The Opinion Journal reports on just who will be leading the House committees, should the Dems win control in November.
With a little more than two months to go before midterm elections, the polls show Democrats well positioned to win the House after 12 years out of power. So it’s not too soon to consider who these Democrats are and how they would govern.
All the more so because we’ve seen most of these faces and their agenda before. While Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi would be a new Speaker of the House, the 19 primary committee chairmen who would dominate hearings, issue subpoenas and write legislation are agents of change only in the sense of going back to the future. They represent the same liberal priorities that bedeviled Bill Clinton’s attempt to govern as a New Democrat from 1993-94, and before that Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. To pick one example, 13 of the 19 voted against the welfare reform that Mr. Clinton signed in 1996 and hailed this month as a triumph of “bipartisanship.”
I have to say that I would be one of the first people to say, I am not very happy with the way the GOP has governed. They have failed to realize that they are the majority party and have failed the majority of the people that have placed their confidence and trust in them.
But frankly, this Democratic bunch is very scary, at best.
They are no more qualified, no more adept at leadership, and have yet to provide the nation with any sound plans to improve the effectiveness of government. In fact, their loud accusations have been an instrumental force in making this government so ineffective, to begin with. I cannot blame them, they are just doing what they do best, which is bitch and complain like a bitter divorcee that has not moved on from a disastrous marriage (one that they helped make such a disaster, to start with). But this is no surprise, it is what we have come to expect from them.
No, the GOP is also to blame, because they have fallen into the Dems’ trap. They have allowed the opposition to influence decisions that are not sound and do not represent the best interests, of the nation as a whole. So it’s easy to see why the GOP is floundering in the polls, right now.
So forgive me when I say, I cannot get overly excited about a GOP victory in November. But even more importantly, I am even more apprehensive about entrusting the leadership of this great nation to a bunch that has done nothing but whine, complain, and threaten, since they have been out of power.
My good friend, Mustang from Social Sense sums up this whole affair very well, in his latest post entitled Liars and Scoundrels. Give it a read and see why I am so skeptical. It certainly reflects what many Americans, like myself, are feeling right now. It definitely will make a person think about why this country is in such a mess, these days. We do get the government we deserve, when we elect these people to lead. We cannot blame anyone but ourselves, that is for sure.
So, if you are sitting on the fence and are not sure if you should send a message to Washington this November, remember to take into account this WSJ article and Mustang’s essay. Read both of them before you decide. But if your mind is made up, you must always remember that you pulled the levers, punched the holes, or whatever.
Cross-posted at Political Yen/Yang
Said LASunsett @ 6:15 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU The ACLU thinks that parents have no right to know if their pregnant underage daughter is seeking an abortion. vs. America 80% of Americans think that parents have the right to know if their minor daughters are seeking an abortion. (CBS News Poll July 13-14, 2005) ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU believes anyone, for any reason at any time should be allowed to abort a child. vs. America 75% of Americans believe that there should at least be some restrictions on abortion. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005) ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU opposes abstinence education. vs. America 96% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that abstinence is the best approach to sex. 93% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that having sex leads to disease and pregnancy. 85 % of American parents with children under 17 want abstinence to be taught with at least equal emphasis as contraception receives. 79% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that teen sex leads to harmful psychological and physical effects. (http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1722.cfm) ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU has fought to have constitutionally-sound displays that include the Ten Commandments removed from public property. vs. America 75% of Americans believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed on public property. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll June 24-26, 2005) ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU is on record as supporting polygamy. vs. America 92% of Americans think polygamy is morally repugnant. (The Gallup Poll May 5-7, 2003) ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU has filed cases across the nation to redefine marriage against the repeatedly expressed will of the people and, now the overwhelming affirmation by even Left-leaning courts that the state is justified in retaining the definition of marriage. (Note: the ACLU got smoked in an attempt to prevent Tennesseans from even having the opportunity to express their will at the polls this year.) vs. America 21 states have recently voted to protect marriage by an average of 70%: Alaska 68%, Hawaii 69%, Nebraska 70%, California 61%, Nevada 67%, Arkansas 75%, Georgia 76%, Kentucky 75%, Louisiana 78%, Michigan 59%, Mississippi 86%, Missouri 71%, Montana 67%, North Dakota 73%, Ohio 62%, Oklahoma 76%, Oregon 57%, Utah 66%, Kansas 70%; Alabama 81%; Texas 76% ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU believes that children should be trapped in failed public schools, even inner-city children whose parents desperately want to escape the captivity of government education. vs. America 69% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose their child’s public school rather than being assigned based solely on residence location. (http://www.edreform.com/_upload/2005ncsw-poll.pdf). 63% of Americans believe that parents should be able to choose the best school for their child, whether public or private. (Zogby International Polling July 2002) ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU opposes personally-initiated prayer in school and moments of silence as well as individual acknowledgement of religious beliefs at public events. vs. America 83% of Americans think prayer should be permitted during school activities including graduation ceremonies. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll June 25-27, 1999) ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU has filed lawsuits and threatened cities and schools all across the country to prevent Christmas from being openly celebrated in public fora. vs. America 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas 87% of Americans believe Christmas displays should be allowed on public property. (FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll December 3-4, 2003) ________________________________________________________________ The ACLU has attacked Mt. Soledad memorial in San Diego since the the very beginning of Bush the Elder’s Administration because it includes a cross. This is just one of countless examples of the ACLU’s seek and destroy mission to eliminate all religious symbols from public grounds. vs. America 76% of San Diegans voted to save the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial from the ACLU’s attack on behalf of a single atheist. That atheist, Jim McElroy was quoted as saying following the vote: “It still doesn’t mean a damn thing,” he said, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. “Voters should have never voted on it. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money.” _______________________________________________________________ The reaction from ACLU-types will predictably be something like: “What is right and Constitutional is not always popular.” Easy answer: What the ACLU does is invent rights and distort the Constitution, which is why the ACLU is so UNpopular. The ACLU has used dubious interpretations of law NEVER imagined by our Founders with compliance from radical judges to push an agenda abhorrent to most Americans and indeed to the intent of the Constitution. Look no further than the ACLU’s pro bono defense of a website that advocates pedophilia and instructs its visitors in how to rape children and evade prosecution. So…the ACLU considers encouraging instruction on how to commit and get away with child rape a First Amendment right…does anyone believe that the Founders would agree? Therefore, can’t we conclude that if the ACLU is so wrong on this, that it may be wrong on many other things? Judge the evidence for yourself. This has been 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 @ 5:45 am Comments (10) | Permalink
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm
On July 23, I posted about the dangers of the SPP. Take a look at what Ron Paul, the only true protector of the Constitution in Congress, has to say about SPP.
