UPDATE: We notice that Martin Asser has since re-edited his piece, adding more details about the U.N. report into the 1996 ‘massacre’. Before anyone concludes this is an attempt to rebalance the article, however, it should be noted that while there is still no mention of Hezbollah firing mere yards away from the UNIFIL base, nor of their running for cover into the base, Asser does dwell on the U.N.’s claim that the Israeli shelling was deliberate.Only at the BBC do journalists re-edit their work in order to increase the level of anti-Israeli bias.
The left’s whining and seething over Israel’s self-defence reached fever-pitch today with news of the death-toll in Qanar. Predictably, the charge toward a ceasefire (that is, for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon while Hezbollah’s campaign of genocide goes on) is being led by the BBC. Here’s one of the Corporation’s pet Muslims, Martin Asser, attempting to upgrade a mishap to a massacre:
Analysis: A second Qana Massacre?
Well, to be fair, there’s actually a fair bit of disagreement over whether there was a first Qana massacre — Israel and the U.S. both deny this, while, lining up beside Martin Asser in order to kick Israel are the likes of George Galloway, Robert Fisk [graphic image on this one], and the moonbats at Human Rights Watch.
The southern Lebanese town of Qana is known for two events in history, and there could soon be a third as news comes in of rising civilian casualties from an Israeli air strike there.
Of course, there are also rising Hezbollah casualties, which is something the BBC seems loath to mention. After all, public sympathy for dead children is easier to generate than it is for head-hacking crazies. Whether or not Martin Asser is aware of this isn’t clear, but it’s a very safe bet that Hezbollah are.
In realms of biblical narrative, some believe it to be the scene of Jesus Christ’s first miracle, turning water into wine during the wedding at Cana of Galilee.
True enough, though quite why Asser deems this relevant to current events is anyone’s guess. Unless, of course, we’re to wake up tomorrow morning to find ‘Israel Bombs Jesus’ splashed across the BBC’s mid-east pages.
In modern times, it was the scene of one of the bloodiest events of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict, the Israeli shelling of a UN base sheltering Lebanese civilians 10 years ago.
Wow. So those evil Jooos deliberately shelled a UN compound, did they? That’s certainly the idea Martin ‘massacre’ Asser is about to plant in readers minds. The truth, of course, is that Israel was firing on a nearby Hezbollah position and missed. Asser does get around to mentioning (albeit dismissively) this explanation of events, but here, why not use the more neutral ‘Israeli shell hit a UN base’? Hmm? After all, the BBC is forever lecturing us on the importance it attaches to the use of ‘morally neutral’ language in its reporting, hence, the plethora of ‘militants’, ‘insurgents’ and ‘misguided criminals‘ which inhabit the Corporation’s reporting. Does neutrality only come into play when those responsible for civilian deaths aren’t Israelis? >> Read more
Said RottyPup @ 2:09 am Comments (43) | Permalink
Apparently running out of ideas for obnoxious publicity stunts, Cindy Sheehan will be returning to her roots next month by once again camping out in Crawford while demanding a second meeting with President Bush.
This time it won’t happen on the property of Mark Mattlage, who hosted her circus last year. Mattlage is a Democrat but not a moonbat, and offered his 1-acre property in the past not because he agrees with Sheehan’s appalling views — which reportedly make him cringe — but out of concern for the safety of neo-hippy lowlifes who were congregating in a ditch and spilling out onto the road.
According to the She-hag, her freak show left Mattlage “with a better property and one with amazing positive and peaceful energy.” But that wasn’t enough for the greedy Mattlage, who wanted her to pay for increased liability insurance costs in anticipation of huge crowds, and to sign a “hold harmless” agreement. The Ditch Witch publicly responded with this:
I cannot in good faith accept the terms that you and your lawyers are holding us hostage with. … I fear we will have to find alternatives to using your land…
Mattlage seems able to live with that. He had reservations about letting the moonbat troupe use his land when Bush was on his ranch “out of respect for the President.”
Now Sheehan has acquired her own 5-acre spread in Crawford for stalking President Bush, admittedly paid for with insurance money from the death of her son, who died fighting for the very cause Sheehan strives to undermine.
As if that weren’t disgusting enough, the property was acquired through a third party, one Gerald T. Fonseca of New Orleans, who shared with the sellers a sob story about losing his house in Katrina, but did not share his plans to turn the property over to Mother Moonbat and her army of tie-dyed creepazoids, who will use it as a base from which to disrupt the President’s vacations at Prairie Chapel Ranch.
Mark Mattlage’s last words to Sheehan were, “You can go away now.” He wasn’t speaking only for himself.
Hat tips: Hot Air, Hot Air. On a tip from V the K.
Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
Said Van Helsing @ 6:33 am Comments (7) | Permalink
The level of willful self-deception and false moral posturing over the Hezbollah initiated attack on Israel is reaching monumental proportions. All week, I’ve been adding fresh examples at Mike’s America. The following is an amalgam of images and selected text from those posts.
The human tragedy in Lebanon is a direct result of Hezbollah tactics and strategy. Not only did they precipitate the current conflict by invading Israel, killing three soldiers and kidnapping two others, but they deliberately hide their rocket launchers in civilian areas and conduct their attacks from civilian areas and in close proximity to UN “peacekeepers.”
