'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, September 12, 2009



(Los Angeles, CA) Americans Against Hate (AAH), a civil rights organization and terrorism watchdog group, has produced an on-line video exposing the Executive Director of CAIR-CaliforniaHussam Ayloush and his meeting with the Spiritual Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

In December 2001, under Ayloush’s watch, CAIR-California placed a photograph on its website homepage of a smiling Ayloush shoulder-to-shoulder with al-Qaradawi. This was two years after al-Qaradawi had been banned from entering the United States. Amongst other things, al-Qaradawi has supported Palestinian suicide bombings and has sanctioned attacks against American troops.

AAH wants to know the circumstances surrounding the photo. Why was it taken? What was said during the Ayloush/Qaradawi meeting? Why was the photo posted to the CAIR site two years following the ban? And what is the past and present relationship of Ayloush and al-Qaradawi?

On the video, which shows an image of the CAIR site with the photo, AAH asks citizens to contact authorities to investigate the matter.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

11 September 2009 Outside Harrow Mosque

I rceived an email from this blogger who was at the SIOE (Stop Islamisation of Europe) demonstration outside Harrow Mosque. Here's his blog post on what he saw.

11 September 2009
Outside Harrow Mosque

Arriving a bit late to join friends at the SIOE (Stop Islamisation of Europe) demonstration I rushed out of the tube station and quickly realise that this demo was not going to be the sedate affairs of previous years and that the threats of the UAF (United Against Fascism) and various Muslim organisations to ‘protect the Mosque’ from the ‘racists BNP’ were being taken seriously by the police. There were easily three dozen at the station itself in riot gear.

Wandering around and getting lost I walked passed a group of young men who were leaning up against a building with another dozen or so police in front of them. One of the men had a slight head injury with blood clearly visible.

Asking for directions from an elderly man who was outside observing the commotion and the constant helicopter presence he told me, ‘you do not want to go there. There is only trouble there.’ But he gave me directions anyway to the Mosque.

After a few turns the numbers of police increased, all in riot gear. Another turn of a corner I saw maybe a 1,000 people gathered up the road in front of the Mosque. A few walked past me holding ‘Stop the Fascist BNP’ banners. Then like wildebeests or bee swarms hundreds of young men came running toward me, shouting and waving. I stepped between two cars and they eventually passed.

Milling around in front of the Mosque were large numbers of the anti-demo demonstrators with many in Muslim garb. The SIOE demo was no where in site. After passing through the bulk of the anti-demo demonstrators I asked a police officer where the legally sanctioned SIOE demo was located and where were the actual people. He said that maybe they have not arrived yet.

I then began to chat with a few people. The first man I spoke to told me that he had lived in the area all his life. He said that the Mosque is actually built where his family used to buy their meat. The shop slaughtered animals including pigs on the very place Muslims now worship and meet!

The next group of people were three women (all non-white, with two children) who had come to join the SIOE demonstration because they wanted to do something to stop Sharia coming to this country. But like me they could not find the group. One of the women expressed her anger at what she saw as a violation of freedom to protest and freedom of speech. Another woman, whose grandparents were Muslims and whose Mother had been a Muslim, wondered when will English people do something about the danger of Sharia, or ‘will they let it grow and grow until it is too late.’ An encounter with reporters from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proved problematic. They wanted to talk to someone who was actually there in support of SIOE. I offered to speak for the radio. But then another swarm occurred, and thinking something more worthy was going to happen, they quickly said good-bye and followed the swarm.

Oddly, I then found myself in between two groups of police in an empty space, with the anti-demo demonstrators on the other side of the police cordons. On my left, the anti-demo demonstrators decided to rejoin the other group and the police allowed them to walk through their ranks. They shouted Allah u Akbar, a few had their faces covered, some did the Nazi salute, and a reporter was roughed up a bit for I do not know what, with camera equipment thrown to the ground.

Anti-demo demonstrators were packed in front of the Mosque, closing off the street. People stood on top of the bus stop, a few had the black flag with Arabic writing on it. Then the swarm started again, this time in yet another direction! They seemed to try to enter the town hall. From their number I saw someone hurtle a piece of medal, which if it had hit someone in the head could have killed.

My next chat was with an older man on a bicycle. He explained that earlier in the day he had happen to be walking in the same direction with a group of young men, who were healthy strong and confident, who were walking to the Mosque for the demo. When they got to the bus stop they suddenly sensed danger, changed their direction and ran off. They were being chased by the swarm. Climbing barriers, railings and stairs a few left their shoes behind. It was probably this group of men who I saw earlier when I exited the station. How they were ‘spotted’ or felt in danger the man did not know, but a group of young white men would be unusual among these anti-demo demonstrators.

My next encounter was with the leader of Harrow Council, David Ashton. I happened to be right next to the television crews who wanted to hear his take on the day’s events. He felt that the trouble was caused by outsiders. The community have good relations with the mosque and vice versa. He definitely had a negative take on the anti-demo demonstrators. In between interviews I asked him what he thought of SIOE. He said there are extreme views and there are extremists. Those with extreme views allow for discussion and debate but the extremists do not allow that. I asked him if he supported the right of SIOE to demonstrate as they had planed and reminded him that the police had approved of it. He agreed and that in this society the police had powers to stop marches but not really to stop people from standing some place to express their opinion and that that freedom is permitted in our society. I asked him if he would therefore agree that the police failed in their duty to protect the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. He said he would not answer my question. I then asked him to convey my opinion to the local police and to central government that the police had indeed failed to protect the citizens who wanted to engage in lawful activity. He said he would take that message back to them.

After taking more pictures I spoke to a few more people and made my way back to the station. I noticed broken eggs in black bags on the pavement and figured that they were part of the armoury of the anti-demo demonstrators.

