February 7, 2007
Feb 07 00:06 Gore On Warpath Feb 07 00:30 Democrats to Get More Progressive Feb 07 04:54 Hillary's Leftward Lurch Feb 07 14:59 Radical Islamic Agenda Exposed Feb 07 19:10 Carter Criticizes Simon Wiesenthal Center Feb 07 22:29 Baghdad Offensive Begins
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
Gore On Warpath
According to this article, Al Gore is accusing the Bush administration of buying scientists' opinions:
Former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.I agree with Gore on one thing: It's definitely time to act. It's just that it's time to stop believing this myth about global warming being manmade. It's time that we stopped believing 'scientists' who can't prove what's causing the Earth to warm. It's time that we started challenging DEMagogues like Gore when they insist that the IPCC report is a scientific, not political document.
During an interview with CNN affiliate Cuatro in Madrid, Gore said, "they've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act."
If Gore is so certain of the validity of his positions, then let's see him debate Michael Crichton on the subject. Gore won't because he knows that he's defending the indefensible. He knows that he'd get creamed by a true expert and scientist.
You'll notice that Gore isn't asked to defend his position by CNN. You'll also notice that Gore isn't afraid to slander President Bush. You'll also notice that Gore doesn't offer proof of his allegations against President Bush.
Unfortunately, that's what you'd expect from a sleazy demagogue like Al Gore.
Posted Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:07 AM
No comments.
Democrats to Get More Progressive
That's what will happen if this AP article is accurate. Here's why I have that opinion:
Steve Rosenthal, a former political director for the AFL-CIO who helped build the new coalition, said the group wanted to highlight members of Congress who were out of step with their congressional districts. "We used Tauscher, Cuellar and Wynn as good examples," he said. "But we didn't want to make the whole discussion or debate about those three members."It's downright scary to think that there's a group out there that thinks that Ellen Tauscher and Albert Wynn aren't progressive enough. That should tell you everything about this new organization and its goals.
The Web site now features Jim Webb, the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia, as a lawmaker who "is working for us." It applauds Webb's official Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union speech for singling out economic disparities and lamenting job losses, higher college tuition and more expensive health care.
"We will put a spotlight on best behavior and bad behavior," Rosenthal said. "We'll now accept nominations for people who really are out of step." In addition to Rosenthal, the coalition also includes top officials from MoveOn.org, the liberal grass-roots organizing group, several unions and blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who founded the DailyKos Web site.
This marks a change of strategy for Moulitsas, most likely because he knows that Kos can't win without Big Labor's help. That doesn't mean that he'll moderate his message. It simply means that he's pulling the Democrats so far left that good 'moderates' like Joe Lieberman are getting run out of the party. Their leftward pull is so dramatic that it'll likely cost Hillary the presidency.
Posted Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:32 AM
No comments.
Hillary's Leftward Lurch
Tony Blankley nails it in his latest column on the state of the Democratic presidential nomination process. Here's his most astute observation:
If the news from Iraq turns around over the next year and a half, the Democrats, as the party of defeat, will likely themselves be defeated. But even if the news from Iraq stays bad, or gets worse, the increasingly dangerous world that such events would reveal to the American electorate may well suggest to the voters that, whatever the mistakes of George Bush, in such a dangerous world they cannot rely on the hard-core anti-war mentality of Hillary Clinton, or any other cut-and-run Democrat (or Republican).The biggest reason why George Bush won in 2004 is because people understood that we couldn't afford a pacifist president in wartime. According to the various polls that I read that year, Democrats got much higher ratings for handling the economy, something I didn't understand considering the great economy. President Bush made up that difference and then some when the subject was national security.
Hillary voted for the AUMF because she thought that she couldn't win if she voted against it. She knew that she'd be rightly perceived as weak on defense. She maintained that pro-war stance until Sen. Bayh and Gov. Warner left the field, leaving only lefties to run against. In that situation, Hillary had to outflank them on the left, which I suspect will prove fatal.
As the Democratic Party presidential aspirants finished their speeches last week to the Democratic Party winter meeting, the early big political fact is the dangerous populist and anti-war pull that the candidates feel. This is particularly dangerous for Sen. Hillary Clinton as she ratchets up, almost weekly, her anti-war Iraqi rhetoric and policy.Hillary's anti-war rhetoric now will hurt her with swing voters. It isn't that these voters are paying close attention to the candidates like political junkies like am. It's that we're remembering all her outlandish statements, then saving them for September and October of 08. That's when these statements will come back to haunt her. She'll be forced to defend her statements, which will damage her in the heartland states where this election is likely to be won.