It’s not a new tactic for terrorists as the photo below of Hamas terrorists attacking Israelis while surrounded by children shows:
Meanwhile, even the otherwise worthless United Nations condemned Hezbollah for using Lebanese civilians as human shields. UN High Muckity-Muck Jan Egeland (who referred to America’s aid to Tsunami victims as “stingy”) Declares that : “Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending … among women and children,” he said. “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”
UN A Victim of It’s Own Irrelevance
In the photograph at right, you see the Hezbollah flag flying next to the UN flag at a UN “peacekeeping” post. More sad news from this week marked the death of four UN “peacekeepers” after their position was hit by an Israeli bomb. One of those killed, a Canadian, sent an email just days before describing how Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and Israelis were returning fire, but not “deliberately” targeting the UN forces.
Today, Friday July 28, two weeks after the conflict began, UN Forces were ordered away from the border area. There are many questions one wishes the lamestream media would ask Kofi Annan as he parades around demanding another “cease fire” to replace all the other ceasefires and agreements and “peacekeeping” efforts that have been undertaken for more than 20 years. But two questions cry out more than others: “What “peace” did UN personnel keep as they witnessed Hezbollah preparing to attack Israel? And: “Why did Kofi permit “peacekeepers” to remain in an area where conflict was widespread?”
As Hezbollah and Hamas continue to violate the basic rules of armed conflict, which are designed to avoid civlian casualties and provide clear identification of combatants such as requiring uniforms, many on the left and their lamestream media allies continue to push the moral equivalence siren song that sees no right or wrong, no black or white; only shades of gray.
Such an outlook can only encourage future conflict by allowing particularly vile terrorist groups and states from avoiding any accountability.
Charles Krauthammer with his usual brilliance and clarity describes the situation this way:
What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?….
When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one’s security again. ….
Israel’s response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in south Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.
Israel has the military capability to level nearly all of Lebanon in a few days. Yet, the restraint they have shown is condemned nearly without exception.
Who Are These Hezboos anyway?
Pat Buchanan said recently that the United States has no reason to support Israel and it’s fight with Hezbollah. Michelle Malkin has a video with Pat declaring ““You don’t go after people unless they come after you…”
Well, Hezbollah has come after us. And here are 289 reasons why this is also America’s fight with terrorists:
- 17 Americans killed April 18, 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut
- 241 Americans killed Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
- 1 American killed March 16, 1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley Beirut
- 2 Americans killed Sept. 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut
- 2 Americans killed Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221
- 1 American killed June 14, 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847, Beirut
- 1 American killed February 17, 1988 Col Rich Higgins kidnapped.
- 5 Americans killed November 13, 1995 Bombing Saudi National Guard Building, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- 19 Americans killed June 25, 1996 Khobar Towers US Air Force Housing
Justice for these dead Americans has been long denied. Mostly by the same kind of foolish moral equivalence that confuses victims with aggressors. Again,that’s the same thinking that just invites more terror, more violence, and the deaths of more innocents.
Now, I can already sense the terror enablers, apologists and moral know-nothings bristling that if we only abandoned Israel to it’s fate (certain destruction and the deaths of millions throughout the region) that we, the United States would not be in this predicament.
Well, we had the sad news this week of a Buddhist teacher in Thailand murdered in front of the students at his school by Islamic fanatics. His crime? Teaching something other than the approved ideology of Islamic hate. No connection to Israel in this attack, or the 1,300 deaths in Thailand at the hands of extremists. 
Sadly, these attacks, unlinked in any way to support for Israel, are all too common. This week we also learned that Miss Indonesia was under threat from Indonesian Islamic fanatics after she participated in the swimsuit competition in the Miss Universe pageant.
She didn’t win the title and I’m not sure she would have fared any better in the competition, or safety from extremist had she been attired with the Muslim approved swimwear pictured above.
Bring Back the Good Old Days?
John Kerry, the failed Presidential candidate who also served four months in Vietnam got into the act of blaming President Bush for the whole mess in the Middle East. “This wouldn’t be happening if I were President” he told a crowd at Honest John’s Bar and Grill (Honest Johns???HA!). He’s probably right, Israel would have been destroyed by now.
But the current difficulties do bring nostalgic thoughts to the minds of Democrats who remember just how well Clinton faced up to the painful reality of the Middle East.
The Four Monkeys of the Clinton Team. Here no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, stuff your socks with classified docs.
Yes, there is nostalgia for the days when Clinton invited PLO terrorist in chief Yasser Arafat to the White House more than any other foreign “leader” and tried to broker a deal offering him more than any previous agreement only to have Arafat reject it and turn again to the wanton death of innocent Israelis at the hands of mass murdering terrorist bombers.
By now, it should be abundantly clear to all but the willfully ignorant, that refusing to see that one side is wrong and one side is right in this ongoing conflict has been a monumental failure with ever greater violence as the result.
Let’s give peace a chance for a change and root for the side with right on their side: ISRAEL!
We make war that we may live in peace.
Aristotle
Said Mike's America @ 12:17 pm Comments (3) | Permalink
A Brief Essay on Political Conservatism
A Brief Essay on Political Liberalism
It is my firm belief that if people really knew what Conservatives stood for and what Liberals stood for, Liberalism as we know it would largely disappear from the American scene.
The first two links above are apolitical in nature, and in my opinion give a “fair and balanced” description of each political view. The third link is an interesting article regarding the moral choices sometimes forced upon the Left. What is most interesting is that between these three links, they form a picture of Liberalism that is neither rational nor flattering.