With the sun going down in the west, many Muslims were prostrating towards Mecca, no doubt thanking Allah for this small victory over the kaffir and the silencing of any public criticisms of Islam.


Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 15 Comments

912 March on Washington:

Will the thugs come out and play?

As people have been awakened to the reality of the radical transformation of their country, tensions have been building and tempers flaring on both sides. Contrary to what many talking heads would have us to believe, protests against the latest massive government takeovers and encroachments actually began while Bush was still in office, and the message has been consistent and clear: that the Federal government must be returned to its Constitutionally restricted functions and only be allowed those functions granted by the enumerated powers therein.

The current wave of public outcry and protest against more government intrusion is wholly consistent with the principles of republican government and a people bent on preserving their self-determination without undue interference from the State, yet this Administration and Congress is determined to follow in the footsteps of all of their predecessors: demonize the opposition, discredit and silence dissent. The facts speak for themselves.

The Obama Administration and Congress have been laying out their case that everyone who opposes their agenda - and especially those who actively protest the actions they are taking to finally transform this country from a representative republic to a command-and-control bureaucratically administered state - as enemies of the state, as traitors, as dangerous extremists, as domestic terrorists. Their true attitude toward those who oppose their agenda was no where more poignantly seen than in the enraged glare cast by Speaker Pelosi at Rep. Joe Wilson when he shouted "you lie!" at the President during his address to Congress. Her look of utter contempt was unmistakable, and it was not merely contempt toward Mr. Wilson's remark - it is contempt for what Mr. Wilson believes in and stands for.

They have done their best to discredit and demonize their opposition, to portray us as crazy, ignorant of history, un-patriotic and un-American, as violence-prone and itching for a fight, and many news outlets have been more than willing to comply with the propagation of this fallacious message. The irony here is that they seem to be projecting their own feelings onto us. If nothing else, we know our history – and our Constitution. To be sure, while there have been some kooks that have shown up at various protests and town halls on both sides of the issue, the only act of violence was perpetrated by an Obamacare supporter against a protester when he bit off the protester’s finger.

The fact is that we are ready to have civil discourse and calmly, methodically and logically present our case in support of our contention that this hijacking of our country is illicit and unconstitutional. Obama’s media minions respond with sexual innuendo and gutter references to “tea-bagging” and unsubstantiated claims that our issue is with the color of his skin and not his Marxist ideology. They claim we use the word “socialist” as a code for racist nomenclature. People who would sink to such depths to avoid a civil debate because they know we are right are not merely hypocritical, but amoral and utterly contemptible. But, that’s what despotic thugs do, because in order to attain their dubious goals they have to make someone a scapegoat.

The question for today is how the protesters will be received when they begin their march on Washington. That tensions will be high is obvious, but one wonders if their right to peacefully assemble will be respected or trampled. One wonders how numerous and how antagonistic will be the counter-protesters from Organizing for America, ACORN and SEIU.

One wonders how many moles these organizations will have embedded throughout the throngs of patriots opposing further erosion of their Constitutional rights, and what their ultimate mission and function will be. One prays that there will be no violence, but the lessons of history demonstrate that such an undesirable result of a mass protest is a distinct possibility – especially when is opposition to socialist despotism. Inciting violence - thereby staging a crisis - would certainly play into the hands and serve the interests of the pro-socialist camp, and could be used by the proponents of this socialist revolution to further discredit well-meaning patriots exercising and defending their rights against what they rightly perceive as a prelude to tyranny. Let us not forget the words of the White House Chief of Staff: “Never let a crisis go to waste, because you can get things done that you otherwise couldn’t.” Like crushing dissent and opposition?


Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Christine at permanent link# 2 Comments

Climbing Mount Agenda Without a Rope

Darwin and Dawkins Dilemma: Climbing Mt. Improbable

Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent
Heard on the street: “I am a working scientist with a mortgage and family to support. I am paid to conduct research into Evolution. Who will pay me to conduct research into Intelligent Design?” Filed under “Follow the money”. The article below makes a similar point about eugenics “research” in the past and global warming “research” today.
Atheistic Fundamentalism: Ridicule Them into Unbelief!
Yeah like that'll work. Mock me all ya want, punks. BTW I have seen the identical shit expounded on at other blogs we used to visit, obviously taking their cues directly from Biggus Dickus the Zoological Meme Meister himself:
Anyone who doubts the evangelistic nature of certain fundamentalist atheists ought to pay attention to the musings of Richard Dawkins on his own website. This from a comment (comment #16) he wrote to a post by Jerry Coyne at RichardDawkins.net earlier this year:

"Michael Shermer, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott and others are probably right that contemptuous ridicule is not an expedient way to change the minds of those who are deeply religious. But I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt"

And so Dawkins advocates the use of ridicule and belittlement. How is this unlike a political party, fearing defeat on some policy debate, issuing a talking-points bulletin encouraging members to just make fun of the other side. Would anyone take such an approach seriously? Where I come from, such tactics are considered clear indicators of a lack of meaningful persuasive argument: “If I can’t rationally convince you, I’ll bludgeon you into agreeing with me using mockery and derision.”
Over the years, Scott has found her fight to be much less about science and more about politics

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club: Eugenie Scott's speech Sep 8, 2009
... Eugenie Scott's speech at Dragon*Con ..... (BTW, from a purely Darwinian point of view which society is superior and more successful: one that ... The new eugenics will have even more powerful tools at its disposal, ...
Please grok to the fullest that this is the woman that received front page adulation at what used to be your favorite blog!
SEE: Eugenics Society - Eugenie Scott
Her frickin' NAME is EUGENIE, OK? I couldn't write this shit if I tried.