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed “Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP).” In reality, this new “partnership” will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
Read the rest here.
Said Uncle Jack @ 7:35 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Since Bush’s reelection (and sometime before), I’ve wondered more and more where the Republican House and Senate have been, and who the imposters are who have taken their place. The current Congress is spending money like drunken sailors — with the main difference that real drunken sailors are at least spending their own money – refusing to protect the border, and doing damn-all to keep their conservative base happy.
But recently I ran across an article written by Peggy Noonan last May that has given voice to the frustration of many about the Wussy-Republican Blues:
Power is distancing.
When you’ve been in Congress for a while, or the White House for a while, you both forget too many things and learn too many things.
You forget why they sent you. You forget it’s not that you’re charming and wonderful. You forget it’s not you. You become immersed in a Washington conversation, a political conversation, that is, by definition, unlike the normal human conversation back home. To survive and thrive, national politicians have to speak two languages, Here and Home. Actually it’s more than two languages, it’s two cultures. It’s hard to straddle cultures.
And therein, I believe, lies the pig in the parlor for the Republicans. They’ve forgotten who put them in power 12 years ago, and they’ve forgotten why they were put there in the first place.
So what do we do about it? I’ve written my Representative and Senators so much that the Post Office is going to put my face on their next stamp. Besides, they’re on my side, for the most part. I don’t make enough money to interest anyone else, and I can offer no influence or favors.
All that’s left are my voice and my vote. I vote my conscience, but no one is exemplifying the ideals I most strongly believe in. The Republicans — including President Bush — have absolutely wasted the opportunity they’ve been given since Bush’s reelection. I don’t mind voting Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Independent if the candidates were committed to Conservative values rather than toeing the Party line. The Democrats have long since abandoned any Conservative principles they might have had at one time, and sadly, it looks as if Republicans have done the same thing over the last two years or so.
Noonan continues:
A reporter told me a story a few weeks ago. He was at a meeting with an important Republican congressman. Talk turned to the upcoming 2006 elections. The congressman argued it will be better for the Republicans than people think; they’ll hold the House. He said they are better at getting the vote out. He made the case for this based on turnout figures in 2000 and 2004. They have more money. He made the case for this assertion too. And they have a message. The reporter who was there said later he noticed the oddest thing. Under “message” his notes were blank. He couldn’t really remember what the congressman said.
No wonder. How could they have a message if they’ve lost their meaning?
[…]
Party leaders say they’re aware they’re in trouble, aware of a sense of stasis in the country. They are going to solve the problem, they say, by passing legislation. They’re going to pass a budget. And they’re going to pass an immigration bill, too. People will like that.
But no they won’t. The American people are not going to say, “I am relieved and delighted our Congress passed a budget.” They will be relieved and delighted if Congress cuts spending. They would be relieved and delighted if Congress finally took responsibility for the nation’s borders. They won’t be impressed if you just pass bills and call it progress.
Party leaders are showing a belief in process as opposed to a belief in, say, belief. But belief drives politics. It certainly drives each party’s base.
One gets the impression party leaders, deep in their hearts, believe the base is… base. Unsophisticated. Primitive. Obsessed with its little issues. They’re trying to educate the base. But if history is a guide, the base is about to teach them a lesson instead.
Get that last part — “…the base is about to teach them a lesson instead”. Will the Republicans lose power because their base stays home and denies them their vote? Or is it feasible that Conservatives will say “Sometimes you’ve got to flush the refuse”, and actually vote against Republicans, believing that they can put better people (who will have realized how dedicated Conservatives can be if listened to) in over the next few election cycles?
After all, I believe that Conservatives — the heart and soul of America — have the electoral clout to gain control of the House, the Senate, the White House, and Old Mother Hubbard’s Shoe if they so desired. All they need is a target for their largesse, someone they can believe in, such as the Republican members of the 104th Congress of 1994. But that would require politicians to actually have values.
Should Conservatives withhold their votes in the upcoming election? I don’t think I personally am ready to consider that right now. But I’ll tell you one thing — Republicans currently in office for darn sure had better start considering it.
TD
Said tdillard @ 6:01 am Comments (0) | Permalink
Hat Tip & Quotes: David Limbaugh at Townhall.com
President Bush should…
“… apologize to Tony Blair and the British people for the uncharitable, unfair and reprehensible remarks of former president Jimmy Carter, who has dishonored the sacrifices of America, Britain and their respective armed forces.”
And former president Jimmy Carter should apologize to President George W. Bush for continuing to foster the Great American Malaise 30 years after his (thankfully only) one term of executive dis-orders. I believe Carter’s uncertain leadership and skewed isolationism of the ’70s has precipitated a movement today which holds that by attacking Iraq (or by taking any initiative against terrorism), President Bush…
“… has made peaceful Muslims the world over — who are otherwise inclined to love us dearly, of course — hate us and become homicidal suicide bombers.”
Limbaugh wonders:
“Why then, does Carter get a pass for constantly contributing to America’s negative image by telling the world how bad we are?”