To begin with, I found myself agreeing more with the definition found above (from dmoz.org, an open-source search engine) on Conservatism than with the dictionary definition. The dictionary presents an overly simplistic view of Conservatism (and to be fair, also of Liberalism). Essentially, Conservatism is defined as “an orientation which holds that Man being fallible, tradition is an important transmitter of wisdom, and that maintenance of the established order with moderate reform is preferable to utopian idealism and revolutionary change.” As a Christian, I know that man is fallible, and agree totally with this concept. That’s part of what draws me to Conservatism.
However, for me, it’s more than that. I’m literally repelled by Liberalism. Why? In my view, it is not simply un-American, it is anti-American. The whole concept of our government is based on the rights of the people, these rights being God-given. They are not bestowed upon us by a benificent government, and said government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. Liberals want to change that. “New Liberalism” calls for more government involvement in protecting personal liberty and social justice (we saw this just recently when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law), but at the expense of economic liberty. In our capitalistic society where people are free to be as educated, prosperous, and involved as they want to be, this is a cardinal sin.
Consider that to be a Liberal, you actually align yourself:
- With abortionists, under the guise of protecting a woman’s “rights” (how about the “right” not to get pregnant in the first place?)
- Against Martin Luther King, who rather than supporting Affirmative Action, desired to be judged “not by the color of [his] skin, but by the content of [his] character”
- With Larry Flynt, pornographer, under the guise of “Free Speech”
- Against John F. Kennedy, Liberal Icon, who advocated reduced taxes
- With Adolf Hitler, who as Liberals would like to do, took away the guns of his citizenry
In practice, the ideology of Liberalism seems to be more about being against Conservatism than it is of actually taking a stand and sticking with it on any particular issue. Remember how incensed the Left was over accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas? Why did their tone change when Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of things any red-blooded American husband would pound him into sand for attempting with their wives? If they are really Pro-Choice, why are they against laws requiring abortion clinics information relating to the effects of abortion, and alternatives to abortion? By campaigning against such laws, they reveal themselves not as Pro-Choice, but as Pro-Abortion.
How any rational, clear-thinking, self-respecting individual could be a deep-down Liberal is beyond reason. Think about it!
So again I ask, are you sure you’re a Liberal?
TD
Said tdillard @ 5:00 am Comments (13) | Permalink
Note: I am NOT going to be very specific in this post. Folks who are able to do their own homework can easily fill in specific examples and many, many more issues than I list below. This is, as I say below, an opportunity to engage in a very simplified, but potentially useful, thought experiment.
Each of the critical issues facing us as a society today are… moral issues. It’s just that the idea of virtue and sin have been denigrated (and pejorated) so long and folks who ought to know better have allowed the enemies of virtue to redefine the topic so narrowly (and wrongly) that we rarely think in those terms.
As a starting point, try this lil thought experiment: take the classic “Cardinal Virtues”—Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance, Faith, Hope, Love—and “Deadly Sins”—Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony, Lust; although older lists include despair or “accedie”—and try matching up the “Deadly Sins” with difficulties facing Western Civ… and the “Cardinal Virtues” with the solutions to those difficulties…
You can easily page through backposts here at twc for critical issues to apply these to, but I’ll go ahead and list just a few for starters:
Democratic rule is arguably greatest achievemant of Western Civilization, and democratic government “of the people, by the people” is under assault both by those who claim greatest alliegiance to it and by those alien invaders to whom it is a… foreign concept. Think: the Eurabianization of France, Italy, et al; the anti-democratic urm, “Democratic Party,” and the political elite as a whole, to mention just a few obvious examples.
What deadly sins appear to be the favorites of the politcal elites, Academia Nut Fruitcakes, Mass Media Podpeople and their ilk who commit open acts of treason, encourage invasion and weaken the very fabric of a democratic society by their open acts of defiance of that society’s fundamental principles of governance and responsible citizenship? What virtues do these folk demonstrate that they lack?
Apply that line of thought to
Education…
The Arts…
Taxes…
Religion…
You get the idea? A growing number of the “products” of so-called public education end up graduating from college unable to read and understand a newspaper editorial or the instructions on a prescription med bottle—apparently only about 31% of recent college grads can manage those great intellectual feats. Are sad facts like this the result of a virtuous approach to educating our future citizens or an example of how greed, sloth, prise and envy lead educrats, a growing (sadly) number of teachers and pubschool administrators *spit* to join with slothful parents in lobotomizing future citizens?
The arts… *sigh* Dominated by two extremes with trash on both ends. “High art” dominated by crucifixes suspended in jars of urine. Pop art dominated by misogynistic rap “music” and worse. What virtue is there in,
“You say you a dime, you a measly penny. She say she’s a dime, she’s a measly penny. She say she’s a dime, she’s a measly penny. Stop trying to get with me. You say you a dime, you’s a measly penny.”
And that’s some of the cleanest of rap lyrics, far better than the norm, both in “lyric” quality and in moral tone. I won’t reprint the crap that falls within the norm. Yake a few minutes and rate ANY pop music today with the Principles of Classicism, then ask yourself, “How would society improve if more music today employed those musical principles?”
Of course, most folks today, after lobotomization via pubschool and mass media, won’t even notice the religious, social and philosophical underpinnings of those principles, because Western Civilization itself has been under such prolonged assault by both mass media and academia.
*sigh*
Dare I mention the huge evil that our current tax structure IS (let alone the greed that is its essential underpinning)? What virtue can answer this evil?