NCSE Events -Eugenie Scott

[PDF] The Establishment of an Evolutionary World View in Public Education
NCSE Executive Director Eugenie C. Scott, was Humanist of the year in 1993;. Signatory to the Humanist Manifesto and the Eugenics Society;
Another name to be aware of is Richard Lynn:
Richard Lynn: The condemnation of eugenics went too far ~ needs reassessment

EUGENICS: A Reassessment by Richard Lynn

Richard Lynn on Dawkins' Site

Richard Lynn, Fearless Champion of Truth!
The Branding of a Heretic: Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?
Wall Street Journal, 2005

Galton proposed a replacement for traditional religious dogma, the new field (with a name he coined) of eugenics,
which he defined as “the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally.” He proposed that after eugenics first gains acceptance as an academic matter and then as a practical matter, that it should enter a third and final stage:

"It must be introduced into the national consciousness as a new religion."
"Man is becoming God. Those who see in national socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than a religion. It is the will to create mankind anew".
~ Adolf Hitler
What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?
Richard Dawkins
THE NEW SCIENTIST: The Dawkins Dogma
THE notion of the "selfish gene" is the most successful scientific metaphor of the past 30 years, followed not far behind by "the extended phenotype". Both were coined by Richard Dawkins and are, as it happens, the titles of his first popular science books.
.....but this shit is not happening today, and I am a crazy woman, right So-Smarts?

WTF is World Evolutionary Humanism, & Why Should You Care?

Religion is a Product of Evolution, You Snake Handling Moron !

The "Negro Project" & Scientific Racism

Margaret Sanger would have loved Barack Obama!
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
BEHOLD! Thus spaketh the Obamassiah, 2006:
Does he even know he is a useful idiot? I think not.
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Obama: Abortion is a 'health benefit'

Rehabilitating Eugenics
Princeton U ~ 2005
Instead, devotees of the new eugenics invoke the languages of choice and prevention. “Children of choice,” “Redesigning Humans, “Remaking Eden,” – these are just a few of the book titles by advocates of the new eugenics. Supporters of the new eugenics frequently invoke freedom as the animating influence behind their support for the new eugenics (one recent book title is “Liberation Biology”).

But it is choice and prevention that actually guide them. Choice and prevention, of course, are not inconsistent with the principles of a modern liberal democracy, and both are frequently invoked as rationales for a range of decisions we make as a society – about everything from abortion to terrorism. Both, however, suffer from serious weaknesses as guiding philosophies for our new genetic age.

The earlier incarnation of eugenics reached its logical conclusion in the horrific policies of fascist Germany. But the new incarnation of eugenics is thriving in the societies where it first flourished in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century– liberal democracies.

Exploring this question requires two things: First, debunking the myth, still embraced by many, that eugenics and liberal democracy are incompatible. History shows us how well suited they are. The fact that liberal democracies, including our own, now have in place protections against the kind of state-sponsored eugenics popular in the early twentieth century does not mean we have escaped the siren song of eugenics. It merely means that we have found new ways to justify our ineradicable desire to improve ourselves. Second, we must trace the three pathways by which eugenics has been rehabilitated: through science, politics, and culture. In doing so we can begin to understand why an increasing number of Americans believe that the new eugenics is inevitable, and why it is no longer shocking to ask the question: must eugenics be a dirty word?
Dick Dawkins: "Eugenics may not be so bad!

Mind you, this is the man that the blog you used to love gives hat tips to.
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch"
NYT: Eugenics Alert - Why We Must Ration Healthcare
Complete with screaming commie style signs.

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

The author of the above piece is one PETER SINGER.

Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators
Peter Singer says infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
Obama Care, rationing, and Peter Singer

Peter Singer: Obama wins: The president-elect must act to restore America's global image and reverse the corrosive legacy of the Bush years.



Scientists should unite against threat from religion
By Dawkin's pal: Sam Harris
Ya. OK. But it's still me that's crazy. If my GOD is not real, you tell me, scientist: WTF is there to be threatened by?

I wonder if half these so-smarts even realize they are supporting anarchists
The conception of struggle for existence as a factor of evolution, introduced into science by Darwin and Wallace, has permitted us to embrace an immensely wide range of phenomena in one single generalization, which soon became the very basis of our philosophical, biological, and sociological speculations
It's a fucking religion, you morons

UK: Every secondary school to be given Dawkins DVD
Can I get a little separation of Militant Atheist Alien Worshiping Eugenicist Loon and State?
Every secondary school in England and Wales will receive a free DVD by renowned atheist Richard Dawkins to celebrate the anniversary of Darwin's Origin of the Species. The speech was originally delivered as part of the professor's 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for children, and is being distributed by the British Humanist Association with funding from the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
The Next Thousand Years Television Series Participating Scholars
Initial Scholar List: To date the following scholars have agreed to participate in the development of The Next Thousand Years television series. Some of these scholars will serve on The Next Thousand Years Scholar Advisory Board and most of them will serve as consulting scholars on individual programs.

Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor, Oxford University, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, England

Barbara Marx Hubbard, President, Foundation for Conscious Evolution, Santa Barbara, CA USA
Hubbard, THE SCHOLAR, BTW, is totally fucking batshit crazy, and her middle name is MARX. AHAHAHA!:
Hubbard's "Christ Consciousness"
New Age leader, Barbara Marx Hubbard has staled, "people will either change or die," for "that is the choice." According to those who would concur with Hubbard, Christians will need to be more open minded so they too can receive the mark of the Antichrist. If they will not join with the global community and its agenda, they will be killed by the "opened minded" New Agers. She states that, "This act is as horrible as killing a cancer cell. It must be done (or the sake of the future of the whole. So be it; be prepared for the selection process which is now beginning. We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity
VIDEOS: ~ Barbara Marx Hubbard
The Untold History of Humanity As Seen Through Evolutionary Eyes!
"National Socialism is nothing more than applied biology."
~ Rudolph Hess

REASON ONLINE: Science Fiction 'Czar': The disturbing intellectual record of Obama's "Science Czar"
Dr. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy—better known as the "science czar"—has been a longtime prophet of environmental catastrophes. Never discouraged but never right.

