question asked why Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby for leaking; the response was that he didn’t know the motives so he can’t charge for leaking. That position is absurd.

A second question not asked is about Valerie Plame’s cover, the assumption seems to be given that she had it, needed it, and she kept it secret. Let’s discuss non-official cover for a moment and its purpose. The entire point of any cover is so that person covered can deal with foreign agents without them knowing they are dealing with an agent of the United States. That’s the point of espionage; it’s to deceive into getting information that would not normally be given. If foreign people would give up the information to an FBI agent, there is no point to having a covered agent.

Valerie Plame had cover so she could talk to people in other countries without knowing her affiliation with the United States, it’s that simple. If there was information that would otherwise compromise the fact that she was affiliated with the US government, her cover would be compromised.

Valerie Plame’s cover was blown the second she married Joseph Wilson (which is probably why she moved to Langley). How can I say this? Two things. The marriage ceremony was public and it creates a public record. In fact, Joseph Wilson made no attempt to hide the name or identity of his wife. Second, no one can seriously think that the known wife of a US ambassador would not have an affiliation with the United States government.

Some argue that her name was disclosed in a Who’s Who record, in talks given by Wilson, or other events. These are irrelevant distinctions because her name, in and of itself does not link her to the government. What links her to the government publicly is her marriage to a US ambassador, even without mentioning she was CIA.

If I was engaging in espionage in Russia on behalf of the United States, I would not take seriously the trustworthiness of the wife of a Russian ambassador. No one would. Perhaps the reason Plame’s leaking was not charged is because her cover was already blown the day she got married.

Said jcb @ 12:44 pm Comments (5) | Permalink   

US EMBASSY SPITS ON FIRST AMENDMENT

IN AFGHANISTAN

US State Department tried to shut down the Afghan Newspaper that called for Idema’s release. NDS and FBI agents Seize 10,000 Afghan papers from Kabul printing press before this weeks issue was released with another story about Idema and Team, including US and Afghan government documents reprinted proving Idema innocent. Karzai government issues arrest warrants for Newspaper Publisher!

More at CB

Said Cao @ 8:42 am Comments (2) | Permalink   

The debates are already beginning about who will be nominated next to the US Supreme Court, instead of Harriet Miers. And for those who aren’t up on the intricacies of how this process works — Sandra Day O’Connor will stay on the court until a replacement is picked.

This gives the Democrats an opportunity. I imagine that the Democrats will now do everything in their power to delay any confirmation hearings on ANY person nominated, bar none. You see, the Democrats believe they can capitalize on Bush’s low approval rating numbers and gain seats in the 2006 mid term elections. If they can delay any confirmation process until after the 2006 elections, they believe they will have more power in the Senate.

Of course this is a risky option because the Republicans also believe they can pick up some seats in that election. If the Republicans get a few more seats, they would have even more of a majority, at least in name only. If the Republicans can get 60 seats, they believe they can pass any judge that Bush submits.

So, what should Bush do now?

I think he should have a list of nominees ready (and he probably does). Each time any name is removed from the list, at the same time the announcement is made that one nominee has been rejected by the Senate, the next name should be handed out. The Republicans in the Senate should schedule hearings for every Monday, just waiting for the nominations and “debate.” If the Democrats can be seen to object to every single nominee that Bush puts up, their actual, real agenda might be made more clear, despite their words.

Many of the debates now focus on whether the next nominee will be a conservative or a moderate — I say it won’t make any difference to the Democrats. Bush could nominate Hillary Clinton and the Democrats would oppose the nomination just because Bush made it. If the Republicans want a future, they better get together with Bush, nominate someone who will actually judge the law, and cram it past the Democrats — Republicans are supposed to have a majority in the Senate.

Said Ogre @ 5:57 am Comments (2) | Permalink   

Crossposted from: Stop The ACLU

Featured at: Montana News Association

First of all, I want to thank you on behalf of Stop The ACLU, all of our contributors, and supporters. It is an honor to have this interview with you. We appreciate the Alliance Defense Fund does for America by fighting the ACLU, and protecting life, and liberty.

1 Could you tell us a brief summary of how ADF came about?

Enough was enough. Dismayed by years of the erosion of liberty through activist courts in1993, thirty-five leaders of various Christian ministries came together to discuss the growing legal threats to religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) was born. ADF’s purpose was to develop sufficient means to win - through training, strategy, coordination, and funding to support litigation. In just eleven short years, ADF has trained over 850 allied attorneys, 405 law students, and provided funding for over 1,500 cases, including twenty-six victories at the Unites States Supreme Court.