He gets a pass because he is the ideological head of this malaise movement, articulating what roughly 50% of Americans have been hoodwinked into believing - that we are bad. And when people endorse a leader of a movement that expresses their thoughts and feelings they tend to ignore those attributes that reveal the true character of the person. Witness Bill Clinton.
And yes, conservatives are guilty of this as well. We can not blindly ditto everything any leader or pundit might say. Yet, it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference of perspective between - let’s let history instruct us - Carter and Reagan. One was defeated by circumstances and was clueless as to America’s role in the world (you can guess which one I’m referring to) and the other communicated greatness, optimism, hope and the way of democracy.
Of course, Bush (in my opinion) is no Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, our President represents a movement that is fighting tooth and nail against the malaise of our own citizens as well as the terrorism of those from the outside that would seek to destroy the way of democracy. Can we shake off our stupor and once again advance the greatness, optimism, and hope of our American legacy?
It’s really a choice, isn’t it? We Americans act angry at ourselves because we view ourselves negatively. We view ourselves negatively because we keep saying we are bad, bad, bad. We say these negative statements because we think we aren’t worthy of greatness. We think negatively because of a false beliefs about ourselves. And we believe false things about ourselves because we’ve chosen to believe what is false.
Reminds me of the story about a new family driving into town. They stop at the gas station and ask the owner, “What type of people live in this town?” “What type of people were in the town you just left?” asked the owner. “Oh, they were horrible, negative, back-biting gossips,” came the reply. “Well, you’ll find more of the same here.”
Another new family drives up an hour later and asks the same question, “What type of people live in this town?” “What type of people were in the town you just left?” asked the owner. “Oh, they were just great - some of the most friendly, positive, helpful people in the whole world,” came the reply. “Well, you’ll find more of the same here.”
The choice is ours. Let’s continue to believe that democracy is more virtuous than terror; that America advances what is good, right, and moral; that since much had been given to us much is demanded; and that if a person really doesn’t like America they can move to Iraq. Which reminds me of another history lesson from the ’70s - “America: Love It or Leave It.”
Said Lyn @ 12:37 pm Comments (4) | Permalink
A recession looms.
The decline in housing will bring down the economy and the stock market with it. The ridiculous belief that housing will stay strong as long as jobs stay strong, or a lands “softly,” does not hold water as more than 30% of the jobs created since the last recession were in housing-related activities.
I hate value words, like “strong”, when people refer to the economy. Give me numbers or shut up. Better yet, just shut up. It’s over.
Social mood will turn even more negative than it is now; that negativity will grow to other areas. The smart citizen will stop borrowing and pay down debt.
Pay down your debt; it is currently the best “investment” you can make with your money.
All Democrats and some Republicans are currently running from the President on the war issue, even if they voted for the war.
As a result, Hillary’s calculated bet of backing the war will turn out to be a losing position; she will not win the White House in ‘08, but may win in ‘12.
However, the Dems will not have that much success in ‘06 as they had hoped, but will seriously sweep in ‘08.
Iran will be attacked either by Israel or the U.S., and somehow people will still believe the price of oil will drop. They are loco.
All wars are costly and inflationary; war is not an economically effective use of dollars, and that’s why gold has increased from $270 in 2001 to its current price of $600+ in 2006.
If Iran is next, gold will continue its run, and so will oil.
The last empire was the U.K. in the 1800s, and at one point the sun never set on the British Empire; that ended in 1914 with the start of WWI.
The U.S. was the empire of the 1900s, and currently the sun does not set on the American Empire. We owe money or pay tribute to almost every country on the planet.
The U.S. is the Empire of Debt, our end will be marked as of the end of WWIII, whenever the hell that is.
Even Russia is now flush with cash. How? They paid down their debt from the USSR-days with profits from the current price of oil.
Old wars were fought for land and commodities.
New wars will be fought for commodites.
The dream of alternative energy is just that, a dream. Oil packs the biggest punch per pound and even at $350/bl. is cheaper than all other forms of energy, either in terms of transporting, or energy used to produce and bring to market.
If we aren’t a point of peak oil, why aren’t producer nations bringing as much oil to market as they can possibly pump?
U.S. became a net exporter of oil in 1970. China became a net importer of oil just recently, and their demand is estimated to grow.
But hey, what the hell do I know?
I’m outta here.
Said Uncle Jack @ 1:28 pm Comments (2) | Permalink
Getting Integrated And Cohesive Nu-Labour On the day that Britain’s Nu-Labour government announces its plan to tackle the kind of people who try to self-detonate on aeroplanes with bombs in bottles of baby-milk by creating something called the ‘Commission on Integration and Cohesion’, we could really do with something to laugh at.
Fortunately, the BBC’s most useful idiot, Dominic Casciani, is on hand to provide us with one:
Forty years ago, when Britain was turning itself into a multicultural society, the then Labour government struggled to come up with the words that described how it saw it happening.
Well, to be perfectly fair, Britain wasn’t so much turning into a multicultural society as being turned into one by a feckless, leftist establishment. If you’d asked the average 1960’s Brit if they thought unregulated mass-immigration was a good idea, they’d have given the concept the same thumbs-down they give it today. Very unfortunately for all of us, though, no one did ask. They still don’t.
Roy Jenkins, the then home secretary, is credited with the definition which is now in the sociology text books. Integration was not a “flattening process of assimilation,” he declared, “but equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”.
While it’s certainly worth pondering, in passing, how much better things might have turned out if those ’sociology textbooks’ had quoted from Enoch Powell instead, still, it’s interesting to note that Dominic’s instinct is to lean left in the company of a fool like Jenkins instead of right along with the guy who called the shot and the pocket.
Today, amid an era of rapid change, we are still arguing over what exactly integration should mean.
… Well, to be perfectly fair, there are some things at least 96% of Britons aren’t arguing over: the desirability of self-detonation, Sharia law and a membership of the Global Caliphate, for instance. Funny, isn’t it, Dominic? How that ‘flattening process of assimilation’ looks more and more attractive each time ‘moderate’ Muslims bring these things up?