And religion… *sigh* Christianity and Judaism both devolving (in this country) to the social clubs they have long since even ceased being in other Western nations? I wonder what virtues are lacking there?
I just mention these general areas of concern, because this sort of approach to understanding many, many issues could quite likely be useful in doing something that is the anathema of anti-democratic, anti-western civ folk: making clear distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil.
Sometimes the issues really are clearcut black and white.
Obviously, the traditional “Cardinal Virtues” listed above aren’t the only virtues needed to combat the further erosion of Western Civilization. And there are other traditional lists of “Cardinal Virtues”. And the “Seven Deadly Sins” are joined by a host of others in the camps of both those who seek the end of democratic and other Western Civilization values and those who defend them.
But those two lists of seven do provide a useful toolset for approaching issues.
Crossposted at third world county
Said mnmus @ 10:18 pm Comments (9) | Permalink
My mother actually was the one who introduced me to that term, AAM disease. It stands for “All About Me”, which is what MANY, MANY people today suffer from. You see, they DO NOT CARE how anything they do affects anyone else, if they feel that barging into a room firing a weapon will help them, they do it, never thinking about anyone else. Some even are confused when they are arrested for their crimes. Today, in Dallas/Fort Worth, we saw yet another example of this.
It seems that a man who feels he is being “repressed” because of the color of his skin, decided to steal a car after getting into an argument in a Lowes parking lot in Carrolton. He proceeded to FLIP that car, and when a doctor stopped to try to help anyone who was injured, this person threatened the doctor with a firearm, and STOLE THE DOCTOR’S CAR. He then drove to a truck stop in Fairview, where he kidnapped a female truck driver, forcing her to drive him in her rig. The chase then began. From Fairview, they drove all the way south of Dallas to Oak Cliff, at which point they headed back toward downtown. From their they went back toward Oak Cliff, and got on I-20. Today being Sunday, thankfully the highway was not as packed as normal. The chase was very slow by this point, as the Dallas PD had already spiked the tires, leaving the rig running on rims only for the front two tires. By then end of all of this, this rig was finally stopped by Texas State Troopers who shot the tires out on the trailer section, and punctured the gas tank (which, since it was diesel fuel, did not ignite). At this point, a standoff ensued, until the police ordered the media to cut all feeds as they suspected this person was watching it on TV. After lobbing in tear gas, the hostage taker, his hostage and her dog were removed from the vehicle and, thankfully, no one was hurt.
Now, I am sure that the aclu(natics) or someone who “thinks” like them (although I do not believe the aclu actually THINKS) will claim “excessive force” or claim that this man had “no choice” because “society turned it’s back on him”. At one point, he was allowed to speak to the media, at which point he said that he did all of this as a “political statement”. You see he feels that “black men are born with an X on their back” and that he has been unable to find a job due to his skin color. I would submit that he can’t find a job because he isn’t looking, because there are supposedly HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of jobs “Americans won’t do”, but if he needs a job, I am sure he would take what he could get. Well, he has a job now, making license plates in the state pen.
I weep for the future every time I see something like this. Young people today are brought up being shielded from EVERYTHING except what they should be shielded from. Schools will not let teachers use red ink becaue it might hurt a student’s feelings. Every student who even shows up for a contest gets a ribbon. Practices like this are causing this problem, because children are being taught that they do not have to work for ANYTHING, but when they get to the real world, where they DO HAVE TO WORK for things, they are confused and crap like this happens. So, how do we fix this, start failing students who cannot pass their grade, stop giving awards for simply showing up, and bring back the red ink (I know I saw a lot of red ink in my days in school). On top of that, let teachers or principles paddle students. Do more than just detention or suspension, make students realize that when they mess up, it is NOT fun having to “do the time”. If we don’t get a handle on this quick, I fear we will not be able to!
Cross posted at Smoke Signals Blog
Said The Smoke Eater @ 10:42 pm Comments (5) | Permalink
No Pasaran has an interesting commentary:
Western tofs given to marching in the streets and staging absurd, Self Indulgent antics for the death of their ideological alignments and opponents last month are in no position to demand (an odd sort of) peace this month out of the other side of their mouths.
He is right of course, the left has a lengthy history of asking for peace, but what is peace? Is it just the absence of war? Or is it something else. Is it justice where an ideaological strain doesn’t seek to dominate the world according to some 7th century madman? Is it where any faith can take another faith on its own merit and let it be? Is it where one nation can freely trade with another with out fear of being overwhelmed? >> Read more
Said GM @ 4:42 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America
Is this the first step to a new currency and a new union similar to the European Union?
Is it really about security and prosperity?
It all looks to me like the beginning of a copy of the eurozone. Take a look, and be nervous.
The first step is to make agreements how we will coordinate workers and control health issues across our borders, etc. Then we’ll have a “North American” passport. Then a “North American” currency. Then a “North American” tax. Then a “North American” health plan. Then a “North American” constitution.
Then it’s over. Socialism wins.
Said Uncle Jack @ 7:17 am Comments (1) | Permalink
From the New York Sun comes this article.
CAIRO, Egypt — One of Saudi Arabia’s leading Wahhabi sheiks, Abdullah bin Jabreen has issued a strongly worded religious edict, or fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah, the Shiite militias lobbing missiles into northern Israel.
The day after Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers on July 12, Sheik Hamid al-Ali issued an informal statement titled “The Sharia position on what is going on.” In it, the Kuwaiti based cleric condemned the imperial ambitions of Iran regarding Hezbollah’s cross border raid.