And thanks to resourceful bloggers, you can read excerpts from a hard-to-find book co-authored by Holdren in the late 1970s, called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, online. In it, you will find the czar wading into some unpleasant talk about mass sterilizations and abortions.

It's not surprising. Holdren spent the '70s boogying down to the vibes of an imaginary population catastrophe and global cooling. He also participated in the famous wager between scientist Paul Ehrlich, the now-discredited Population Bomb theorist (and co-author of Ecoscience), and economist Julian Simon, who believed human ingenuity would overcome demand.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a question of eugenics
If Ginsburg does see eugenic culling as a compelling state interest, she'd be in fine company on the court. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a passionate believer in such things. In 1915, Holmes wrote in the Illinois Law Review that the "starting point for an ideal for the law" should be the "coordinated human effort ... to build a race."
Sotomayor Says She "Never Thought About" Rights of Unborn
Republican Senator Jim DeMint says that he is troubled by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor after she told him she had "never thought about" the rights of the unborn child."When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it," said DeMint in a statement. "This is not just a question about abortion, but about the respect due to human life at all stages, and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings."
N.C. to dedicate marker to eugenics program
According to the So Smarts none of this ever happened though. So STFU!
Raleigh, N.C. — State officials are dedicating a historical marker to remember the forced sterilization program that affected thousands of people in North Carolina. The North Carolina Highway Historical Marker will be dedicated Monday at the North Carolina Community Colleges building in Raleigh. Social reformers advocated for eugenics programs a century ago as a way to cleanse society of the mentally handicapped and mentally ill. North Carolina adopted its program in 1929 and aggressively continued the program after World War II, targeting the program at the poor. About 7,600 people were sterilized between 1929 and 1975. A state House panel has recommended that the state give $20,000 to victims of the eugenics program.
Progressive Genocide
Less than 100 years ago, America's finest minds were convinced the nation was threatened by sexually insatiable female morons. A new history of the eugenics movement sheds light on a bizarre chapter in U.S. history.

Methodists apologize for loving death
“The United Methodist General Conference formally apologizes for Methodist leaders and Methodist bodies who in the past supported eugenics as sound science and sound theology. We lament the ways eugenics was used to justify the sterilization of persons deemed less worthy. We lament that Methodist support of eugenics policies was used to keep persons of different races from marrying and forming legally recognized families. We are especially grieved that the politics of eugenics led to the extermination of millions of people by the Nazi government and continues today as ‘ethnic cleansing’ around the world.”

The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value

(Life Unworthy of Life). Its measurement and form.
By Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, 1922
The little booklet only including 60 pages and first published in 1920, was of an outstanding importance for the discussion of "euthanasia", even after the beginning of the "Third Reich". With his juridical arguments in support of the killing of "life devoid of value", which clearly opposed all preceding positions, Prof. Dr. jur. Dr. phil. Karl Binding (1841-1920), a highly respected penal law expert, triggered off an avalanche. In his part of the booklet, Dr. med. Alfred Hoche, a professor in psychiatry from Freiburg, provided a cost-benefit analysis regarding psychiatric care and described sick and disabled people as "people with deficits", "elements of minor value" ,"mentally dead" and "ballast existences". On the basis of a regulated procedure of applications and after the examination by a commission consisting of two physicians and a legal practitioner, both authors requested the painless killing of "incurably" sick persons against their will. They especially referred to inmates of "fools homes" and to cases without hope in "mental homes".
The New Untermenschen (Killing Infants for Research)
They harvest the "donor organs" while the " anencephalic neonates" (umm that'd be BABIES to luddites like you and me) are STILL ALIVE. SCIENCE!
"American Eugenics Party" pamphlet detailing their views

"American Eugenics Party" ~ Party Platform

American Eugenics Society Records
“Well, eugenics was a very fashionable science in the 1930s and nowadays it isn’t. Post Hitler there are people who say not only that eugenics is morally wrong but also that it doesn’t work scientifically. That is bollocks. It works with horses, cows and pigs and ducks. Of course it would work with humans. It’s quite another matter to say that it would be a good thing to do. It comes down to a moral and political choice. Just as the H-bomb. As for only giving examples of bad religion, that is not what I wanted to do even if I seem to have done it. I think I could have been accused of that not so much in the book but in the television programme I did for Channel 4 called The Root of All Evil. But a television programme does not have a single author. It was a kind of ‘over my dead body’ title, for example.”
~ Richard Dawkins

History of Genetics - EUGENICS

Building a Perfect Race: Modern Eugenics and American Law
One hundred years after the first Indiana law, eugenics might be expected to be a thing of the past. Yet practices that might be considered eugenic persist, and there is good reason to expect them to flourish in the near future. In this presentation, Professor Mehlman described the history of eugenics and its treatment by the courts, and discussed modern practices that might be deemed eugenic and their likely fate in the courts.
GAGDAD BOB: I Ain't Gonna Work on Darwin's Farm No More: The Limits of a Limitless Science

Self Directed Evolution

The Radical Population Control And Eugenics Agenda Of The Global Elite
STFU Crazy Spleen, none of this is happening!

"The Eugenics Quarterly" changed it's name in 1969 to "Social Biology"
In short, eugenics is the applied science of Darwinism (social darwinisim).The Malthusian catastrophe where the lower class all die and the well-to-do survive, became the inspiration for eugenics. The modern eugenics movement started in the United states in the late 1800’s and continues under different names today. The original eugenics movement eventually was promoted in Germany, and Hitler was so inspired by the Americans he created his own genocide based on the laws of eugenics. This would have been the ultimate goal of the eugenicists, but they failed. The eugenics operations in the us changed their names. Today they are called ‘population control, or planned parenthood, or one child policy. and screening for unborn children has begun to determine their genetic standing. Billions of dollars are being poured into the population control agenda today. The old money of the Rockefeller blending with the new money of Gates, Buffet and others.