A couple weeks back, I saw something on YouTube from Saturday Night Live where a Hillary character was asked about her vote to go to war. The Hillary in the skit said something along the lines of "Well, I never would've voted for that if I knew I could have gotten away with it." That's likely to be replayed on the RNC website in October, 2008 because it reminds people that Hillary doesn't stand for anything for very long. Bill got away with that because people thought we were at peace. They won't tolerate a spineless flip-flopper now because the stakes are too high.
In short, people want a leader. They don't want an opportunist who will say anything to get elected.
Posted Wednesday, February 7, 2007 4:56 AM
No comments.
Radical Islamic Agenda Exposed
We now have proof that radical Islam's indoctrination knows no bounds thanks to this article. Here's the shocking admission:
The principal of an Islamic school has admitted that it uses textbooks which describe Jews as "apes" and Christians as "pigs" and has refused to withdraw them. Dr Sumaya Alyusuf confirmed that the offending books exist after former teacher Colin Cook, 57, alleged that children as young as five are taught from racist materials at the King Fahd Academy in Acton. In an interview on BBC2's Newsnight, Dr Alyusuf was asked by Jeremy Paxman whether she recognised the books.It's common knowledge that the Saudis supply this type of textbook to madrassas all across the Middle East. This article is the first I've read that talks about this type of textbook being used in Western Europe. What's most unnerving are that the principal readily admits that they're using this type of textbook and that they won't withdraw them from the classroom.
She said: "Yes, I do recognise these books, of course. We have these books in our school. These books have good chapters that can be used by the teachers. It depends on the objectives the teacher wants to achieve."
These books should be banned from every civilized nation because of their hateful nature. This nonsense that "these books have good chapters that can be used by the teachers" is this principal's public rationalization. Their real goal is to keep indoctrinating children with these books. That should stop ASAP. If these madrassas refuse to get rid of these books, then law enforcement should confiscate the books.
There isn't any justification for this type of literature being part of civilized society. Here's another alarming exchange:
The school is owned, funded and run by the government of Saudi Arabia. Mr Paxman asked: "Will you now remove this nonsense from the Saudi Ministry of Education from your school?"Dr. Alyusuf isn't telling the truth when she admits in one sentence that the books teach children that Jews are apes and Christians are pigs, then says that "we don't teach hatred towards Judaism or Christianity..." Are we to believe that 5-year-olds are able to comprehend that Jews and Christians are subhuman but that they aren't to be hated? Are we to believe that these children aren't taught that pigs are considered unclean by their teachers and imams one day, then taught that Christians aren't to be hated? Here's what Debbie Schlussel wrote about Muslims and pigs:
Dr Alyusuf replied: "Just to reiterate what I said earlier, there are chapters from these books that are used and that will serve our objectives. But we don't teach hatred towards Judaism or Christianity ...on the contrary."
SHANGHAI -- Next month, China will ring in the Year of the Pig. Nestle SA planned to celebrate with TV ads featuring a smiling cartoon pig. "Happy new pig year," the ads said. This week, China Central Television, the national state-run TV network, banned Nestle's ad, and all images and spoken references to the animal in commercials, including those tied to the Lunar New Year, China's biggest holiday.My point in this is to show people that madrassas teach their children from a very early age that they are to hate Jews and Christians because they're subhuman and unclean. Here's something that MEMRI-TV wrote on the subject:
The intent: to avoid offending Muslims, who consider pigs unclean. "China is a multiethnic country," the network's ad department said in a notice sent to ad agencies late Tuesday. "To show respect to Islam, and upon guidance from higher levels of the government, CCTV will keep any 'pig' images off the TV screen."
For example, in a weekly sermon in April 2002, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs."[1]These imams' preaching that Jews are licentious, evil and corrupt and that Allah has turned them into apes and pigs for being evil and corrupt paints a far different picture than Dr Alyusuf is telling to the western media. My recommendation is to ignore the things that the Dr. Alyusufs of the world say to western media and focus solely on what the imams say when they're playing to a 'friendly' audience. That's when you'll hear what they really believe.