Let’s look at this realistically. Iran is asserting its influence and the world needs to get their act together before this blows up even further. This includes the Arab world. They must play a role in this or they will soon be dealing with Iranian influence at their back door.
Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran has had a goal of getting to Israel and sparking Islamic Revolution any and everywhere along the way. If they were to be successful at driving Israel into the sea, we would see an even more empowered and emboldened Iran, than we are seeing at this present moment. And the Arabs do not want their sheikdoms turned over to “foaming at the mouth” militants.
So, what we need to see is more coverage when things like this happen. We need the media (worldwide) to cover bits like this, if there is ever going to be a peaceful solution to this. If there are any moderate Arab states that wish to keep the status quo (for the time being, anyway), they need to sound off. All moderate Muslim leaders (worldwide) need to sound off, too. Hezbollah must be neutralized socially, politically, diplomatically, and if need be, militarily.
Just telling Israel to stop isn’t going to get the job this time, folks.
Hat Tip: Regime Change Iran
Cross posted at Political Yen/Yang
Said LASunsett @ 6:25 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Two of the most dangerous organizations in the world join forces against the U.S…. Crossposted from Stop the ACLU ACLU Website:
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND — A United Nations human rights body expressed grave concerns today about the record of human rights in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union with a delegation of 10 and working with a broad coalition of other groups is in Geneva to monitor the examination of the United States the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC). In a two-day session that concluded today, the committee members pressured the United States for answers on the following issues: The sentencing of children to life without parole and the disproportionate incarceration of minorities; The militarization of the border; The failure to prevent human rights violations and respond in a non discriminatory manner to Hurricane Katrina; The failure to end racial profiling practices, specifically the profiling of South Asian convenience store employees in Georgia; Warrantless spying on ordinary Americans; The abuse of women in prison; and The indefinite detention, rendition and torture of non-citizens. “The U.S. should be ashamed of itself,” said Ann Beeson, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The review by the Human Rights Committee was a stark and all too accurate condemnation of the state of rights in America.”
No, the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. The review by the Human Rights Committee which includes member states Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China ,and ensures that violaters are included, is a joke and nowhere near accurate.
Religious persecutors, Womens Rights violators, Communist Regimes, and illegal organ harvesters will make up the new UN Human Rights Council.
And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to? The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two most dangerous organizations in the world. They are both seeking to destroy America’s credibility and soverignty. The U.N. are a corrupt joke when it comes to human rights, and they have absolutely zero credibility to make any judgement on America in that area. The ACLU, who provided the list called “Dimming the Beacon of Freedom”, to this corrupt organization that can’t even clean up its own human rights violations are an embarrassement to this great nation. It is shameful that their list included our efforts to spy on the enemy, protect our borders, and several other accusations without evidence. I also wonder if their accusation to “abuse” of women in prison would be not providing them with abortions at the expense of taxpayers. Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation’s sovereignty and national security.
For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.” Source
Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression. All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn’t directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU’s embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.
In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,” clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source
The ACLU’s actions are a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, religious exercise, security, and soverignity. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior. If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs…why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America’s freedoms, and our very soverignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU’s vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them. To many Americans, these sound more like human rights violations than anything on the ACLU’s list. On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a “dangerous ambition” would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while lurking “behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.” It could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Said Jay777 @ 8:53 pm Comments (6) | Permalink
This will necessarily be one of the most difficult posts I will ever write. Not because of the subject matter, mind you. It’s the way I type.
You see, in order to maintain the family-friendly nature of this site (can’t you see all those impressionable little 10 year olds clicking over to the House in order to discover the latest in the Glenn Greenwald soap opera? Or perhaps to pick up the latest inventive invective I spew toward the left?), I made it a hard and fast rule that I not spell out 3 of the more colorful metaphors in the English language.
You know which ones they are. I know which ones they are. I know you know which ones they are just like you know that I know which ones they are which means I don’t have to repeat them. The fact that my site is on the sh*t list in most libraries across the country already due to its “racist, sexist, homophobic” (did you forget anti-illegal immigrant?) slant, just makes my care to not use vulgarity on the site all the more puzzling. Chalk it up to a residual belief in Catholicism that posits the notion that my mother is reading what I write up in heaven. A pleasant thought, that. On the other hand, she was a Roosevelt liberal so I’m sure she clucks her tongue at some of the things that end up on this website.
Since I have voluntarily rejected spelling out completely the word “sh*t” and substituting the ubiquitous star, I might as well reveal that I am not a very good typist. Don’t ask me why but I only use three fingers on my left hand and one on my right. Weird, huh? Of course, that means that getting my fingers up to that sh*tty star on the keyboard can get to be a real f**king nuisance, ya know what I mean? I mean, sometimes I feel like a real paste eater when typing.
Maybe I should get some pointers from Goldstein on that. Or maybe TBogg could be helpful in this respect; he was one of the first to refer to Goldstein as a paste eater. Obviously, he knows all about paste eating - not much else - but paste eating seems to fall within the scope of his knowledge.
At any rate, what brought this unfortunate subject up is that absolute sh*tstorm that has been unleashed all because the President of the United States used the word “sh*t” at the G-8 banquet last night. And every lefty blogger in Christendom (if they believed in that sort of thing) is writing about it, linking each other in a frenzy of chattiness and gossip mongering reminiscent of 12 year old girls at a slumber party. Since liberals usually behave like 12 year old drama queens anyway, I’m sure they’re comfortable as hell feeling themselves up on the subject.