And a year on from the London bombings, the debate is firmly fixed on whether or not mutual tolerance has been pursued at the expense of something more practically designed to create unity.
Because, you know, it couldn’t possibly be that the ‘debate’ is ‘firmly fixed’ around the question: How did we get ourselves stuck with a bunch of Islamofascist crazies who keep trying to kill us?
In a month that has seen more deep concern over the threat of terrorism and a separate debate over the impact of immigration, the government is under pressure to answer this question.
Since British borders remain alarmingly open, however, it seems more likely that very little will happen beyond pointless talking. Speaking of which:
But its new Department for Communities and Local Government, headed by Ruth Kelly, says it is looking for the answers - starting with a Commission on Integration and Cohesion.
Whew! For a minute there we were actually worried the Spirit of Roy Jenkins had returned to haunt the modern world! It’s a good thing, then, that Ruth Kelly is, in the here-and-now, ready to assure us that the wall of hate British Muslims have spent the last four decades building will be swept aside by her ‘integration and cohesion’ committee. Oh. Wait. That’s not actually going to happen, is it?
But what will the commission actually do?
The 13 commissioners have until next June to look at what causes tensions, segregation and conflict in modern Britain - and how community or national leaders can challenge it in the name of a more cohesive society.
They gave them ten, whole months to come up with the ’causes’ of ‘tension’? Damn. But the minds of big-governmenters really do move slowly, don’t they? See, while this investigation lumbers on, the rest of us have already decided that we do not want: (a) Sharia law, (b) Muslim-only holidays, or, (c) Self-detonation of any kind happening on public transport anywhere. Period. What’s more, we don’t need a Committee to inform us of these facts. (Thanks all the same. Ruth.)
It will tour Britain and look at the best and worst examples of getting people from different backgrounds to, at the very least, have an understanding of each other.
Fantastic idea! Here’s an example of the worst:
Said RottyPup @ 11:54 am Comments (0) | Permalink
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU William H. Donahue is the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York. He received his Doctorate in Sociology from NYU in 1980. He is the author of three books, two of which are very critical on and revealing of the ACLU. We have quoted from his books on numerous occasions so it was quite an honor when he returned my call requesting an interview.
His first book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, was published in 1985. His second book, The New Freedom: Individualism and Collectivism in the Social Lives of Americans, was written while Bill was a Bradley Resident Scholar at The Heritage Foundation; it appeared in 1990. Bill’s third book, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU, was published in 1994 by Transaction Press; a new afterward to this book was published in 2001. Source
It was an honor that Mr. Donahue took time from his schedule to allow us an interview. It was even more encouraging that he had heard of Stop The ACLU and expressed his appreciation for what we do. I recommend reading his books to anyone that is interested in learning more about the ACLU and how their actions are actually harming civil rights. Our conversation was very laid back and informal. After some small talk and introductions I started the interview asking Mr. Donahue his general opinion of the ACLU. Mr. Donahue’s answers will be quoted in the American Flag quotes.
I believe that the American Civil Liberties Union is based upon a noble purpose. However, they often work against that very purpose due to a radical interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I wrote about this extensively in my third book, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU where I focused on how their view of liberty actually works against itself. They are an arm of the radical left. In my first book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, I also exposed just how phony their claim of being non-partisan is. The ACLU is not non-partisan. Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record is far from showing impartiality. It is full of attempts to reform American society according to the ideals of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.
In your opinion is the ACLU simply misguided or do they actually have a more malicious motive and agenda?
I have asked myself that question a million times or more. I guess that I think that some of them are just wrong headed and sincere while others are actually more malicious and seeking to actually destroy America from its foundation. Some that are just misguided yet sincere truly believe that they have to defend the extremist speech in order to protect all free speech. Others are actually malicious. Norman Siegal is one of the few who I believe to be honest and sincere in their passion for civil liberties. He has at least come out and debated his point of view and that is something that is due some respect. So many others are cowards with another agenda that works against the best interest of the country.
At this point I asked Mr. Donahue about other ACLU members that had come into conflict with the organization over their own views and his opinion on their sincerity. I specifically asked about Natt Hentoff.
Natt Hentoff is a Jewish atheist who interprets the First Amendment entirely too loosely. He is one that wants “In God We Trust” off of our money. I do believe that Natt is one of the sincere civil libertarians who is very passionate yet misguided in his views. He has been very much involved in civil liberties. He came into conflict with the ACLU over his view on abortion. He came to the conclusion thinking in biological terms that unborn babies are human and do deserve the same civil liberty protections as everyone else. This is where he came into conflict with the rest of the organization. I think Natt Hentoff is a principled civil libertarian. He went bonkers when they tried to implement a policy that would censor critical speech from their own members, and rightly so. Michael Myers is another principled civil libertarian. He is an African American man who I believe to be principled, honest, and sincere. He resigned after seeing much of the hypocrisy and censorship attempts at the ACLU. He is another one that is not playing politics with the Constitution.
In your book you often quoted from the ACLU Policy Guide. I have called them myself asking for this before and was told it was for internal purposes only and not for the general public. While they have this right, it makes me wonder what they are hiding. How did you get your hands on their policy guide?
Heh, yet it wouldn’t matter how secret or important to National Security a government document or information they are against was. They would still fight to have it published for all to see. They cut me off from their policy guide about ten years ago. I first got access to their policies when I was a student at NYU in my twenties. I just asked until they revealed them to me. They opened up some of them but wouldn’t let me see all of them at first. They didn’t want me to see the FBI files on them. The FBI was more cooperative on that than the ACLU. When I finally went to publish all the information I had gathered no one wanted to go for it. People said, “You can’t publish that! This is the ACLU you are talking about. You are in New York! No one will go for this!” I finally found a publisher through a friend at the Heritage Foundation in the 1982-1983 time frame. I still received policy updates and was on one of the ACLU’s special mailing list for years before they cut me off. I guess they finally figured out that it was being used against them.