Google Search: Richard Dawkins / Social Biology

Google Search: Eugenie Scott / Social Biology
We in the Eugenics movement are not interested in competing against Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx for some minuscule little 1,000 year Reich. We are interested in competing with Jesus Christ and Buddha for the destiny of man.
~ Favored Races Manifesto by James L. Hart

Bookmark and Share
posted by BabbaZee at permanent link# 91 Comments

9/11 isn’t about Islam.

It isn’t about 19 men who attacked and murdered 3,000 Americans.

It isn’t about speeches and platitudes and wreath laying and memorials.

9/11 certainly isn't about planting trees.

9/11 isn’t about taking the fight to the enemy.

9/11 isn’t about vengeance.

9/11 is about Americans. And America.

It’s about who we were. And how we had forgotten where we came from.

If our current leaders think we need to accept any blame for 9/11 then it is not in our relations with the Islamic world.

It is in how we had become complacent to the threats around us.

How we felt we no longer had an enemy who could do us real harm.

How we wanted so much to be liked, instead of respected. Instead of feared.

How we wanted so much to be liked we let our guard down.

And let the jackal in.

IF they want us to accept any blame than that is where it lies.

With our own leaders. Those charged with our security.

Including ourselves.

But 9/11 is about remembering the 3,000 dead.

Including those forty brave and terrified souls who remembered where they came from.

And knew, when they stuck their hand in the goo, what had to be done.

9/11 is about where we came from. And what we’ve become.

9/12 is about all the rest.

If we remember what 9/11 is about.

And Never Forget


Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 3 Comments

Reason is Forever

Guest Commentary be Edward Cline:

Liberals are now awakening to the evidence that President Barack Obama and his web of cronies, pull-peddlers, appointees and assorted parasites -- that alliance of the Chicago and Beltway Gangs -- are planning to move in on freedom of speech with every intention of “modifying” it so that it means only what the government wants it to mean. And some are worried that current restrictions on the First Amendment might be “modified” or even reversed and declared unconstitutional, specifically McCain-Feingold, which governs corporate spending on election campaign ads, and other anti-freedom of speech rulings such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which a movie, “Hillary: The Movie,” made by an anti-Clinton group, fell under the strictures of McCain-Feingold. A three-judge FEC “court” ruled against an appeal by the group to challenge the Court’s decision.

McCain-Feingold is “a federal enactment designed to prevent ‘big money’ from unfairly influencing federal elections-which, among other things, prohibits corporate financing of ‘electioneering communications’ and imposes mandatory disclosure and disclaimer requirements on such communications.”

Robert Barnes, in a Washington Post article of September 8, “Reversal of Precedents at Issue,” complains that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, may well “defy the decisions of Congress and to set aside its own precedents.”
This raises ageless questions about the role of stare decisis -- the court’s custom of standing by its previous decisions. But it also raises new ones about the boldness of a court that has moved to the right with the addition of Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
It seems that while liberals are all for trashing customs and traditions in the march to an egalitarian, collectivist society -- not to mention reason and justice -- some traditions become sacred to them if the trashing or violation jeopardizes the advances of the collectivists. Thus, Barnes’s worry that the precedent of the Supreme Court upholding McCain-Feingold in December 2003 may in turn be subjected to an unprecedented volte-face. Justices Roberts, Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas could well be the majority that reverses the Citizens United v. FEC and McConnell v. FEC rulings.

[For details concerning these and other McCain-Feingold and FEC-related cases, see The Campaign Finance Institute here.]

"Overruling Austin or McConnell in this case would be unwarranted and unseemly,” former solicitor general Seth P. Waxman told the court on behalf of McCain and other congressional sponsors. “Stare decisis requires respect for precedents absent a special justification for overruling them. No such justification exists."
Unwarranted? Unseemly? What old-fashioned terms! They sound almost “Republican.“

Yes, such a justification exists -- the First Amendment -- but no Supreme Court justice will cite it without paragraphs of rationalistic legal babble, or at least understand, adhere to, and expound its absoluteness: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The language is clear; that is justification enough.

The Court was wrong to uphold McCain-Feingold. It ought to have declared it unconstitutional at the first opportunity and in the strongest terms in December 2003. That was a precedent that should never have been made, and which should be corrected now-- in the strongest terms. But, we should not count on Chief Justice Roberts et al. to rule absolutely in upholding the First Amendment. Rationalizations and procedural niceties, going by their past decisions, will likely befog or obstruct their thinking.

On the other side of the freedom of speech coin is the issue of an attempt by the administration to co-opt the National Endowment for the Arts as a branch of the White House and convert it into a Joseph Goebbels-style Ministry of Propaganda (or as an American style, Orwellian Ministry of Truth). This development has given liberals painful stomach flutters, especially in those who campaigned for Obama.

It is a little too late for them to worry about the encroachment now. If they believed in and endorsed Obama’s campaign promises to undertake a radical “change” of the country to unadulterated socialism, they should have realized that it meant the “socialization” of everything, including art, which is protected by the First Amendment. One wonders why artists and writers believe themselves exempt from the slavery and servitude they advocate should be imposed on everyone else.

On August 25, Patrick C. Courrielche, columnist for Big Hollywood, reported on an unusual but unreported teleconference that occurred on August 5.