I know, I know…one would think that considering the mouth on some former occupants of the White House who will go unrecognized that the left wouldn’t be casting stones so close to glass houses. He-with-the-constantly-unflaccid-penis swore like a sailor as did his wife: She-who-throws-ashtrays-like-frisbees. But to be fair, the drama queens are also chattering about other things the President said.
As he chats with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush expresses amazement that it will take Putin and an unidentified leader just as long to fly home to Moscow as it will take him to fly back to Washington. Putin’s reply could not be heard.
“You eight hours? Me too. Russia’s a big country and you’re a big country. Takes him eight hours to fly home. Not Coke, diet Coke. … Russia’s big and so is China. Yo Blair, what’re you doing? Are you leaving,” Bush said.
I have a challenge for you liberals out there. Bug your neighbor and tape his conversations for a couple of days. This has two advantages. First, you’ll be doing us all a favor (including the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, DHS, and probably a couple of super-duper secret agencies we know nothing about but that you’re paranoid of anyway) by ascertaining whether or not your next door neighbor is a terrorist. But more importantly, you’ll discover what human beings talk about during their waking hours.
The Nobel Prize winning playwright (and anti-American dolt) Harold Pinter used to go to the park near his flat in London, sit on a bench, and listen to people talk. What he found was absolutely startling. In their unguarded moments, even people who’ve known each other for 50 years talk about nothing at all. Pinter’s plays are full of disjointed, disconnected dialogue that works because everyone recognizes it for what it truly is; the grunts and sighs, the vocalizations of human beings talking not to communicate but to assure each other that they mean each other no harm. In short, people talk like Bush do in order to put people at ease in a social situation. (I’d love to see Dr. Sanity delve into this).
Those fellows at the summit don’t know each other all that well - not in the biblical sense (although watching creepy Putin kiss that kid on the stomach last week chilled my bones) and certainly not in the way that long time friends relate to each other. Making polite small talk as Bush was doing was a fascinating example of Pinterian dialogue. His comments about Russia’s size, the time it takes to fly home, and especially his recognition that Blair was leaving - all of this could have been lifted from a Pinter play. It’s how everyone talks. And the fact that it doesn’t sound “Presidential” or “intelligent” shouldn’t surprise us.
It is strange and fascinating to catch a President in the act of being human. But of course, there was also the President expressing what was clearly frustration at the United Nations for not getting on Syria’s tail and getting Hizballah to stop shooting and face facts:
Bush expressed his frustration with the United Nations and his disgust with the militant Islamic group and its backers in Syria as he talked to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.
“See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh*t and it’s over,” Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.
Ezra Klein not only puts the entire incident in perspective, but recognizes how low “political reporting” has fallen:
That’s a big deal: Bush believes it within the Syrian government’s power to calm the conflict. Theoretically, that should have major implications for American diplomacy and, possibly, policy. So what’s CNN’s headline? “Open mic catches Bush expletive on Mideast”! The story is not that his substantive views on the issue have been uncovered, but that the president curses. Indeed, the article even speculates on how such a stunner slipped out, arguing that “the escalating crisis in the Middle East prompted him to use an expletive in a conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.”
This is your press corps. The President has a potty mouth is a more pressing story than the President believe sufficient pressure on the sovereign nation of Syria could be the key to ending an intensely volatile war in the Middle East. What a proud day for my profession.
Don’t get out the self-flagellating whip quite yet. Not when every top lefty blog is all atwitter over the President’s potty mouth. Saying sh*t out loud in a public place may have lost almost all of its shock value since the left has degraded language and meaning. But all of that is forgotten when Bush uses the term. All of a sudden, the word is indicative of the President’s (please choose only one) 1) incoherence, 2) simple mindedness, 3) confusion, 4) lack of vocabulary, or 5) stupidity. I suppose when an intellectual like TBogg or Jane Hamsher uses the word, it’s fraught with subtext and meaning. But when our Texas President uses it, it just shows what a sh*tkicking cracker he truly is.
I am glad I am finished writing now. Reaching for that star was getting to be a pain in the ass. Almost as hard as typing the words “intelligent” and “liberal” when they’re right next to each other.
Thankfully, I’ve had no occasion that I can recall offhand where my fingers were called upon to make that kind of effort.
Said Rick Moran @ 5:26 am Comments (5) | Permalink
One of the problems faced by anyone attempting to tackle leftists is their tendency to avoid reasoned argument in favour of invective, half-truths and victimhood. Now, these tactics might lead an unkind person to conclude that leftists do not, in fact, have any arguments, but this is untrue. The problem for L3 is the creeping suspicion that if they just flat out explained their reasoning, no one would ever take them seriously again.
It’s quite the delight, then, that every so often a leftist forgets this Golden Rule and blurts out some of the things most members of the reality-based community only privately believe.
This week, one, Dr Antony Whitehead, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Huddersfield, is the guy having a liberal-left Tourette’s moment:
The driving force behind the devastating 7/7 suicide bomb attacks in London last year was not Islam but a desire by the terrorists to prove their masculinity, academics have claimed.
They claim that in Britain’s consumerist society, in which masculine success is equated with material wealth, young Asians who are poor or disenfranchised or who feel oppressed will feel inadequate and will be vulnerable to manipulation by older men to commit horrific acts such as mass murder.