In reading your books I thought it was interesting that your knowledge and access to ACLU policies played a part in the election of President Bush (the father).
Yes, it was the 1988 Presidential campaign when the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis, proudly announced that he was a “card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.” This announcement was soon used against him as George Bush decided to criticize Dukakis’s support and several ACLU policies. His campaign team got in touch with me, and I tracked down some of the policies for them. In the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC News asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Michael Dukakis’s membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn’t like most of the ACLU’s positions and offered four of them. “I simply don’t want to see the ratings on movies-I don’t want my ten year-old grandchild to go into an X-rated movie. I like those rating systems. I don’t think they’re right to try to take the tax exemption away from the Catholic Church. I don’t want to see the kiddie pornographic laws repealed. I don’t want to see under God come out from our currency. Now, these are all positions of the ACLU, and I don’t agree with them.” Of course several ACLU representatives came out and said he misrepresented their positions. However, I know that Bush was right. I know because I was the one who suggested these very policies to the Bush operatives who briefed the candidate before the debate, and I made sure to double-check my sources. I have the proof, taken from ACLU documents, that verifies that Bush was right. If anyone wants to check my sources I list them extensively in my book, The Twilight of Liberty.
One of the ACLU policies you revealed that particularly disgusts me is their policy in favor of legalizing the distribution and possession of child pornography.
Yes. The ACLU takes what I call an atomistic view of liberty. What they don’t seem to understand is that radical individualism actually works against liberty. There view on the First Amendment also covers what the call “Dwarf tossing” and women mud wrestling as freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech has nothing to do with pornography or libel despite what the ACLU think. Anyone that believes it does is living in la la land.
I have written on their policy about Child Porn and many liberals just call me a liar. They want proof.
Well, you’ve got proof. It’s right there in my book.
That isn’t good enough for them. They will question your reliability or say that was an old policy. I doubt they would believe me if I put the current policy in their face.
Why don’t they explain to you what proof they have you are wrong? Why doesn’t the ACLU release this policy and settle the issue. It isn’t just you that has brought it up in the public before. They don’t deny it. Ask them why the ACLU doesn’t make this policy public and clear up the issue once and for all. Barry Lynn, former legislative counsel for the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, is on the Congressional record stating these positions. Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. When you are dealing with the ACLU and many of its supporters you are going to find a lot of straight up liars. One time I debated them in a public forum of a college. I brought their policy guide with me on stage. I mentioned some of their more extreme policies. I think I mentioned their policy to legalize all drugs. The lady I was debating denied this was their policy. I said, “Stop the debate!” I called up one of the students to come to the stage. I said, “Someone on this stage is lying, and I want someone to be witness to who it is.” I got a student up there to read the ACLU policy. This lady left quite embarrassed. You should tell those that doubt you have your facts straight to prove you wrong. The ACLU is a bunch of hypocrites. If they have nothing to hide then why don’t they just make these policies public? The funny thing is that there is not a single top secret document that they wouldn’t make public.
What would you say is encouraging in the fight to expose and stop the ACLU’s agenda?
The good news started in the 1970’s when more legal groups began to develop to oppose the ACLU. More and more Catholic and Protestant legal groups are appearing that battle the ACLU and have done a magnificent job. Our side is winning more and more of these battles where before the ACLU had a monopoly on civil liberty issues. There are several good organizations out there now including The Alliance Defense Fund, The American Center For Law and Justice, and the Thomas More Law Center just to name a few. There isn’t really one unified organization that opposes them, but several that fight them on different fronts. They are becoming more and more successful and this is good news. It isn’t just the legal groups either. Cable and internet are doing a magnificent job, including your site, in an educational campaign to inform the public. FIRE (Foundation For Individual Rights In Education) is doing a great job of informing students of their rights on campuses. I know that our side is making great progress. Things were a lot worse. The ACLU also doesn’t do as good of a job at reaching out to the public as they used to. Ira Glasser, who I am not a big fan of, did a much better job at public outreach when he was the Executive Director of the ACLU than the current one, Anthony Romero. They just don’t want to deal with the public. They have a few town hall meetings in elite and controlled environments, but they mostly avoid any kind of debate. I think that Anthony Romero was hired because of his ties with the Ford Foundation than for any talent towards public impact.
Can the ACLU be reformed?
No. They are entirely too corrupt. Norman Thomas, six time candidate of the socialist party and one of the founders of the ACLU, once said, “Instead of burning the American Flag, people should wash it.” The ACLU has gone far beyond this kind of talk into much more extreme realms. They are the legal arm of the political left. Even with a few whistle-blowers, the ACLU is more corrupt now than ever. There are so many competing legal groups out there now fighting the ACLU’s agenda. I am pleased that the ACLU doesn’t own the entire field anymore. They still score, but our side has made a lot of progress. It is not from within that the ACLU can be defeated. There is way too much corruption to hope for that. It is from the outside that is the best way to beat them. With so many legal groups fighting them in courts, and internet sites like yours educating the public our side is making major progress. That is the way.
Stop The ACLU wants to sincerely thank Mr. Donahue for taking the time to honor us with this interview. This has been 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 @ 10:23 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Could it be that people have had enough of being fed to the teeth with moonbattery at the expense of their physical safety? Arnold Kling thinks so. Having noticed that “the political elites are out of touch with mass opinion,” Kling refers to the Monarch Airlines Flight A320 passengers who recently refused to fly with a couple of suspicious Muslim-looking characters as evidence that there has been a “shift in the popular mood” in the USA, Britain, and Israel — the three countries that constitute civilization’s front line in the conflict with Islamic imperialism.
Some of us were bound to get sick of being told we’re “racist” if we don’t like it that Muslims want to kill us for failing to worship their barbaric god. A few might even be a little tired of having to show up at the airport three hours early to have our toothpaste confiscated and be forced to take our shoes off because the authorities are too politically correct to concentrate their efforts on the people who actually pose a threat.