In one of his sermons, Saudi sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam and preacher at the Al-Haraam mosque, the most important mosque in Mecca, beseeched Allah to annihilate the Jews. He also urged the Arabs to give up peace initiatives with them because they are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."[2]
"Read history," called Al-Sudayyis in another sermon, "and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [others'] words, calf-worshipers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers...the scum of the human race 'whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs...' These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption..."[3]
The proof is there. I have two questions for you: Will you listen? Will you act on what you've heard? The safety of our nation depends on your decision.
Posted Wednesday, February 7, 2007 3:01 PM
No comments.
Carter Criticizes Simon Wiesenthal Center
When last we heard from Jimmy Carter, he was trying to limit the damage from his one-sided book. According to this article, he's criticizing the Simon Wiesenthal Center, saying that they've slandered him. Here's Carter's shot:
"I don't believe Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds," Carter wrote last month in a handwritten letter to the head of the human rights center that bears the name of the late Holocaust survivor and Nazi hunter. The petition does not require payment to be sent, though Carter's letter suggests it is being used as a fundraising tool.Rabbi Marvin Hier replied:
"I believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have been as outraged by your book, 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,' as I was," Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, wrote in a Feb. 2 response to Carter.Considering all the controversy surrounding the petition, let's look at the petition itself and determine if it has merit.
The only thing that's controversial about that section is President Carter's characterization of Israel's act. Here's the next point of the petition:FACT: President Carter deliberately overlooks that in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak went to Camp David and offered Yassir Arafat 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and part of the Old City of Jerusalem for a Palestinian State, along with $30 billion in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Arafat's response: launching the bloody Intifada which targeted innocent civilians in restaurants, malls, schools, and religious services with suicide terror attacks. Had Arafat accepted Israel's offer at Camp David there would have long been a Palestinian State alongside Israel.
- Here are some of President Carter's key allegations in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid:Israel's "occupation and colonialization" of the West Bank and Gaza is the reason there is no peace.
After people criticized Carter for using the word apartheid, Carter immediately backtracked, saying that he merely wanted to provoke a dialogue on the Palestinian-Israeli situation. It's fair to say that the fence is perfectly justifiable from Israel's standpoint because Palestinian terrorists were flocking into Israel like college students flock to South Beach this time of year. Nations have the right to defend themselves. It's even in the U.N. Charter.FACT: Israel's temporary security fence has been an effective deterrent in thwarting unending Palestinian suicide terror attacks which have dropped over 90% since its construction. Israel has said that the fence will come down when the Palestinian terror stops. Israel is entitled to protect her citizens from outside threats in the same way as with any sovereign country. It is interesting to note that during his presidency President Carter correctly chose to continue the U.S. embargo of its Soviet-allied neighbor, Cuba because he perceived it as a continuing potential national security threat.
- Israel's 'Wall' has virtually choked-off the Palestinian economy and in many ways is worse than South Africa's former Apartheid system.
I strongly recommend you read the entire petition. I'll guarantee that you'll agree with me that the Simon Wiesenthal Center didn't cheapshot President Carter. Rather, it's the other way around. President Carter has perverted the truth of what's happened during the Israeli-Palestinian war. That's why he's received so much criticism from so many different directions. There's a reason why Alan Dershowitz challenged him to a debate. There's a reason why his advisers at the Carter Center quit.
These things happened because Jimmy Carter took liberties with the truth. That's why the Simon Wiesenthal Center took issue with his book.
Posted Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:12 PM
No comments.
Baghdad Offensive Begins
The AP is reporting that the anticipated Iraqi-American offensive in Baghdad has started:
Baghdad's streets were electric with tension Wednesday as U.S. officials confirmed the new security operation was under way. U.S. armor rushed through streets, and Iraqi armored personnel carriers guarded bridges and major intersections. New coils of barbed-wire and blast barriers marked checkpoints that caused traffic bottlenecks. U.S. Apache helicopters whipped the air over parts of the capital where they hadn't been seen before.Democrats will be holding their breath while this offensive is underway. If this offensive dramatically decreases the violence, then their presidential hopefuls will have a difficult fight to convince voters that they're pro-victory. Democrats are invested in defeat. I don't say that with any joy. I don't say that simply because I disagree with Democrats philosophically. I say that because their actions consistently tell what they believe.
It isn't accident that John Murtha has advocated abandoning the Iraqi patriots. It isn't accident that every major Democrat seeking the presidential nomination has renounced their vote on the war. It isn't accident that they're offering up resolutions that don't have defeating the terrorists as their first priority.
Posted Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:30 PM
No comments.