There’s so much wrong with this thesis that it’s difficult to know where to begin. Perhaps, by pointing out that the bearded-crazies responsible for 7/7 took the trouble to film themselves ranting about Global Jihad. See, for a normal person, a taped admission of motive would be enough to settle any doubts they might have as to the reason a particular bearded crazy self-detonated.
As he sets out to prove, however, Dr. Whitehead is no normal person:
“The bombers have said that they are motivated by loyalty to Allah, which they may entirely believe. But if you are going to start to unpick their motivation, you need to consider their experience as young men as much as their adherence to Islam.”
Alright, it’s certainly nice to learn that Islamopaths have as much difficulty getting through to leftists as the rest of us. But. Still. It’s important that we don’t view Whitehead as a solitary nut. Sure, he’s loopy enough to claim that Islamofascist suicide bombers aren’t really self-detonating for Allah, and that, further, the bomber’s own thoughts on the subject are quite irrelevant when it comes to reaching this conclusion.
Only, consider the following two statements, the first from Hezbollah’s head-hacker in-chief, Hassan Nasrallah
“Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: ‘Death to Israel.’”
[…]
America… This American administration is an enemy. Our motto, which we are not afraid to repeat year after year, is: ‘Death to America.’”
Okay. Death to Israel. Death to America. Not much room for ambiguity or nuance there. Plainly, Nasrallah, like so many of his co-religionists, didn’t get the memo about wiping out other people’s countries being a Very Bad Thing … So how come the BBC’s Nick Thorpe, just this weekend, could seriously ponder the following:
Until there is a broad peace agreement in the Middle East, it seems to me, not imposed by Israel, but agreed by all sides, I fear his people, and for that matter mine, will be the targets.
Question: Just what part of ‘Death To Israel’ is it that Nick Thorpe doesn’t understand? This is something a great many conservatives find themselves asking, and particularly at a time, when whole sections of the left are screeching about the ‘plight’ of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the supposedly ‘disproportionate’ nature of Israel’s self-defence.
While there undoubtedly are quite a few on the extreme left who do, indeed, believe that the destruction of Israel (and America, for that matter) would be a good thing, it’s a fair bet that the majority of leftists fall into to the Whitehead camp, deluding themselves that when the likes of Nasrallah scream ‘Death to Israel’, they’re indulging in ‘rhetoric’, or, at the very least, would settle for something less than the murder of four million innocent Jews.
So far, so tedious. The problem with Nick Thorpe and so many of his soft-left MSM cronies is that, rather than troubling themselves to set-out their reasoning, they skip straight to the conclusion that Israel, or any of us, can reach a peaceful accommodation with Islamofascism.
If only more leftists took the time to explain their arguments, far fewer people would have drifted into the anti-Israel camp. Then again, perhaps that’s why these Whitehead-moments are so very rare.
(Cross-posted at Rottweiler Puppy)
Said RottyPup @ 5:56 pm Comments (7) | Permalink
The “conflict” that’s going on in the middle east seems a bit odd to me. By now, all sides that are actually involved in it are calling it a war, even while the formerly mainstream media seems to be insistent on calling it a “conflict.” Whether you call it a war or conflict, it seems to be rather different than other wars and conflicts that have been fought in the past — there’s something missing: dead people.
Now don’t go all loopy on me now — I know that people are dying. I see the numbers. Stay with me here, if you can — it’s not that people are dying, but it’s the numbers and the methods.
When Israel attacks office buildings, it’s doing it at 1:20am, when there’s no people there. When they drop bombs in areas of Lebanon, they’re dropping leaflets and fliers, warning people that they’re going to bomb the area. Israel’s clear target is buildings, roads, and runways — and NOT people.
What sort of war IS this?
For most of the west, we cannot comprehend this type of war. You can take away all the buildings you want, but the terrorist scum will not stop. You can blow up their supplies, but that will only slow them down, not stop them. Most of them honestly WANT to die (so they can get their virgins in the afterlife) — but Israel isn’t killing them.
If you want the war to end, you have to stop the people. The terrorists here (Hezbolla and the Palestinians) CANNOT be stopped by encouragement or “talks.” They openly proclaim that they will die or Israel will die. As soon as the rest of the world realizes this, the war can end — but only when one group or the other dies. It really is as simple as that.
Israel knows this, but they’re still not targeting the people. Perhaps because they’re fearful of the “international pressure” that’s would come crashing down on them. Perhaps they’re just trying to show the rest of the world the real situation. Either way, this isn’t going to end until the terrorists change their stripes or a lot of people start dying.
Said Ogre @ 6:31 am Comments (21) | Permalink
I recently received this in my e-mail in-box, and I believe I may have alluded to a few of the points in this editorial. As of right now, the author/sender has not said that I may use their name, but they know that I wish to give proper credit, and therefore I wish to say thank you to my friend, who shall (for now) be known only as “The Patriot”. I will post the article I received below my remarks.
Not too long ago, the state of Texas put a proposition to the voters, effectively asking if the State of Texas should allow or ban homosexual marriage. Being what some have called “the quintessential RED state”, I was never really in much doubt about the outcome of this vote. Granted, “the left” tried all they could to stop the vote, or sway it. There were reports of telemarketing operations set up to call voters (and most of those called were elderly voters), and tell them that due to a “language mistake” that the bill would nullify ALL marriages ever performed in the state. Other attempts to foil this initiative even went so far as to say that our legislature had goofed so badly that voting for this bill would SUPPORT gay marriage, in stead of for the ban. Naturally, those who received these calls (and cared enough to actually be planning to vote), called their state representatives’ and senators’ offices and were assured that a vote FOR meant for the ban, and a vote AGAINST was a vote for gay marriage.