On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!”
Courrielche goes on to reveal:

The people running the conference call and rallying the group to get active on these issues were Yosi Sergant, the Director of Communications for the National Endowment for the Arts; Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for United We Serve; Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote; and Michael Skolnik, Political Director for Russell Simmons.
We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us. The now famous Obama “Hope” poster, created by artist Shepard Fairey and promoted by many of those on the phone call, and will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song and music video were presented as shining examples of our group’s clear role in the election.
Courrielche expresses his qualms and reservations about this event, which went mostly unreported by the MSM. In a follow-up to his column, he writes that it is doubtful that the NEA’s action has any legal basis for such recruitment, and reports further that when its role in the White House teleconference was revealed, the NEA denied any responsibility, and fobbed off that responsibility on a “third party.”

Courrielche believes in the existence of the NEA. He will not question the rightness of its existence. Government, he believes, has a responsibility to support and encourage the arts. So, he wonders:

The NEA is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. That is right, the largest funder of the arts in the nation – a fact that I’m sure was not lost on those that were on the call, including myself. One of the NEA’s major functions is providing grants to artists and arts organizations. The NEA has also historically shown the ability to attract “matching funds” for the art projects and foundations that they select. So we have the nation’s largest arts funder, which is a federal agency staffed by the administration, with those that they potentially fund together on a conference call discussing taking action on issues under vigorous national debate. Does there appear to be any potential for conflict here?
Yes, there is a major conflict of interest here: taxpayers coerced into paying for the “free expression” of dependent writers and artists. They must be satisfied with being involuntary donors to sustain the country’s “culture.“ But, this is the government calling in its loans and markers. He and his subsidized colleagues in the arts benefited from the looting of other taxpayers. He protests too much:

I’m not a “right-wing nut job.” It just goes against my core beliefs to sit quietly while the art community is used by the NEA and the administration to push an agenda other than the one for which it was created. It is not within the National Endowment for the Arts’ original charter to initiate, organize, and tap into the art community to help bring awareness to health care, or energy & environmental issues for that matter; and especially not at a time when it is being vehemently debated. Artists shouldn’t be used as tools of the state to help create a climate amenable to their positions, which is what appears to be happening in this instance. If the art community wants to tackle those issues on its own then fine. But tackling them shouldn’t come as an encouragement from the NEA to those they potentially fund at this coincidental time.
It is hardly “coincidental” that the NEA would become a party to the current White House plan to bombard Americans with leftist propaganda. It was in the cards. It does not occur to Courrielche that taxpayers should not be used as tools of the state to promote the careers of writers and artists, whatever the degree of their competence or lack of it.

And if you think that my fear regarding the arts becoming a tool of the state is still unfounded, I leave you with a few statements made by the NEA to the art community participants on the conference call. “This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare [sic] with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “
Safely? Isn’t that the first concern of a thief contemplating a crime? Of a bureaucrat “overreaching” his mandate, as Courrielche puts it? Isn’t usage of that term indicative of a mind habituated to felony? He ought to have known better. He was a former employee of the NEA and learned first-hand that since political pull governs who gets how much in taxpayer money to “support the arts,” it cannot be limited to that species of theft. When all the stops have been removed, as they have been throughout Obama’s administration, the practice will necessarily expand into other realms of political action.

Including drafting writers and artists into a White House-directed propaganda blitz to persuade Americans that the administration means no harm and that its goals are benign and glorious. The White House and the NEA do not give a fig about Courrielche’s “core beliefs.” They are irrelevant to power-lusters. You ate my bread. Now, sing my song. Or you get no more donuts. That is the message of the benefactors to the beneficiaries.

The Supreme Court should never have upheld McCain-Feingold. And Patrick Courrielche and his colleagues should never have taken government money to subsidize their careers, nor endorsed any government program that did. Robert Barnes is fearful that a modicum of reason might move the Court to reverse its stand on the selective censorship of McCain-Feingold. Courrielche, also allowing a quantum of reason to stir his own fears, is concerned that Obama, together with the NEA, is out to corrupt the integrity of tax-supported artists in whom integrity never existed.

Neither Barnes, nor the Supreme Court, nor Courrielche has ever grasped that reason is forever -- it is the indispensable means of man for his survival and happiness -- and that it cannot be discarded or evaded, in the short term or the long term. It will ultimately overtake and dispel the illusion that it can be dispensed with.

Speaking of freedom of speech, something moved Joe Wilson, Republican representative from South Carolina who has opposed the health care bill, to shout “You lie!” to Obama on September 9th as he addressed a joint session of Congress to plead for passage of the health care bill. Obama had just claimed that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for government-run health care insurance. He replied, “That’s not true.“ Well, why should anyone believe what Obama says is true or untrue? Wilson was immediately condemned by Democrats and Republicans for the “outburst.” Wilson should not be condemned, nor should he have apologized.

One newspaper reported that “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi directed a fierce frown at him…Vice President Joe Biden looked down and shook his head….” But, in the CNN video, which can be seen here, Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi glance sharply in the direction of Wilson -- like a pair of liars surprised in the act and their expressions full of malice for the person who surprised them.

One may ask: Wasn’t Wilson’s outburst disrespectful, unwarranted and unseemly? Hardly. How else was he to call to the country’s attention with any drama that the whole health care bill is a lie, and that Obama and Congressional supporters of it have lied about it from the very beginning? Wilson chose to not sit quietly while the President of the United States lied, and while his fellow Congressmen sanctioned what the knew was a lie with their silence.

In the face of falsehood, and in the presence of a falsifier, decorum and respect should be one's last concern.

Perhaps Wilson, too, grasped for a moment that reason is forever.

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 3 Comments

How 9/11 changed me

Prior to 9/11, I was a card carrying Democrat. A lefty, who lived in Obama's world.

To this day, I am surrounded by people in my family, who include Truthers, Black Nationalists and a mixed bag of head in the sand, socialists and lefties.