Kling lists a few “elite opinions” he feels we’ve heard enough of:
We’re told we need to win hearts and minds. But it’s getting harder to hide the fact that if this approach were going to work on Muslims, it would have by now.
Kling predicts that popular opinion will swing toward one of two positions:
The first is tempting to embrace, but Islam is not a menace we can turn our back on, as September 11 and the string of lesser attacks building up to it should have taught us. Britain, with its massive Pakistani population, doesn’t have the option of withdrawal, nor does Israel.
We might just have to grasp the nettle and face up to the reality that Islam wants to hurt us. There’s no use waiting for our superiors to figure it out.
On a tip from Byron.
Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
Said Van Helsing @ 4:36 am Comments (3) | Permalink
Two very excellent commentaries describing those whose efforts enable the enemies of freedom to grow stronger. Neither of these descriptions will surprise blog readers who have become accustomed to the blame American, hate America moonbats that seem to crawl out from under a rock now and then.
Useful Idiots: Islam’s Best Soldiers
By Amil Imani
FrontPageMagazine.comIslam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” that Lenin identified as those who lived in liberal democracies and furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.
Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.
Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.
The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.
…
The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.
next up is:
Our covert enemies
By Michael Barone
TownHall.ComIn our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington’s) transnationalism.
At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours — who’s to say who is right? No ideas should be “privileged,” especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized. We are taught that some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders — and are left ignorant of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II — and not that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. To be sure, the great mass of Americans tend to resist these teachings. By the millions they buy and read serious biographies of the Founders and accounts of the Greatest Generation. But the teachings of our covert enemies have their effect.
…
Nevertheless, the default assumption of our covert enemies is that in any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and consider Israel’s self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today, many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.
Useful Idiots Defend Iran
Today, Iran answered the UN demand that it cease it’s nuclear development by calling for yet more negotiations on top of the years that our European partners and the Useless Nations (UN) have invested.
You can count on the useful idiots to trot out all the shopworn shibboleths and demand we “give peace a chance” by more talking. Some hidden enemies even go so far to insist that it is only fair that Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Coming from the very same people who marched in the streets to demand unilateral Western nuclear disarmament, this current flip-flop would be laughable if it weren’t dangerous.
Half the time these people are laughable. Their street protests resemble a really bad circus with performances like naked protests to people dressed in all manner of silly customes.
I’m reminded of the old song: “Send in the Clowns:”
Send In The Clowns
Isn’t it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clowns.Isn’t it bliss?
Don’t you approve?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can’t move.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
…
Don’t you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.
Said Mike's America @ 1:27 pm Comments (19) | Permalink
Well, the best I can say is that we’re still here.
The fruit and nut cake President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, did not “light up the sky” over Jerusalem as some of our more excitable blog brethren were breathlessly speculating in recent weeks. Perhaps some of us were hoping that rather than light up the sky, he would light up himself and disappear to join the prophet in heaven in a blaze of self-immolated glory.
No such luck.
In fact, it appears judging by the actions of the Iranian government today that it’s just more of the same for a man competing either for “Best Hitler Impersonation in 60 years” or the coveted title of “Most Outrageous Goofball on Planet Earth.” The former making him a dangerous man indeed. The latter still making him a threat but one that we can probably manage without overturning the apple cart in the Middle East.
But that’s the problem with this fellow. Do we take him seriously when he says:
If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.
(HT: LGF)
Or when he says:
Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…
How to attain the goal of enjoying a world without America or Zionism? Here’s Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guards intelligence theoretician who teaches at Al-Hussein University and someone considered to be Ahmadinejad’s strategic guru:
We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization… we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.
Personally, I think that it would take far fewer than 29 targets hit to destroy what we now know as America but maybe the thug just wants to be certain. But I urge you not to mention this to the left. You see, by their way of thinking the fact that we have plans to invade Iran means that we are going to invade, no ifs, ands or buts. However, if the lefties see what Abbassi is planning they will be forced to make a 180 degree flip flop and say “Well of course, all countries have plans. That doesn’t mean anything.”
And they’d probably be right. With at least one of those theories. How long do you think it will take them to catch on that they can’t be right about both?
No matter. It is Ahmadinejad’s jew hating, holocaust denying rhetoric that has the sane world up in arms. That and the small matter of his nuclear program. Are we supposed to take the man at his word when he says it is for peaceful purposes only? If so, we are being asked to take the word of a serial exaggerator and liar. For if, as we are led to believe by some, Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric can safely be ignored since he’s only playing to the home folks, do praytell how one can divine when he’s propagandizing and when he’s telling the truth? In other words, who has insight into the man’s soul in order to tell us when he’s lying and when he’s not?
Our betters on the left, of course, Ye needn’t ask. That’s why any attempt to delay, impede, or otherwise destroy his nuclear enrichment capability is seen as just more of the same from the crazy neocons running our government. The dhimmi left has already decided there’s nothing to be done except believe Ahmadinejad because the alternative would mean that they were wrong and George Bush was right.
Never fear, however. We will keep talking to Iran - fat lot of good it will do. But from Iran’s perspective, it helps them play our useful idiots if they seem sincere about talking:
Iran’s semi-official news agency reported today that Tehran has “rejected suspension of its nuclear activities” as demanded by the United Nations Security Council but has proposed a “new formula for resolving the issue through talks.”
The details of the new formula were not immediately apparent.
Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator delivered Tehran’s response to the ambassadors of Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Switzerland and was briefing them on the substance, reported Iran’s Fars news agency.
Diplomats in Washington, Tehran and European capitals had said yesterday that the Iranian government is willing to enter negotiations and to consider a freeze of the program, but it will not accept a freeze as a precondition for the talks.