2. What inspired you to write your new book, The ACLU vs. America?

In December 2003, I appeared on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the ACLU’s legal attacks on the public celebration of Christmas. During that interview, Bill O’Reilly asked, tongue in cheek: “Isn’t the ACLU an organization that started out with good beginnings, but has just gotten off track over the past decade?” There was no way to answer it in a 25-30 second sound bite. Craig Osten (my-co-author) and I pondered O’Reilly’s question and realized that most Americans believe this myth that the ACLU had good roots. We knew that the truth had to be told: that the ACLU had a completely different agenda for America right from the start, an agenda that sought to legally undermine every American institution in order to reshape our nation as the ACLU and its founders saw fit.

3. What would you say to those people who say that just because the ACLU was founded on Communism does not mean that they still have communist goals?

Baldwin fastidiously claimed he was not a communist, and in fact, purged the ACLU board members who actually belonged to the party when Stalin and Hitler linked arms in 1939. Despite this, Baldwin had repeatedly expressed admiration for the Soviets and had many communist and socialist allies. In an interview a few years before his death, ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin said to Peggy Lamson (a former ACLU board member): “The Communists say, we don’t care what the majority says, this minority is right, and if we can impose our will on the majority, we will do so.” This type of self-image sums up the modern-day ACLU, which has demonstrated, time and time again, blatant disregard for the will of the people and the democratic process. For example, the ACLU has filed or supported lawsuit after lawsuit to either block public votes on constitutional amendments affirming traditional marriage, or to overturn the results (which have yet to be in the ACLU’s favor). When Alaskan voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1998 affirming marriage as between one man and one woman, the ACLU’s former executive director said: “Today’s results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote.”

4. I have read in your book that the ACLU filed a brief in favor of legalizing child pornography. When I wrote about this, many people wanted solid proof. Where can one see in the record how the ACLU defended this?

There are several examples. The files at the U.S. Supreme Court are a good starting point. In 1983, the ACLU submitted a friend of the court brief in the case of New York v. Ferber, arguing that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU Policy Guide states: “The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of all forms of communication. The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds, laws that restrict the production and distribution of any printed and visual materials even when some of the producers of those materials are punishable under criminal law.” (i.e. child pornography).

In the mid-1980s, when I serving as the Director of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, the then-legislative counsel of the ACLU testified that it was the ACLU’s position that once child pornography was produced, there should be no government restriction on its sale and distribution.

5. Recently a judge in California ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross was unconstitutional despite the majority of San Diego voters supported keeping the cross. What are your thoughts on judicial activism in America today? Should judges be using international law in interpreting the Constitution?

In his biography by Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin said: “I placed my faith in the courts…” What he meant by that was that he knew the ACLU could not achieve its aims through state and federal legislatures or by taking their case to the people. He knew that the courts would be the most useful method of imposing the ACLU’s agenda on the people. The outgrowth of that strategy is the judicial activism we see today, where the ACLU and its allies are using the courts to deny the expressed will of the people and to impose new laws via judicial fiat. In the Mt. Soledad case, the ACLU attorney James McElroy expressed his disdain for the majority when he said after the vote: “It still doesn’t mean a damn thing. Voters should have never voted on it.”

ADF believes that judges should interpret the Constitution as written and consistent with its original meaning. It is not an “evolving document” with emanations from penumbras as judicial activists’ state.

As far as international law, this is just another example of how the ACLU has tried to change the rules to get their way. They came to the realization that the Constitution can only be stretched in so many ways, that they are eventually going to reach a limit with how far they can advance their agenda with domestic laws and courts alone!

I think Chief Justice John Roberts said it quite eloquently during his confirmation hearing when asked about international law. He said: “Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don’t find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it’s in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever.” He went on to state that international law was a misuse of legal precedent and we would wholeheartedly agree.

Nevertheless, the ACLU, along with its former counsel Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have been the biggest proponents of using international law as precedent to undermine our national sovereignty, which millions have sacrificed and died to defend and preserve.

6. What do you find is the biggest threat to liberty in our society today? How can we counter this?

The biggest threat to liberty today is the agenda of advocates of homosexual behavior, which Craig Osten and I detail in our previous book, The Homosexual Agenda: The Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The ACLU has helped develop much of this agenda and has worked very closely with these advocates. The ultimate goal of many homosexual activists is to progressively silence and punish any dissenting viewpoints when it comes to homosexual behavior. In places such as Sweden and Canada, people with sincere religious objections to homosexual behavior are facing fines, loss of employment, and even imprisonment for expressing their views.

How can we counter this? First of all, we can show up. When ADF and its allies have shown up against legal advocates of homosexual behavior in the courtroom, with the training, strategy, and coordination to win, we’ve been successful in defeating the agenda of homosexual advocates, including same-sex “marriage.”

Secondly, it will take resources. The ACLU and its allies, including radical advocates of homosexual behavior, have tremendous financial resources at their disposal. The ACLU Foundation has $175 million in assets. The Gill Foundation, whose mission is to push the homosexual agenda, has spent millions of dollars to achieve its aims. The Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and Defense and Education Fund, and Planned Parenthood, all have massive amounts of funds, including millions from corporate America, to spend.

Thirdly, Americans need to become educated on the threats to liberty, and that is why we wrote the ACLU book, as well as our previous book on the homosexual agenda, to awaken the majority of Americans who still respect the values of life, liberty, and family that made our nation great.

7. Is it possible to reform the ACLU? Can they be changed, or is countering them the only option?

It’s not a public company and is controlled by a private board. It’s tough to “reform” an organization that had a very different agenda for America right from the beginning. In addition, they have had eighty years to build the legal precedents that they have used to advance their agenda, and even if the ACLU went out of existence today, those precedents would still be in place. Therefore, it is going to take a long-term, strategic effort to reverse those legal precedents, and put new ones in place that affirm religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family.

8. What is your strategy in fighting the ACLU? Are there other ways people can get involved?

ADF has a four-fold plan to fight and eventually defeat the ACLU. That plan is training, coordination, funding, and direct litigation. Our goals include training at least 5,000 allied attorneys over the next ten years to take on the ACLU and its allies and building an in-house attorney mentoring program - to train and equip the next generation of attorneys. But you train all the attorneys you want, and if they do not have a coordinated plan of action, it is not going to make much of a difference. That is why ADF focuses on strategic coordination to make sure that we are working in unity towards a common goal of reversing the legal damage inflicted by the ACLU and its allies on our nation, rather than working against each other. Thirdly, we make sure that when our allied attorneys show up in court to take on the ACLU, that they have the necessary financial resources to win. ADF has funded over 1,500 grants for legal cases and projects in just eleven years. Finally, ADF wants to grow litigators, lawyers on our staff who are actively involved in defending religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

9. Currently there is legislation in the House by Congressman Hostetler that is asking to reform the attorney’s fees act in the Civil Rights Act to not apply in Establishment Clause cases. Does ADF support this?

We talk about the need to reform this in our book, as it has become a financial cash cow for the ACLU and one of their weapons in their campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation to force public officials to bow to their agenda. While ADF does not delve into legislative issues, we hope this effort by the congressman passes to fix this loophole which the ACLU has exploited for years to bully towns and municipalities into compliance.

10. Do you support grassroots efforts like Stop The ACLU.Com and Stop The ACLU.Org in informing the people of the ACLU’s actions and other civil liberties groups? How can we motivate others to get involved? What would your advice be in helping our organization’s success?

ADF is thankful for any efforts that raise awareness of the ACLU’s dangerous agenda for America and encourages citizens to get involved in combating it. I believe that the American people are increasingly rejecting the ACLU’s agenda as more and more of it is brought into the light. Keep on doing what you are doing, highlighting the ACLU’s most recent outrageous statements and positions, and I am sure your efforts will be successful.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Said Jay777 @ 10:07 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

I just don’t get it.

I like history — especially American History. One of the things I’ve done with my life is read and view a lot about American History. When looking at art depicting colonial times, I’ve seen a lot of images.

I’ve seen pictures of people working in leather crafts — from the skinning of animals to the tanning of hides and the many uses to which tanned leather was put. I’ve seen recreations of huts, cabins, tepees, and other forms of American home life. I’ve seen where and how pottery was made and it’s many uses. I’ve seen drawings and paintings depicting Colonial life in many ways.

I’ve read about how the various different types of people earned their livings. I’ve read diaries from people who lived in the “cities” of the time, and people who lived on the edges of the wilderness. I’ve read about those who were the first to arrive on the shores of this land, and those who were the first to move inland, away from the shores.

I’ve read about the trials and tribulations of those in the first colonies of the various European countries. I’ve read about the taxes and oppression brought about with the authority of the King of England. I’ve read about American patriots like Nathan Hale, who gave all they had to fight for freedom. I’ve read about the American soldiers huddled on the banks of the Delaware river in the winter, waiting to cross for their chance to throw off the chains of tyranny.

But the one thing I have yet to come across in all my readings and learning about colonial times and American history is the people waiting.

Every single thing that happens today, it seems, is followed by a news article that reports someone is “waiting for help.” The most recent includes headlines on various different news sites all with people “waiting for help” due to Wilma. Why do people today just wait for someone else to do everything for them? Can you imagine if the people who came across on the Mayflower had arrived on the shores and waited for Europe to help?

What if the Minutemen of the 18th century had waited for England to property feed and clothe them? Should Lewis and Clark have stopped at the Mississippi to wait for the government to provide them new horses when they got tired? Maybe Betsy Ross should have waited for the government to pay her before she started to create the American Flag.

Folks, the government of America does not exist to serve you. That is not it’s purpose, and it never was. If you want a government to serve you, please head to a socialist country. I want freedom, and this government is the closest I can get to it. It used to be a lot more free, but you idiots who insist on government doing everything for you are ruining it for the rest of us.

Stop waiting for government to provide you water — get up off your rear end and go get it or collect it yourself. Stop waiting for government to give you ice — you don’t need it. Stop waiting for government to give you a welfare check — go get a damn job and work for your money instead of stealing it from someone else.

If you truly need help and are physically incapable of doing something yourself, go ask your neighbor or the local church — they will help you much quicker and much better than any government agency EVER will.

And stop waiting for the government for anything — just get up and do it your damn self.

Said Ogre @ 6:21 pm Comments (11) | Permalink   

First off: God bless each and every one of our brave, fallen military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, who were trying to make our planet a better, safer place. God bless their loved ones left behind as well. I’m embarrassed to break the mood after Jim Lynch’s gracious post below (a cross post from bRight & Early), that celebrates the 2,000 — each of the 2,000 — American military who have died in Iraq. The mainstream media does not deserve my time, nor yours. Yet, I feel I must rant.

So I see the front page of USA Today lying in front of my hotel room (I’m on the road). First eye-catcher: “Death Toll Reaches 2,000.” Then, an article: “Letters Home from Iraq” by Gregg Zoroya, and I think, hey, maybe they’ll let the brave servicemen and women who have offered the ultimate sacrifice actually speak for themselves. The article even has a a tagline with the continuation page 8A: “You can be for or against the war, and be moved by these writings.”

Assuming that whole letters would be published, I read on. And was sorely disappointed. Severely edited with catchy, heart-wrenching quotes and fill-in pablam by the USA Today author as the letters were (online version: see RELATED STORIES links), I can’t say as there was a single mention of duty, or honor, or freedom, or belief in the mission that I have heard excerpted from countless such letters in the past. My read of this USA Today collection was simply as a propaganda diatribe: Gee, look how many wonderful people have been killed for this war. If we pull out, then no more will die.

I so despise the MSM. [/rant]

See more derision of the MSM from Parrot Check and another view you won’t get from the MSM at GM Roper (HT for these links: Raven)

Cross posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Said The MaryHunter @ 5:07 pm Comments (12) | Permalink   

It seems that even in the “quintessential red state” of Texas, that liberals are trying to FORCE their views on others. The election to be held on 11/8/05 has a proposed ammendment to the state constitution which will officially define marriage as a union between “one man and one woman”. This serves not only to define marriage, but makes homosexual marriage completely illegal. Well, the fact that the voters of the Great State of Texas apparently isn’t good enough for some moon-bats, as they have started a web site (which I will NOT link to) called “Save Texas Marriage”, which urges people to vote NO on prop 2. It actually says that by voting YES (which is the correct vote to define marriage as a man and a woman), that it will nullify ALL MARRIAGES in the state. Some phone banks actually are calling about this and even end the call with “God Bless You” (didn’t know a moon-bat could say that w/o bursting into flames). But, for your benefit (especially those in Texas) the FULL TEXT of the proposition is below. I personally will vote YES on prop 2, but it works this way…..

If you want to keep marriage as one man and one woman, vote YES on prop 2.

If you feel that 2 men or 2 women should be able to marry (even though a will can do anything they want with their estate and other options are available for visitation and such), vote NO on 2.

I’m voting YES on prop 2!

The full text…..

proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32.
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may
not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 2.
This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 3.
This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: “The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Basically (and I’m no scholar here, but you needn’t be for this), the amendment would “officially” define marriage ONLY as between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, thus making a “marriage” between 2 men or 2 women ILLEGAL. Further, it goes so far as to prevent any government agency or any agency acting in a governmental capacity from creating (or EVEN RECOGNIZING) any institution other than “one man and one woman”.

What the other language says, is that a homosexual couple still has all the “rights” of a straight (married or unmarried) couple. I’ll try to explain…..

Hospital Visitation - If you are admitted to the hospital, you can list ANYONE YOU WANT as authorized to visit you, and therefore you DO NOT NEED to be married for this to be possible.

Inheritance/Wills - You DO NOT need to be married to leave property/money to someone in your will. My grand-father left certain things to one of his Army buddies from WWII and there were ZERO PROBLEMS with this. They were not married, and he still left part of his estate to him.

Do you see where I’m going with this? The ONLY thing that being married does, is supply an almost PURELY RELIGIOUS conotation to the couple. How long (if gay marriage is allowed in TX) before the aclu starts SUING CHURCES to FORCE them to recognize gay couples? If that isn’t a violation of their favorite myth (separation of church and state) I don’t know what is, because that would require “The State” to pass a law REQUIRING “The Church” to do something, thus providing the “excessive entanglement” that our forefathers were worried about.

Cross Posted at Smoke Signals Blog

Said The Smoke Eater @ 12:31 pm Comments (10) | Permalink