On 9/11, I was at work. At about 20 after 8 my time, a women who worked across the hall came running in, yelling "Did you hear?", a plane just crashed into one of the World Trade Center buildings!

Our initial reaction was, What? What happened? The feelings could be compared to a major crime had just taken place. Man! How awful!

Then, she came back in and told us that a plane had crashed into the other World Trade building.


Each of us escaped into our own private worlds.

I can't tell you what the other people in the office were thinking. But for me, my immediate thoughts went to Pearl Harbor.

I knew that we were under attack. I knew that odds of two planes, accidentally crashing into the World Trade Center buildings, was beyond a mathematical equation.

After the temporary lapse, when my co-workers came out of their private moments, there was momentary panic. What is going on? Are my children safe? Am I safe?

I called home. My boyfriends best friend was a government attorney, who went to the World Trade Center frequently. I told him to let me know as soon as possible if his friend was ok. A time of practical thought.

The owner of the company decided, just like many of owners in this country, that it was important to let our customers know that the world did not stop. That it was business as usual. I was pissed. I wanted to go home. I wanted to watch the news. I wanted to know what was going on. I wanted to know...............

I turned to the only source of information I had available. The internet. It was jammed. Just like myself, there were many thousands of people, held hostage by the owner of the company, who wanted the customers to "think" that everything was normal.

It wasn't. And it still isn't today.

Prior to 9/11, I was a card carrying Democrat. A lefty who lived in Obama's world.

How did 9/11 change you?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Christine at permanent link# 3 Comments

Friday, September 11, 2009

Joshua Bell
Ave Maria

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Posted by

- September 11th, 2009

National Insecurity Worsens


Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.


Think you’re safe on this anniversary of 9/11?

Think again.

The man who has been commissioned by Osama bin Laden to spearhead the next attack on American soil remains free and clear – - thanks to the bungling of federal law enforcement officials.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has called Adnan el-Shukrujumah “the next Mohammed Atta” – - a nuclear technician and computer scientist, who represents “a clear and imminent danger to all Americans.”

Shukrujumah’s face appeared on the front pages of newspapers and every televised news outlet throughout the United States and Canada in March 2003, when 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was arrested in Pakistan. Mr. Muhammad told his captors that a nuclear nightmare was in store for the United States and that the designated commander of the attack was Adnan el-Shukrujumah.

A special office for information that might lead to his arrest – - replete with a 24 hour hotline – - was set up in Miami, Florida.

Federal investigators combed South and Central America with the hope of gleaning a scintilla of evidence that might shed light on Adnan’s whereabouts – - since his father Gulshair had been born in Guyana.

The feds even established an elaborate sting operation in Guyana, Trinidad, and New York (the JFK plot) to snag the elusive fugitive – - but the operation only resulted in the creation yet another terrorist organization south of the border.

The U.S. Justice Department placed a $5 million reward for any information leading to his arrest, and the same bounty for each of his alleged accomplices: Amer el-Maati, Jaber A. Elbaneh, Anas al-Liby, and Abderraouf Jdey.

But if a team of bounty hunters had managed to collar Adnan el-Shukrujumah and his terrorist cronies, they would have been hard-pressed to turn them over to law enforcement officials, let alone to collect the aggregate $25 million.

The FBI and other federal law enforcement officials, even after posting rewards, setting up hotlines, and issuing BOLOs (“Be-on-the-Lookout” alerts), neglected to issue criminal warrants for their arrest.

This oversight remains mind-boggling. Adnan el-Shukrujumah worked with Mohammad Atta and the other 9/11 operatives; he masterminded a plan to launch a nuclear attack on American soil; he attended al Qaeda gatherings in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the Waziristan Summit of 2004; and he conspired with Jose Padilla and others to blow up bridges and infrastructures in New York City with radiological devices.

The search for Adnan el Shukrujumah remains littered with corpses, including that of prominent California businessman Farouk Razac.

Obtaining the necessary warrants would constitute the perfunctory matter of submitting a request to a federal judiciary.

Federal law enforcement officials explain this oversight by insisting that the issuance of a BOLO (Be-on-the-Lookout) and a warrant for Adnan as a material witness is all that is required to collar Adnan. They argue that suspected terrorists, under the guidelines of the Patriot Act, need not be fugitives, who have been indicted by grand juries in U. S. District Courts. This would be all well and good if Adnan was cornered within the U. S. But, if he was sitting in a café in Canada or Mexico, neither the BOLO nor the warrant as a material witness would have been sufficient to take him into custody and to extradite him to the U.S. for questioning.

“A material witness warrant has no weight at all in Canada,” explains a retired RCMP official who opts to remain anonymous “Our law enforcement officials cannot do anything unless there is a criminal offense that is extraditable.”

The failure to obtain arrest warrants remains coupled with other oversights of equally staggering proportions.

Several days after the BOLO was issued, Adnan was allegedly spotted at a Denny’s restaurant in Avon, Colo., where he ordered a chicken sandwich and a salad. Samuel Mac, the restaurant manager, described him as “demanding, rude and obnoxious.” Adnan reportedly told Mac he was from Iran and was driving from New York to the West Coast.

Upon calling the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., Mac said the agent who answered the telephone said he had to call the bureau’s Denver office and declined to take down any information.

When Mac called the Denver office of the FBI, he said he was shuttled to voice mail because “all the agents were busy.” It was five hours before a seemingly uninterested agent called the restaurant manager. This agent, according to Mac, took a few notes and said she would pass the information along to the field agents who were handling the case.

On October 31, 2006, members of a nationally known security group reportedly spotted Adnan el-Shukrijumah on the campus of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. They reported the sighting to the FBI and CSIS. At this writing, nearly three years later, they remain waiting for a response.