Now we’ll have another ring around the rosy at the United Nations as Britain, France, Germany, and the US struggle to come up with sanctions watered down enough so that China and Russia will accept them. Under discussion are sanctions of the harshest sort like denying Iranian leaders the opportunity to fly on foreign airlines and delaying the mullah’s entry into the WTO.
That’s showing ‘em.
In the meantime, Iran is making it very clear that they have a very good reason for keeping their nuclear program under wraps:
Iran turned away U.N. inspectors from an underground site meant to shelter its uranium enrichment program from attack, diplomats said Monday, while the country’s supreme leader insisted Tehran will not give up its contentious nuclear technology.
Iran’s unprecedented refusal to allow access to its underground facility at Natanz could seriously hamper U.N. attempts to ensure Tehran is not trying to produce nuclear weapons, and might violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and U.N. officials told The Associated Press.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, the diplomats and officials from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, described other signs of Iranian defiance.
They said Iran denied entry visas to two IAEA inspectors in the last few weeks after doing the same earlier this summer for Chris Charlier, the expert heading the U.N. agency’s team to Tehran. Additionally, they said, other inspectors were given only single-entry visas during their visits to Iran last week, instead of the customary multiple-entry permits.
And just in case we didn’t get the message to “bow and surrender” to the Iranian regime, they tried a little strong arm action today:
Iran attacked and seized control of a Romanian oil rig working in its Persian Gulf waters this morning one week after the Iranian government accused the European drilling company of “hijacking'’ another rig.
An Iranian naval vessel fired on the rig owned by Romania’s Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP) in the Salman field and took control of its radio room at about 7:00 a.m. local time, Lulu Tabanesku, Grup’s representative in the United Arab Emirates said in a phone interview from Dubai today.
“The Iranians fired at the rig’s crane with machine guns,'’ Tabanesku said. “They are in control now and we can’t contact the rig.'’ The Romanian company has 26 workers on the platform, he said.
Grup had a contract with an Iranian oil firm whose activities were suspended last year due to corruption charges and (lefty tin foil hat alert) for having dealings with Halliburton. Evidently, the Iranians feel the rig is theirs even if they’re not paying for it.
Sounds to me like Haliburton is trying to engineer a confrontation between Iran and the West. If so, they did a lousy job picking Romania as the pigeon. I mean, you think they would have at least tried for a “B-List” European country like Spain or Portugal or maybe Monaco. Hell, Lichtenstein would have been a better choice than Romania for God’s sake!
Seriously, the western media will simply file this incident under “Outrageous Iranian Provocations” and let it go at that. How much longer they can keep pretending that “wiping Israel off the map” and “bow and surrender” is not really worth reporting on remains to be seen. Hopefully they will realize it sooner rather than later.
Otherwise, we’ll be the ones seeing a “light in the sky” someday.
Said Rick Moran @ 11:03 am Comments (1) | Permalink
Iran has turned away International Atomic Energy Inspectors from an underground uranium enrichment facility designed to protect against attack according to officials at the UN. IAEA inspections are a requirement under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to insure that international community that enrichment facilities are not being used to produce weapons grade uranium.
This comes a day before the expected announcement by Iran concerning the incentive offer proposed by the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Counsel. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also announced that Iran would never give up its right to enrich uranium.
A UN Official speaking with the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity said that Iran’s unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz could seriously hamper international attempts to ensure Tehran is not trying to produce nuclear weapons as well as violate a key part of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
FoxNews Reports:
Outlining other signs of Iranian defiance, they said that Iran denied entry visas to two IAEA inspectors in the last few weeks after doing so earlier this summer to Chris Charlier, the expert heading the agency’s team to Tehran. Additionally, they said, other inspectors were only given single entry visas during their visits to the country last week, instead of the customary multiple-entry ones
Iran’s reported defiance was likely to harden Western resolve to punish Tehran if it refuses to compromise on its nuclear ambitions by agreeing to give up uranium enrichment, which can be used to create the fissile core of warheads.
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei is due to report by Sept. 11 to the agency’s board of governors on Iran’s compliance to an Aug. 31 U.N. Security Council deadline on freezing enrichment and on other aspects of Tehran’s cooperation with agency attempts to establish whether it has nuclear weapons aspirations.
The council has threatened sanctions if Iran remains defiant. Diplomats on Monday told the AP these could include a ban on missile and nuclear technology to Tehran; international refusal to grant entry visas to those involved in Iran’s nuclear program and a freeze of their assets as well as a ban on investment in the country.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said “nothing surprises me about how Iran treats its obligations” under the nuclear nonproliferation agreement. He told reporters that Iran had concealed things from inspectors in the past and alleged that Tehran also had falsified data.
Although Bolton said he had no specific knowledge of Iran’s latest blocking of U.N. inspectors, he said, “More obstructionism doesn’t surprise me at all.”
IAEA officials refused to comment.
Iran has announced that an announcement concerning the incentive package offered to them by the permanent members of the UN Security Counsel to freeze their program will be forth coming on Aug. 22nd signaling yet another sign that Iran intends to be defiant. Iran faces diplomatic and economic sanctions should they refuse to accept the offer being put forth by the Security Counsel’s 5 permanent members. A deadline of Aug. 31 was announced for a reply.
Gribbit’s Word
Iran is going to continue to be a threat to the security of the Middle East. Its support of Hezbollah shows that if nuclear materials are permitted to be enriched to the point of nuclear weapons grade, it wouldn’t be long before Hezbollah and possible al Qaeda would have them.
Osama bin Laden has sworn that if he were to be bless by God with a nuclear weapon that he would use it. I find it difficult to believe that with the level of hatred against the United States that prevails on the ruling class in Iran that they would be reluctant to provide nuclear materials to al Qaeda if it serves their purpose.
Cross-posted from Gribbit’s Word
Said Gribbit @ 7:56 pm Comments (3) | Permalink
Dan Riehl has it, and it’s excellent.
and
I particularly like this segment from Part II:
Leading Democrat John Murtha went on television and pronounced several Marines guilty of cold-blooded murder in Iraq. And we now know he did that prior to having any depth of knowledge of the case.
There aren’t enough web pages on this blog to archive the treasonous statements of former Democrat President Jimmy Carter when it comes to current events - and often overseas, at that. Frankly, I could go through the entire Democrat leadership and come up with many more examples.
So, now, what? I’ve provided a link to the definition of the word treason. I have characterized the statements of leading Democrats precisely as they are. Am I supposed to buy into the notion that they, as leaders, are welcome to engage in such destructive discourse, yet, me a humble blogger, is somehow hurting the debate for calling said statements precisely what they are? Sorry, I think not.
Let the individuals who would seek to defend the Democrat’s honor in this regard answer me this - how is it that such statements as displayed above can be seen as anything other than injurious to our nation during a time of war? And as that phrase itself is included in the very definition of treason, why is it so wrong, or dangerous to simply call them what they are?
There should be no problem calling things by their real names.
Go read it now.
Said Cao @ 7:38 am Comments (6) | Permalink
Said Richard Nixon @ 7:40 pm Comments (3) | Permalink
PatriotPost.US
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone — particularly fanatics intent on killing us — law enforcement and security screeners are not allowed to “profile” people in public places or security checkpoints. However, they will continue to perform random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots
with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with metal hips and even Medal of Honor recipients. But targeting Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40 constitutes “ethnic profiling.”
Let’s pause a moment and review….
In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: (a) A salesman from Utah (b) An construction worker (c) A college student on Spring Break (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics by: (a) Your grandmother (b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer (c) A mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by: (a) A bluegrass band (b) Dallas Cowboy fans (c) A tour group of 80-year-old women (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
During the 1980’s numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: (a) A family on their way to Disney World (b) Jesse Ventura (c) A Boy Scout Troop (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: (a) A pizza delivery boy (b) The UPS guy (c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by: (a) A girls’ choir (b) A hardware store owner (c) A secretary (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by: (a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave (b) A plumber going to visit his mom (c) A Catholic nun (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: (a) A college-bound freshman (b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston (c) A waitress (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by: (a) A starving actress (b) A mom with a newborn (c) Twin six-year-old boys (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1995, a plot to blow up U.S.-bound international flights over the Pacific was attempted by (a) Hawaiian school kids (b) An decorated Vietnam Veteran (c) Twin sisters on their way to Paducah (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: (a) A local TV weatherman (b) A dad and his two sons on a ski trip (c) A widower going to visit his grandchildren (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2000, 17 sailors died in an attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in Yemen by: (a) A child in a stroller (b) A high school class on their way to visit Washington, DC (c) Newlyweds on their way to Miami (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked — two flown into the World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon and one into the ground in rural Pennsylvania. They were hijacked by: (a) A retired police officer on a mission trip to Haiti (b) A
firefighter going to Maryland for training (c) An paramedic on his way to vacation in Hawaii (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2002 the United States liberated Afghanistan from: (a) USAID relief workers (b) Jewish Pilgrims (c) Christian missionaries (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl and other Westerners were kidnapped and beheaded by: (a) The Peace Corp (b) Scottish clansmen (c) Cuban refugees (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2002, more than 330 hostages in Beslan and 130 hostages in Moscow were murdered in sieges by: (a) Russian exchange students (b) The Red Guard (c) Church planters (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2003 the United States liberated Iraq from “The Butcher of Baghdad,” but most American military personnel were killed by: (a) Iraqi school-girls (b) Street vegetable venders (c) Women without burkas (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2004, more than 200 Spanish civilians were murdered on trains by bombs in Madrid, detonated by: (a) Morning commuters (b) A three-year-old Chinese girl (c) Flamenco dancers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005 more than 50 UK citizens were killed by bombs on trains in London, detonated by: (a) Rail workers (b) Those unable to hail taxis (c) Wheelchair-bound grandmothers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005, there were hundreds of casualties, men, women and children, killed by bombs in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Amman. These innocent civilians were murdered by: (a) Construction workers (b) Farmers (c) Christian missionaries (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005, the city of Paris, and other European cities experienced an extended period of riots and destruction. The unrest was led by: (a) “Youth” (b) Soccer fans (c) Catholic nuns (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 2,500 Americans have been murdered by terrorists. 35,000 Iraqi men, women and children have also been murdered by terrorists. Most of the combat and civilians casualties were the result of bombs detonated in civilian population centers by: (a) Fruit vendors in Baghdad (b) Disgruntled transit union workers (c) Iraqi schoolteachers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40
In 2006, hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets launched by: (a) the Salvation Army (b) remnants of the ‘Jackson Five’ (c) the cast of ‘Friends’ (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2006, a plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound planes from the U.K. was attempted by (a) members of the royal family (b) Japanese tourists (c) groupies of the band ‘Cream’ (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
Since 2001, the FBI reports that there are major terrorist cells still in U.S. urban centers. Several of these cells have been uncovered and cell members arrested. In every case, the terrorists cell members were: (a) Southern Baptists
Conventioneers (b) Lutheran Youth Groups (c) Presbyterian Elders (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
President George Bush said this week, “America is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued an immediate objection to the President’s reference to “Islamic fascists”. Nihad Awad,
executive director of CAIR protested, “We have to isolate these individuals because there is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to be criminal. Muslims world wide know that for sure.” In light of this objection, we are left to ponder why every Islamic leader in the U.S., and the world, does not publicly condemn every terror
action being undertaken in the name of the god of Islam. Their silence is deafening…
Between 1970 and present, there were more than 60 other notable
examples of terrorism perpetrated by Middle Eastern male
Islamists between the ages 17 and 40, but we think you get the
point. Singling out “Middle Eastern male Islamists between the
ages 17 and 40″ is not “ethnic profiling,” it’s “terrorist
profiling” — acting on prolific evidence.
Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?
Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot
Said Richard Nixon @ 7:35 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