I have long held the belief that any state which allows gay marriage will see homosexuals SUING because they were denied the “right” to marry in a church, even though their union is against the faith taught by that very church. It would be the same thing as me going to a mosque and demanding that they perform a jewish wedding, and then suing them when they don’t. Well, in some states, there are now rumors of laws which will prevent anyone from “denying goods and services based on sexual orientation” (those are my words, but you get the gist). What this means is that the Catholic church could be subject to CRIMINAL liability if they refuse to perform a gay marriage, or run an ad in their newsletter supporting the gay agenda. I wonder what would happen if I went to a gay publication and asked them to run an ad for a program at my church which teaches abstinence only? Or asked Planned Parenthood to rent their building to my church to council women against abortions? Would I be protected under the guarantee that I cannot be denied goods and services? This is a very slippery slope, because what was once seen as the backbone of American society has been lowered to the status of a mere contract, and once that idea takes hold, this country will officially be un-salvagable!
Well, I think I’ve ranted enough, so I will leave you with some words from The Patriot.
The slippery slope of secular humanism continues to become even more so all around the world. We are quickly moving beyond a mere degradation of social virtues to outright hostility against religion and potential criminalization of adherents who practice their faith in their daily lives.
In recent years we have seen the Dutch government change its laws to allow euthanasia, gay marriage, infanticide of imperfect children, and most recently, the sanctioning of gay polygamous unions.
Gay marriage has become a reality in Canada and Massachusetts. For years our own governments have flirted with passage of so called “hate crimes” legislation that essentially criminalizes individual thoughts by way of adding extra penalties if biases, hatreds or intolerances are perceived in the commission of a crime.
And now the British government is proposing a sweeping new legal code that would forbid discrimination against homosexuals when in the market for “goods and services”.
As we know from our own experience in this country with the broad interpretation of our Constitution’s language regarding interstate commerce, it?s no leap of logic to deduce that “goods and services” will soon encompass just about any human interaction involving an exchange of money. Its effect will be that of forcing people of faith, be it Christian, Jew or Muslim - pretty much everyone except secular humanists - to act contrary to their religious beliefs in the conduct of their everyday lives, or else become a criminal.
For example, religious schools would commit a crime by not allowing gay students or teachers. Churches that occasionally rent out their facilities for community events would violate the law by not allowing gays the same access - perhaps even to hold same-sex marriage services.
Religious newspapers would violate the law if they refuse to run advertisements for gay lobbying groups. A Christian owned ad agency would be unable to refuse to do work for a campaign promoting gay marriage.
In short, the active practice of one’s faith in everyday life would no longer be legal.
Here in the United States, the move by Massachusetts’ Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage without so much as a vote by that state’s legislature, much less its citizens, has resulted in making the adoption agency practices of the Catholic Church illegal. That being the case, the Church was forced to end providing such services altogether, rather than compromise their faith.
The implications don’t stop there. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback recently pointed out that, “…in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts, tax-exempt status, or even being denied the right to operate at all.”
Generally, such proposed legal changes stem from the fact that the secular humanist crowd doesn’t see religion as something that should instruct one’s daily life and relationships, but rather as simply representative of a place some people go on Sunday. And they have no patience for people who take it more seriously than that.
Someone once said that true tolerance also means having tolerance for the views of the majority. While history is filled with examples of religious intolerances, the greatest levels of intolerance today no longer come from the faithful, but rather from the anti-religious.
Much is made by the left in our country of the First Amendment’s establishment clause in our Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”. From bans on prayer in schools, or at publicly sponsored events, to public displays of the Ten Commandments and even the inclusion of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, we are told that such observances constitute an establishment of religion and are therefore unconstitutional.
They seem to forget that the very next phrase in the First Amendment states, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. In other words, it provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Until next time kids, play nice!
Cross posted at Smoke Signals Blog
Said The Smoke Eater @ 3:23 pm Comments (4) | Permalink
NO HORSE SINCE 1933 HAS COME TO HIM FOR SHOESES.
The Democratic Party and the left (not always the same thing) have been agitating for a substantial raise, to a “living wage” the federal minimum wage law. Currently, and for many years, the federal minimum wage has been $5.15 an hour and the generic left (in which this time I’m including the Democrats) would like to see that raised. I’ve seen suggestions ranging from $6.00 an hour up to $12.00 an hour. When anyone suggests that price increases passed on by businesses and or job loss from small firms may result, the outcry typically is that Republicans and Conservatives (again, not necessarily the same thing) hate the poor and don’t want the rich to have to pay anything out of their pockets. And, depending on the blog you go to, the language to describe generic conservatives (this time I’m including Republicans) is a whole lot worse.
Well, the fact of the matter is that there will be a tradeoff. Companies, large and small will either have to raise prices and/or lay folk off in order to keep profit margins within the realm of feasibility. What’s that you say? No they won’t? How silly, of course they will. No politician is going to pass a law limiting profit (unless it’s big oil and a windfall profits tax - and you see how well the last one worked) because they know that the funds for re-election come essentially from the pockets of investors and owners of small and large businesses. So, ask for the moon, you have as much a chance of getting that. >> Read more
Said GM @ 10:23 am Comments (2) | Permalink