Similarly, a former Israeli intelligence official claims to have seen Shukrijumah on several occasions at a gas station in Toronto – - less than an hour’s drive from Hamilton. The Israeli says that he contacted FBI officials at four different locations only to be encountered by bureaucratic indifference. The sighting remains to be investigated.

Meanwhile eight years after 9/11, the American Muslim who was singled out to spearhead the “American Hiroshima” remains on the loose along and the next attack on U.S. soil looms as a certainty.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 8 Comments

9 1 s 1 a m

Bookmark and Share
posted by Bosch Fawstin at permanent link# 6 Comments

Rasmussen:Voters Turn Negative On All Political Labels Except Reagan

"Progressive" is becoming more of a dirty word, but all political labels - except "being like Ronald Reagan" - are falling into disfavor with many U.S. voters, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

"Liberal" is still the worst and remains the only political description that is viewed more negatively than positively. Being like Reagan is still the most positive thing you can say about a candidate.

Just 15% of voters say they view the description of a candidate as politically liberal as positive, down four points from last November. Forty-one percent (41%) see it as a negative description, up five points form the earlier survey, while 42% say it's somewhere in between.

Aware of their low ideological ratings, political liberals have shifted in recent times to calling themselves progressives, but that name, too, has begun to lose its luster. Thirty-two percent (32%) now consider it a positive to describe a candidate as politically progressive, but that's down from 40% just after the last election. Twenty-seven percent (27%) see it as negative label, up from 16%, and 36% put it somewhere in between the two.

Obama's FCC man on the Bill of Rights:"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration."


Obama recently approved CZAR of EXECUTIVE REGULATION: "My tentative suggestion is that the individual right to have guns as it's being conceptualized now is best taken as a contemporary creation and a reflection of current fears, not a reading of civic-centered founding debates. Modern gun owners who are invoking the Second Amendment on the basis of a principle they favor are perfectionists"


President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The episode--which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"--began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"


Darnell Nash, a voter in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, has been indicted by a grand jury for, among other things, illegal voting.

Nash was registered to vote by ACORN.

Ryan Miday, spokesman for Cuyahoga County, Ohio Prosecutor Bill Mason, a Democrat, just spoke with me.

Miday said an "investigation is continuing into activities by ACORN. Darnell Nash is the first we've charged in this ongoing investigation."

"ACORN workers approached him to fill out voter registration cards and he did so on nine different occasions using different names and addresses, then he actually registered and voted on Sept. 30 and voted with a different address and the address was an address here in the Cleveland area in a suburb called Shaker Heights."


SEIU Intimidation of Own Members

We have for some time been following the internal fight between the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the United Healthcare Workers (UHW) of California. After merging with the UHW the SEIU claimed that the UHW was officered by corrupt officials and claimed that the only way to cleanup the union was to put the union into trusteeship, conduct an investigation, and then rearrange the union by completely taking over the union and placing it directly under SEIU control.

The members of the UHW, of course, resented an outside group coming in and strong arming their elected leaders. Worse, they claimed that the "trustees" placed over them were hand-picked by DEIU President Andy Stern and would sever his interests, not theirs.

In any case, the SEIU won with its hostile take over of the UHW. However, that is not the end of the tale. Many members of the UHW quit the SEIU/UHW and started a new union. And the charges of the heavy handed tactics of the SEIU main office in Washington D.C. are still flying.

Of course, the reason the internal battle interests us is not because we support the old UHW or the new NUHW, but that this battle shows the ruthlessness to which the SEIU is prone. The SEIU is one of the most powerful unions in the country and if they are willing to do this to their own people, what are they going to do with the rest of us.



Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

And now 8 years to the day ..to Afghanistan


Democratic support for Afghan war waning

Democratic leaders in Congress urged the Obama administration Thursday to quickly produce a plan for winning the war in Afghanistan or risk widespread opposition within the president's own party to a new troop buildup.

Simmering congressional frustration could lead to tighter scrutiny and more limited resources, even if Capitol Hill ultimately does approve sending more U.S. troops to the war-torn nation, aides said.

"I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat to signal that a push for more troops will get a skeptical look.

Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha, chair of the powerful House Appropriations panel that oversees military spending, described himself as "very nervous" about sending more troops to Afghanistan and cited limited funds to do so.


In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid urged Democrats to resist rushing to judgment. But he, too, said he wanted to see President Barack Obama's plans for the military mission before adding more soldiers, pilots and Marines to the mix.

"Let's just take it easy," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters. "I don't think we need 100 secretaries of state. I think we should wait and give the president an opportunity to see what he recommends, and then we can dissect that any way we want."

The tepid support reflects growing impatience among lawmakers to see an on-the-ground assessment of the military situation in Afghanistan that was delivered last week to the White House.

Just so there is no misunderstanding. Leaving Afghanistan before some kind of government can efffectively KILL Taliban as well as Al Qaeda will not only cause the regrowth of a confident group of killers who WILL PLAN something far worse than what has happened, it will demonstrate FOR ALL TIME in the minds of our enemies that THIS AMERICA TODAY is not 1941's America, and that no causalties here among our innocents will ever be enough to cause us to go to war with unlimited savage intent, and kill all that need be killed unto all generations.

All other conclusions are DELUSION

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 3 Comments


The Islamic Jihadis will do anything they can to kill as many of us as is possible. They will do whatever they can to kill as many of us as is possible. If they can get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will use them against us.

They would like nothing more than to bring down our civilization.

Therefore, we must work to strengthen our understanding of what it is that makes our civilization great. We must understand that the precious freedoms we are afforded are a treasure. We must understand their origin.

And, we must understand how fragile our life is, and that Western Civilization is a unique oasis of goodness when seen in the scope of the barbarity of history. We can not afford to lose our civilization and it's values. We must do anything we have to to protect our beautiful culture.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 13 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts