All Talk and No U.N. Action

Iran has managed to defy resolutionU.N. Security Council which calls for the stoppage of it’s processing of uranium. It has supported Hezbollah in its attack against Israel and it has questioned the reality of the Holocaust yet when called into account for these actions Iran has been able to turn the responsibility for their actions on Israel and the United States.

Kofi Annan has been snobbed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding uranium processing and did not appear with the U.N. Diplomat at the post meeting news conference. Also Iran announced during Mr. Annan’s visit that it would host a conference to examine what it called exaggerations about the Holocaust.

Tehran hid it's nuclear program for 18 years as well as Tehran's continued lack of full cooperation with U.N. inspectors has increased suspicions about Iranian aims. Iran insists the program is peaceful, intended only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity.

Iran's slowness in responding to the incentives package prompted the Security Council to issue a resolution July 31 ordering it to halt uranium enrichment by the end of August.

Iran claimed that any resolution by the Security Council would be pressured by the United States or Britain thereby making any sanctions by the six member body tainted by Western influence.

Here’s the outrageousness of Iran’s thinking. They hide their nuclear program for 18 years and they now claim that it is the West that must repair relations with Tehran?

"Iran's trust has been undermined during the past three years," Iranian Foreign Minister Moocher Mistake said. "They (the West) should try to win our trust to solve the issue."

Outrageous! Instead of the Secretary General representing the world’s interest by demanding Iran’s compliances with U.N. resolutions he has allow Iran to use his visit as a propaganda campaign against the U.N. the West, Israel, the United States and Britain.

What’s clear is that Iran has figured out the weaknesses in the diplomatic approach of the United Nations. The United Nations is all talk and no action which gives Tehran all the room it needs to keep the West at bay while Iran gains time and resources to arm itself with nuclear weaponry.

The blame falls squarely on Russia and China who are the members on the Security Council that keep any U.N. resolution weak or useless because of their support for Iran as well as their low grade cold war against West.

DEADLINE MEETS DEFIANCE

The United Nations, which is supposed to be representative of the world, verses Iran.

The U.N. says that Iran must stop refining uranium but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the President of Iran says, "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights.”

The United Nations has set a deadline for Iran to stop its uranium refinement today, Thursday August 31, 2006 and has offered many incentives to this end but Iran has disregarded the deadline and continues to refine uranium.

The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany offered Iran earlier this summer a package of incentives in exchange for a commitment from Tehran to freeze enrichment so talks could begin.
But Tehran's response earlier this month made clear the country was not willing to suspend enrichment before talks, let alone consider a long-term moratorium on such activity.

My question is what’s next for all the experts that believe in negotiating with terrorists and nation states that support terrorism.

It is plain to see that negotiations only work if there are two parties that are willing to work toward a mutual goal. So what is that goal? To the U.N. it is world peace and the nonproliferation of nuclear weaponry but apparently that is not the case with Iran. And isn’t negotiation supposed to be about compromise?

"At the moment, Iran has no use whatsoever for enriched uranium - unless it is planning to build the bomb," so says German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier

The West has struggled for years with incentives to persuade Iran to roll back its nuclear program. But Tehran has negotiated by its own rules and kept its eyes constantly on a long-term prize: forcing the world to accept its nuclear ambitions.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, defiantly refused to compromise as a U.N. deadline for his country to stop enriching uranium arrived today saying Tehran would not be bullied into giving up its right to nuclear technology.

Today's International Atomic Energy Agency report said that after three years of inspections, the agency still has not been able to confirm "the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program" because of a lack of cooperation from Tehran.

Why this is Saddam Hussein all over again! Maybe Jimmy Carter would like to try his hand at negotiating with Ahmadinejad. The last time Carter negotiated with Iran, Iran was holding 52 American hostages. Iran held them for 444 days but when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States suddenly Iran released all 52 hostages.

Then again maybe not Carter… and if the United Nations can’t do this deal what good are they?

Plame-gate is OVER

Plame-gate is OVER

Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday.

This was leak enforced the Bush lied us into war meme that was started by Joseph Wilson IV and the MSM.

Since then Joseph Wilson has been revealed as the one lying and no one in the White house has been connected to outing the identity of his wife for vengeance.

All Bush bashers owe the President apologies for three years of lies and conspiracy theories.

Wronging every Right Normalization is the Agenda

What an auspices occasion the nations first same-sexcivil union has officially split up to which Beth Robinson, chairwoman of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force said the union's end shows that the state's civil union law is working.

Thus according to Robinson this exercise in propaganda was only to convince the America people that homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals.

"One of the goals was to create a mechanism to protect people in a relationship and create a mechanism to help people dissolve relationships," she said. "Same-sex relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships. Sometimes they last, sometimes they don't."--Beth Robinson

In an Orwellian world a homosexual relationship equals a heterosexual relationship. While this statement is not true Machiavellian forces are propagating this, as well as, the idea that wrong is right in American society.

All this time you thought it was your own progressiveness and open-mindedness that lead you to accept homosexuality. You didn't know that you had been manipulated by Madison Avenue propaganda.

David Ehrensteinwriting for the Capitol Times,Madison, Wisconson believes that homosexuality is now apart of the American mainstream. Ehrenstein believes that even though the gay agenda has suffered tremendous and devastating losses this year in the Courts, an institution which homosexuals had counted on to be gay friendly, homosexuality is now embraced by a majority in the society.

He cites movie and television homosexual shills who now openly engage in their unusual sexual proclivitist relationships while he negatively refers to "traitorous" Ann Heche who was hetero turned homo turned hetero again he believes that Ms. Heche’s social rejection is her come uppenance for betraying the big lie that once homo you can never go back to hetero.

Ehrenstein then exposes his ignorance regarding the homosexual agenda he names the AIDS epidemic as the turning point in social acceptance of homosexuality.

While the epidemic was the catalyst for social acceptance of homosexuality the actual cause for acceptance of homosexuality in American public life was the result of two Homosexual advocates.

Marshall Kirk a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen a Harvard PhD of Politics and an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing, these two men used sophisticated Orwellian psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques in the 1980’s to change the social perception about homosexuality in America and as a result of their work homosexuality is gaining acceptance and a status of normality in the American society.

A recent Reuters report suggest that 56 percent opposed giving gays the right to marry, but 53 percent favored allowing gays to enter into legal agreements that provide many of the same rights as married couples. "There has been an increase ... in the proportion of Americans who believe homosexuality is innate 36 percent, up from 30 percent in 2003. Similarly, 49 percent believed homosexuals cannot be changed to heterosexual, compared to 42 percent in 2003."

Many homosexual advocates and their supports see this as the tide turning regarding social acceptance of homosexual behavior in America. These changes in social percept regarding homosexuality are results of the work of Kirk and Madsen.

Nevertheless, the fact that the society has been brainwashed by homosexual shills is no reason to preen politically correct feathers while completely disregarding the fact that homosexuality has virually ended marriagein ultra Liberal Scandinavia where homosexuality is embraced and gay marriage is allowed as a civil right.

Will American heed the warnings of socially bankrupted Scandinavia? Unfortunately, if not, what has happened in Europe portents to be the fate for America once the the brainwashing of America by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen is complete.

Harry Reid the most powerful man in Washington

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., objected to allowing a vote on the bill. He spoke only a few moments before uttering the name of disgraced influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

"Washington has been run by the lobbyists. The Jack Abramoff scandal is no surprise," Reid said in his opening remarks.

Corporations that without the bill might be required to pay billions in legal awards to victims should be "jumping with joy," Reid added. "They were able to buy their way into the Senate paying for a bunch of lobbyists."

"Slander!" responded Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the bill's sponsor, whose stewardship of the bill for more than two years helped it survive the committee process to become the first new legislation considered by the Senate this year.

"To accuse us of being the pawns of the lobbyists is — is — is beyond slander, beyond insult," Specter stammered. "It's beyond outrage."

Even Specter isn't predicting success here. He made the argument that in forcing a test vote — the way the Democrats did on the USA Patriot Act and judicial nominees — Reid is acting on politics rather than the substance of the bill.

"What he's seeking to do is obstruct, and he's had a lot of practice at that," Specter said.
For his part, Reid offered a hat-in-hand apology for casting aspersions on the motives of "my friend from Pennsylvania." As evidence of his high esteem for Specter, Reid offered a distinctly senatorial — if backhanded — compliment.

"I'm one of the few people around who have read his book," Reid said. "I enjoyed reading his book."

Link


That exchange is typical for Harry Reid, former pugilist but ever the fighter, the most powerful man in Washington D.C.

Senator Reid is a master obstructionist and his obstructionism shames the likes of former Senator Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) Daschle was a soft spoken leader who did not carry the big stick that “Givem Hell Harry” carries. Daschle repeatedly failed to hold the Democratic conference together but in contrast that’s not a problem for Senator Reid. Reid is tough; he was willing, perhaps determined, to slap down the likes of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) recently when the former presidential candidate implicitly challenged his leadership. According to one account, Reid went so far as to belittle Kerry’s presidential campaign.

Reid has also accused Alan Greenspan of being “one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington” because the iconic past Federal Reserve chairman gave it as his opinion that Social Security reform is “overdue.” The stance of the Democrats is that it is, rather, wholly unnecessary.

Senator Reid, therefore, quite willing to be savagely blunt in his rhetoric and is spoiling for a fight. He has suggested he regrets his extraordinary criticism of Justice Clarence Thomas in January, but that attack, too, put down a marker for the Democrats. And his threat to shut down the Senate in the event that the GOP deploys the nuclear option of changing the rules to end the filibuster of judicial nominees appeared to have rattled the Republican leadership.

As for holding the Democrats together in opposition to President Bush and stopping the President’s agenda Reid has stopped cold Social Security reform. Reid’s absolute determination to prevent President Bush from winning a major policy victory with Social Security, and his sharp tongue and elbows have made it plain to his conference that there will be a price to pay for stepping out of line. No Democratic senator looks likely to back reform without two or three others for company.

"As far as I'm concerned, there will be no privatization" of even a small portion of workers' Social Security contributions, he said, rejecting what the president trumpeted as a priority at a White House conference. And Senate Republicans, he said, "will rue the day" they try to carry out a threat to end a senator's right to filibuster judicial nominees.
Those are the words of a battler, not an appeaser, say those who know Reid, Link

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. knows how tough Sen. Reid is. Sen. Santorum, said every attempt to reach across party lines on Social Security had "met with a partisan obstructionism that is as rock-solid as the marble before me on the rostrum" in the Senate chamber.
Initially, he said the president and Republican supporters "tried to throw the long ball." Now, "we're just going to try to run off-tackle here ... to see if we can get the ball down the field."
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid blocked Santorum's effort to force a full floor debate on the measure. "This legislation is a sham. S-H-A-M," he said. "Social Security benefits are guaranteed today. ... It's the law of the land." And with that Senator Reid killed the President’s Social Security plan.

After tying the 109th Congress up with procedural tricks the Democrats are now criticizing the Republican controlled Congress as a "do-nothing" Congress and guess who that charge is coming from?

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who is urging "Bush Republicans" to stop playing politics and address the "real challenges the American people face every day."

In a speech on the Senate floor, Reid noted that the Senate is running out of time to address "serious issues" such as gasoline prices, health care costs and the minimum wage.Link

Senator Reid has stop the Bush Administration’s efforts to bring legislation forward in Congress, stolen the momentum of the Republican controlled Congress and blamed the President and the Congress of being a “do-nothing” body.

Senator Harry Reid is clearly the most powerful man in Washington D.C. he sets the agenda and the President and Congress are stymied by his every move.

So much for a Republican controlled Congress we all know who is in control in Washington D.C. and it isn’t Alexander Haig who wrongly assumed that he was in charge after President Reagan was shot. No “Givem Hell” Harry Reid is in charge of Washington D.C.

And nothing will get done in Washington if Senator Reid doesn’t approve!

Quid pro quo Impeach, Impeach, Impeach

Rep. John Conyers
They’ve already had mock impeachment hearings in the basement of the Congress building June 16, 2005 John Conyers presiding over the festivities.

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.


Rep. John Conyers Jr., center, and other Democrats held a mock Judiciary Committee hearing as a protest against the war in Iraq.
Rep. John Conyers Jr., center, and other Democrats held a mock Judiciary Committee hearing as a protest against the war in Iraq.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

Link


So it is not surprising neither is it in doubt that Democrat pay back is inevitable if Democrats take control of the House that they will impeach President George W. Bush.

But that’s kind of talk is supposed to be kept on the downlow can’t rile up unsuspecting Conservatives with that kind of talk so Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are attempting to keep that kind of talk under wraps.

But if Democrats manage to take the House this November America is in for the most explosive and divisive times this side of the civil war.

After Democrat all out war against the Republican lead government starting with the 2000 presidential elections there is no question that Democrats will move against the Republican Icon George W. Bush if they are given the opportunity this November.

Democrat vitriol and loathing of Conservatives doesn’t leave anything to the imagination there can be no doubt that if Democrats are given the opportunity they will Impeach President Bush Quid pro quo to answer the William Jefferson Clinton Impeachment.

But if Conservatives catch wind of the stench of this kind of Democratic partisan putridcy there will not be any Democratic control in the House neither will Democrats gain power for quite a long time.

Democrats will be confined to play acting in the basement of Congress where Congressmen John Conyers can call for impeachment, reparations or fried chicken since he continues to use race and hatred to divide this nation.

1000’s of Cell phone bombs in the United States?

Disposable cell phones have become a tool of terrorists for good reason they are untraceable, can be used to contact members of a terrorist cell and can even detonate explosives. Not to mention the buying and selling of the phones can be used to fund terrorism. However it has been discovered that in Caro and Ithaca Michigan disposable cell phones are being purchased by the thousands.

While police aren't saying yet that's what these phones would have been used for the mass amounts purchased are causing concern.

Around 1:00am August 11th the three men purchased cell phones from the Wal-Mart store on M-81 near the corner of M-24 in Caro. Wal-Mart places a limit on the number of cell phones that can be purchased at once, that number is three. The three men allegedly bought 80 by purchasing them three at time so that an alert wouldn't be triggered by the cash register. They also paid cash.

The three men are described as being of Palestinian descent but live in Texas. Police say the three, ages 19, 22, and 23 appear to be naturalized citizens.

One man was driving while the other two were in the back opening the phone packages with box cutters throwing the phones in one box, batteries in another and the packaging and phone charger in another container. The suspects had 1000 other cell phones in the van. There was also a bag of receipts showing that someone was in Wisconsin the day before.

The three suspects are now facing two counts each of Homeland Security Terrorism charges. All three suspects are due to be arraigned August 12th

While FBI agents pour into Caro another incident breaks out in Gratiot County. At approximately 11:35am August 11th police were called to the Dollar General Store in Ithaca after a" clerk in Ithaca became suspicious after two men came into the store, and became upset when they were turned down while trying to buy several disposal cell phones.

In light of the recent foiled terrorist plot to blow up eleven flights from Britain bound to the United States incidents such as the aforementioned, in the next days and months, should be regarded with extreme caution by the National Homeland Security agency.

What happened to the Culture of Corruption?

Maybe we should ask Nancy Pelosi , Jack Murtha or Harry Reid. The Culture of Corruption was the Democrat Mantra and key to winning in 2006 and 2008. So where is it?

Christina Bellantoni reports in the Washinton Times that Democrats have gone mum on the term but why? Bellantoni believes that the Democrats stopped the COC talk when FBI officials revealed they found $90,000 in marked $100 bills in Louisiana Democrat Rep. William J. Jefferson's freezer. Rep. Jefferson was videotaped accepting $100,000 that officials say was a bribe.

And then there was also Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia Democrat, has been accused of directing $178 million to nonprofits in his state whose leaders were donors to his campaigns.

According to Bellantoni those two corrupt Democrats forced House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, to change the corruption claim into one saying only that Republicans are incompetent and beholden to special interests. (That's quite a down grade!) She told the Hill newspaper in June that Democrats' "culture of corruption" message was ending, and it was "time to talk about us."

Okay I'm with that let's talk about them. Remember Senator Harry Reid's claim that not a penny of Jack Abramoff money went to any Democrat? This is what Senator Reid said on PBS:

“This is a Republican scandal. Jack Abramoff gave a quarter of a million dollars to Republicans and Republicans only.”

At a televised press conference in Phoenix, where Mr. Reid was promoting the Senate candidacy of Jim Pederson, he was hit by a barrage of questions that challenged his assertion that the Democrats did not receive any money in connection with the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. To which the good Senator replied:

"Not a single penny of the money from Jack Abramoff ... went to a Democrat. Now he has lots of clients. But the fact of the matter is that any money that I've received has come from people who have given me money over a period of time, and Jack Abramoff's fingerprints [are] not anywhere,"

But upon examination it was found that, Mr. Reid received $30,500 from three Indian tribes for whom Abramoff lobbied during an recent election cycle, according to a reassessment of political contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which has compiled campaign funds given to lawmakers by Abramoff, his associates or clients he represented.

Also, other public-interest groups report that Mr. Reid has received about $61,000 between 2001 and 2004 from clients represented by Abramoff, contributions that the senator has refused to return because, he says, they were not illegal.

Joe Cannon a Utah Republican Chairman during Senator Reid's stop in the state indicates that Senator Reid received much more than a penny, Cannon said:

"One of the biggest beneficiaries of Jack Abramoff is Harry Reid,"

In a Washington Times Editorial June 21, 2006-The real Jack Murtha- it is reported by the Los Angeles Times that Rep. Murtha, the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee over saw defense appropriations to his brother Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

Finally, in the 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

Culture of Corruption? No I'm thinking that the Democrats don't want to travel to far down the road of, “The Cultural of Corruption” because Dems are sure to run into themselves on that road. But as for the Pelosism, “Republicans are incompetent and beholden to special interests ” that is a road that can be well traveled by Democrats because like Democrats the Republicans ARE beholden to special interest only the Republicans are so incompetent that they allow Democrats to point an accusatory finger at them with no answer or rebuttal.

Walk “away” like an Egyptian

Or at least disappear like one. Why is it that 11 Muslim men who all fit the profile of potential terrorists are missing in the United States? According to the FBI this is a nation wide alert the specific region of interest is the eastern seaboard--from Maine to Florida.

On July 29, 2006 twenty Egyptian students scheduled to attend an English and academics skills program at Montana State University from July 30 to August 26, 2006. Six students arrived to the school, three students were denied entry into the United States for security reasons and eleven students failed to report to the University after entering the United States.

The FBI reports, the predicate for this alert is that these eleven men are in the U.S. illegally and are wanted for questioning. They advise if seen those men are to be approached with caution.

The men are:

1. IBRAHIM, EL SAYED AHMED ELSAYED; DOB OF 4/29/1986, PASSPORT 954757
2. EL DESSOUKI, ESLAM IBRAHIM MOHAMED; DOB OF 02/21/1985, PASSPORT 1002756
3. EL BAHNASAWI, ALAA ABD EL FATTAH ALI; DOB OF 04/02/1986, PASSPORT 934679
4. ABD ALLA, MOHAMED RAGAB MOHAMED; DOB OF 02/15/1984, PASSPORT 860972
5. EL LAKET, AHMED REFAAT SAAD EL MOGHAZI; DOB OF 09/01/1986, PASSPORT 943306
6. EL ELA, AHMED MOHAMED MOHAMED ABOU; DOB OF 02/02/1985, PASSPORT 595081
7. EL MOGHAZY, MOHAMED IBRAHIM ELSAYED; DOB OF 08/08/1986, PASSPORT 861073
8. ABDOU, EBRAHIM MABROUK MOUSTAFA; DOB OF 02/25/1984, PASSPORT 828682
9. EL GAFARY, MOUSTAFA WAGDY MOUSTAFA; DOB OF 07/01/1988, PASSPORT 861673
10. MARAY, MOHAMED SALEH AHMED; DOB OF 09/12/1985, PASSPORT 862634
11. EL SHENAWY, MOHAMED IBRAHIM FOUAAD; DOB OF 08/12/1988, PASSPORT 862534

These students arrived at JFK International Airport on 29 July 2006, but failed to continue on to Montana as scheduled.

Update:

Three Egyptian students who were being sought for failing to turn up for an exchange program at Montana State University were taken into custody Wednesday, more than a week after they arrived in the United States.
One student was arrested in Minnesota, and two others surrendered to authorities in New Jersey. They were among 11 students being sought by law enforcement after they failed to attend a monthlong program on the English language and U.S. history and culture in Bozeman, Mont., the FBI said.

Eslam Ibrahim Mohamed El-Dessouki, 21, was taken into custody in Minneapolis on an immigration violation. Two other students _ Mohamed Ragab Mohamed Abd Alla and Ebrahim Mabrouk Moustafa Abdou, both 22 _ surrendered to police in Manville, N.J., after hearing media reports that they were wanted, FBI spokesman Steven Siegal said.
Eight students remain at large.

They arrived in New York on July 29 as part of a group of 17 students. Six students reported to Bozeman on time.
The missing students pose no terrorism threat, the FBI said.

RADICALS!

Anti-war Protest NYC

On the defeat of three-term moderate Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary to Anti-Bush, Anti-war challenger Ned Lamont the Democrats have signaled that they are no longer satisfied with being part of the political mainstream. Democrats have turned to the dark side, the netroot hard leftist Anti-Israel radical dark side of their party.

There is no room in the party for moderates like Joe Lieberman or for that matter a Democrat Conservative like Zell Miller, the only good Democrat is a radical liberal Democrat that hates Bush and hates the war.

This is a party sired out of the George Soros moveon.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the Daily Kos movement and is driven by hatred and fanaticism. This turn to the hard left will certainly make it impossible to connect with Conservatives. And whether Democrats care to acknowledge it or not, they need Conservative cross over votes to win in 2008, but any Conservative liberal or moderate will have a hard time finding anything in common with the netroot haters on the radical Democrat left.

Any hope of connecting with Independents and Moderates of any type is virtually ended now too. Anti-Bush and anti-war radicals will take the Democrat party to a place that main stream America can ill afford to go.

America realizes that in the radical liberal mind anti-Bush translates to hate all Conservatives and conservative ideas while anti-war translates into a cut and run capitulation to terrorists.

The problem with radical Liberal’s reasoning is that terrorists officially started warring against America in 1996. It was then through a fatwa declared by Osama bin Laden that terrorist began acts of war against Americans and American interest. If American troops were withdrawn from Iraq today Islamic terrorist would still be at war with the United States.

Funny, even so, I haven’t seen Cindy Sheehan camped out in front of Osama’s cave entrance demonstrating for the terrorists to end the war! Osama’s 1996 and 1998 fawtas started terrorist attacks against America which lead to this war and only he can call for the war's end Cindy!

However, that fact will not deter the anti-Bush, anti-war radical Liberal haters from blaming America and President Bush for terrorist attacks made against us or for blaming America for the war that resulted from those attacks. Also this rejection of Lieberman could indicate that the Democratic Party is now embracing anti-Semitist elements within its party.

Look for a decisive loss for the Democrats in 2008 because their turn to the hard left will do nothing but further alienate themselves from the political mainstream of America as their radicalizism will continue to injure the political process in America in general.

Democrat’s play to fear and ignorance to win ’06 and ‘08

With control of the U.S. Congress at stake in up coming elections, many in the Democratic Party see a "sense of chaos" in the Middle East, their plan to obstruct government progress and blaming President Bush as their ticket to reclaiming the Senate and the House of Representatives from Republicans.

New York Democratic senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton who has absolutely no military or foreign policy experience confronted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with a list of "strategic blunders" she said had led to the crisis in Iraq and later called for his resignation.

"I think people want change in Iraq," said New York Sen. Charles Schumer who heads the effort to get Democrats elected to the Senate. An effort that has called for attempting to sabotage the Bush Administrations every move in the war while attempting to sway public opinion against the war effort.

Democrat strategy has seemed to work. Polls say that most Americans don't think things are going well in Iraq. In a CNN survey released on Friday, 36 percent approved of Bush's management of the war and 62 percent disapproved.

These percentages have given Democrat a great deal of buoyancy and hope for control of the House and Senate in upcoming 2006 elections as well as belief that they can win the White house 2008.

Influential congressional Democrats, many of whom voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq, joined forces this week in a letter calling on the president to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of the year.
Led by the top Senate Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada and his counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi of California, the signatories included party centrists and liberals who have disagreed over the way forward in Iraq purely for political reasons.

"I think the American people found their voice, and they are listening to us," Reid said on Friday. "I think the American people are where we are.” It is interesting that Senator Reid equates the American people’s voice with listening to Democrats!

Since 2000 Democrats have attempted to create chaos in the American body politic in a number of political moves. They did this by first throwing the 2000 elects into doubt. Then by questioning the legitimacy of the Presidency and then disavowing a war that they voted for, they attempted to bring down the Bush presidency through baseless allegations and false scandals, and now they attempt to sabotage the war effort by withdrawing troops which will guarantee a Vietnam like result, an American loss.

If Democrats believe that pandering to fear and ignorance are keys to victory in 2006 and 2008 as they apparently do and if America is as fearful and ignorance as Democrats think they are then perhaps Democrats will win. If they do win they will still have to fight Islamic terrorism and as seen in Europe Liberal policies and beliefs are not working against the onslaught of Islamic fascism.

A Democrat majority in the House and Senate or a Democrat Presidential win will pave the way for Islamic terrorism’s defeat of the Western world first with an withdraw from Iraq and then with the United States acquiescing to all Islamic demands as Osama bin Laden as previously laid out.

WARPED

The deaths continue and Lebanese parliamentary speaker, Nabih Berri,(pictured at right) a prominent Shiite who has been negotiating on behalf of Hezbollah, rejected the U.N. resolution draft for cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel on Sunday.

The proposal, which was expected to go to the floor of the U.N. Security Council early this week, calls for Hezbollah to stop all military operations and for Israel to stop its offensive drive against Lebanon. The proposal would allow Israel to strike back if Hezbollah were to break a cease-fire.

According to Berri the draft resolution is fundamentally tilted in favor of Israel.

"If Israel has not won the war but still gets all this, what would have happened had they won" the war, Berri asked.

All of what? This is typical of the ridiculous and puerile thinking the Arab world; they reject a cease fire agreement which simply says in essence stop the fighting, on the bases that it is tilted in favor of Israel?

Hezbollah is in violation of U.N. resolution 1559 and Hezbollah should not exist, according to that resolution, a resolution which is over two years old, did Berri think of that? Berri as a Hezbollah representative should not be speaking for the Lebanese government he is President of the National Assembly, Speaker of the legislature, not some front man for terrorism, did Berri think of that?

Hezbollah started this war by crossing into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers did Berri think of that? This war did not immediately start even after that Hezbollah provocation, Israel asked for their soldiers back and gave clear indications what the consequences would be if Israeli soldiers were not returned by a date certain and Hezbollah refused.


"Lebanon, all of Lebanon, rejects any talks or any draft resolution that does not include the seven-point government framework," Berri said at a news conference in Beirut.
The seven-point proposal calls for a mutual release of prisoners held by Israeli and Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon.

Nabih Berri is acting as an agent for Hezbollah. Hezbollah is in violation of international law by violating U.N. Security Council resolution 1559. Berri is now speaking for the Lebanese government in place of the Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and is demanding terrorist demands on the U.N. in order for Hezbollah to stop aggression against Israel?

There can not be any acquiescence to Hezbollah’s demands. Hezbollah’s demands are unjust and unlawful terrorist demands which should not be considered equally to an internationally recognized sovereign Nation’s request for return of its kidnapped victims. Even if these demands came from the mouth of a Shi'ite Muslim leader who is the Lebanese Speaker of Parliament.

Does Hezbollah’s stance make sense to you? If it does then you are just as warped as the terrorist. Link

Hezbollah the Party of the Devil

That’s what Osama bin Laden’s mentor says regarding, “The Party of God,” Hezbollah.

Top Saudi Sunni cleric Sheik Safar al-Hawali, whose radical views once made bin Laden one of his followers issued a religious edict Saturday disavowing the Shi'ite guerrilla group Hezbollah.

"Don't pray for Hizbullah," he said in the fatwa posted on his Web site.

The edict, which reflects the historical stand of strict Wahhabi doctrine viewing Shi'ite Muslims as heretics, follows a similar fatwa from another popular Saudi cleric Sheik Abdullah bin Jibreen two weeks into the conflict with Israel.

"It is not acceptable to support this rejectionist party (Hezbollah), and one should not fall under its command, or pray for its victory," bin Jibreen said at the time. That fatwa set off a maelstrom across the Arab world, with other leaders and people at the grass roots level imploring Muslims to put aside differences to support the fight against Israel.

This highly unusual rebuke of Hezbollah from two Muslim clerics comes at a time when other Muslims are attempting to use this Hezbollah-Israeli conflict to unify Muslims world-wide against Israel and the Western World.

For 59 years since the United Nations partitioned the land between Palestine and Israel Muslims have been agitating for war in the region. Many Muslims are hoping that this is the time that Israel will be destroyed and Islam will defeat the Western world. Link

Two wrongs do make a right!

The Israeli-Lebanon/Hezbollah conflict is an example of that. Since the U.N. apportioned British controlled Palestinian land in 1947. An apportionment which divided the land of Israel and Palestine, Arabs have been threatening war or attacking Israel either directly or through surrogates in direct defiance of U.N. resolution 181.


On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly, in its 128th plenary session, by a two-thirds vote passed Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

This present Israeli-Lebanon/Hezbollah conflict is a mere extension of years of Arab aggression and rejection of that U.N. decision.

So why is it when Israel defends itself against Hezbollah and 59 years of constant and continual Arab initiated attacks and acts of war, Arabs and their supports feel that they are some how justified in the war that they themselves started?

Go ahead condemn Israel for excessive force and treat them like they are equally at fault in this war. They are not! Just know that when you do you are advocating the two wrongs make a right theory.


Yes war is evil and deaths of innocents are tragic but the reality of it is, if the Arabs at any time would stop their aggression there would be no aggression!

That bears repeating, if Arabs would stop their aggression there would be no aggression. No deaths, no conflicts and no wars.

So if you are clambering for a cease fire without addressing the overall acts of Arab aggression against Israel and Arab defiance of the U.N. resolution 181 you many get a cease fire from Israel but you will never get the end of Arab bigotry and hatred which is the genesis of this Middle East conflict.

Maybe wiping Israel off the map is the answer as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has advocated.

Arabs are wrong for their continual defiance of international law and their continual aggression against Israel.

Israeli responses to unprovoked attacks from Hezbollah, who is funded by Syria and Iran Kofi Annan says, Israel uses excessive force and Israel is wrong.

So let's get this clear, Hezbollah attacks Israel, they've been doing it for years, and Israel responds in self defense and Annan says that Israel has the right to defend itself but excessive force is wrong? So according to Mr. Annan and the Arabs who are now condemning Israel, all believe that Israel is equally at fault for Arab aggression?

You see two wrongs make a right, in Arab thought, two wrongs make Arabs right all the time!

Everything’s free in America

Or so it would seem by the lack of enforcement of United States borders. I’ve heard a lot of discussion about it and I’ve engaged in some very spirited debate regarding what if anything can be done about the 11million to 20million illegals that are presently in the United States of America.

The best situation that I’ve come across is one that was already implemented in the 1950s. The 1950s, you ask, did we have an illegal alien problem way back then?

Yes we did, however, we had a President who had the will and took the initiative to do something about illegals and protect this country’s integrity.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower solved the problem of illegal aliens and virtually stopped illegal immigration into the United States and the results of these efforts were felt for over 10 years in this country.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

How did President Eisenhower virually stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country?

President Eisenhower hired the right people, he resisted powerful political and corporate interests, and he enforced the law.

On June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

It’s really not that hard! It’s already been done. The question is does America have the political will to self correct or will political, special and corporate interest continue to convince citizens that nothing can be done?

President Eisenhower already solved this problem; the only problem which remains is how we wrest control of our country back from the political, special and corporate interests that are vehemently fighting to keep the illegal status quo entrenched in this country for profit and for political advantage.

European Union rethinks Stem Cell Policy

President Bush has affected the thinking of European leaders for the good regarding Stem Cell research.

Though many Americans and Europeans disapprove of the President’s veto of a recent bill providing government funding for Embryonic stem cell research President Bush’s stance has caused European stem cell policy makers to place added protections into their own stem cell research policies which guarantees that no stem cells will be created for the sole purpose of being destroyed for experimentation.


As a result of President Bush’s influence Germany first pressed its EU partners to ban European funding for embryonic stem-cell research, a day after President Bush vetoed the bill that would have expanded such work in the United States.


European countries have widely differing national laws, with Britain actively encouraging stem-cell research. Germany, with an aversion to genetic experimentation rooted partly in the legacy of Nazi abuses, effectively bans it.
As well as Germany, other countries that have put down a reservation on the issue are Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia.
However the E.U. did vote to fund stem cell with the following proviso;

In a draft ministerial decision proposed by Finland, which holds the 25-nation bloc's rotating presidency, would rule out EU funding for research on human reproductive cloning, genetic modification of human beings and artificial creation of human embryos solely for research purposes.
But it would allow funding for research on embryonic stem cells.
The EU ministers agreed not to fund activities that destroyed human embryos but said other research could continue.


European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik said the EU would not finance the "procurement" of embryonic stem cells - a process which results in the death of the embryo - but it would finance the "subsequent steps" to make use of the cells.
"We must conserve human life from its conception. We want no financial incentives to kill embryos," German Research Minister Annette Schavan had told fellow ministers earlier in the day.

In practice, most European stem cell research is funded at national, rather than European level, and uses adult rather than embryonic stem cells the BBC news reports

We clarified what actually we do and we committed ourselves to continue in that direction also in the future Science and Research said Commissioner Janez Potocnik.

It must be noted that embryonic stem cell research is not banned in the United States any private company may fund and perform such test. The President’s veto only limits government funding of Embryonic Stem cell research the European Union continues to fund this research now with the stipulation that no embryonic cell shall be destroyed as a result of E.U. scientific research, thanks to President Bush.

The President cites moral reasons for his disapproval of government funding for research on embryonic stem cells but there is a more complex reason which is not often spoken of which is the government funding of research that will enviably become proprietorial.

In essence citizens will be double and triple billed for the medical advancements which results from researchers discoveries. How would that happen?

Take for instance the European Union which has approved Stem-cell research to receive only a small fraction of the EU science budget of some 51 billion euros ($64.3 billion) in 2007-13. That’s tax payers’ money!

Now if a European scientists (or U.S. Scientist) make a substantial and lucrative stem cell discovery he or she would simply patent any medical procedures or medicines discovered.

Meaning that tax payers pay for premium research and development (any private company would love that arrangement) and then the cost of procedures and medicines resulting from that work would be charged to the tax payer again as one goes in for treatment or as one would buy the medical products that resulted from stem cell research.

That’s not to mention all of the stem cell patents that are already in place which have to be considered before any new research can be done that might affect present owner’s patents.

The Geron Corporation, a biotechnology company that helped fund scientists in stem cell research, is now patenting the technologies.

BBC News, November 7, 1998

It doesn’t sound so bad but what if McDonalds was given government funding to run its operations and in addition to that it was able to keep all of the profits it made from hamburgers sells? That wouldn’t be very fair would it?

Or to put it another way, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans in his Presidential farewell address of 1961, a speech in which President Eisenhower told about two impeding threats to America, one an industrial military complex and two a scientific technological elite.

Eisenhower warned of scientist who would seek government funding at the expense of free ideas, scientific discovery and intellectual curiosity to fund their projects. Also President Eisenhower warned of mixing Federal money and science. Last he warned of a scientific elite that would attempt to dominate social policy.

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. ” – Dwight D. Eisenhower , 1961

Although few will admit it and in President Eisenhower’s words President Bush’s veto was the act of a statesman, President Bush’s veto was an attempt to balance and integrate the forces of science with morality against the forces that only think about science for dollars.
The E.U.’s recent decision to follow the lead of the President validates President Bush’s leadership in this area. But you’ll never hear that said in the main stream media.

Global Political Meltdown

Al Gore’s gift to the world! It’s a sort of global warming if you will. Al Gore’s legacy will be that he alone ushered in a new era of doubt in the democratic process, no longer will free and open elections be enough. Due to Mr. Gore every election result from this point forward will be doubted by the losing party and legally scrutinized whether they are cast manually or whether they are electronically posted.

Your first impression might be, that’s good. But think about it, do we really want an army of 7,000 lawyers marshaled into various battle ground states each and every time someone claims that an election ballot confused them or if someone alleges that their punch card ballot must have been made out of bullet proof Kevlar?

Because of Mr. Gore there are citizens of this country who will forever claim that President George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election. Mr. Gore refused to accept that he lost Florida, therefore he lost the presidency. His refusal put his own selfish interest before the national interest and has cause irreparable damage between the left and the right in this country and the world.

He dispatched his lawyers to the Sunshine State to contest the election. And his lawyers used every legal maneuver in their arsenal to overturn Gore's defeat – challenging the manner in which Florida conducted its balloting, claiming that certain voter blocs were disenfranchised.
The result is that a portion of the populace refuses to this day to accept the outcome of the 2000 election (despite a post-election ballot review by a consortium of media organizations that concluded, unequivocally, that Bush won Florida no matter how the votes were counted or recounted). Joseph Perkins, San Diego Union-Tribune

The saddest commentary on what Gore as wrought is not only did his actions have national consequences but world-wide consequences.
Nationally over 27 independent newspapers and the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago studied the 2000 election results to determine the outcome.

First the Miami Herald, USA Today commissioned a study which results claimed that President Bush won the vote if the recount had not been halted by the US Supreme Court.


Some were not satisfied with those results so another study was commissioned by about 25 other newspapers.

The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post Co., Tribune Publishing, CNN, Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times and The Palm Beach Post. The New York Times owns The Boston Globe, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the Lakeland Ledger among others. Washington Post Co. owns The Washington Post and Newsweek. Tribune, based in Chicago, owns the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, among others.

The study was done by the highly esteemed National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. Did you see the official results of this most auspicious study published anywhere? No? Do you know why you didn’t?

Because under the must strict independent analysis of the 2000 President election George W. Bush won according to the National Opinion Research Center study. And here.

This proves that there is absolutely no doubt that President Bush did not steal or lose the 2000 election. However not even this study commissioned by news media that liberals know and trust will change the minds of ardent Bush haters.

Gore has poisoned the world-wide political atmosphere with his Machiavellianism. Much like his claims that man-made carbon dioxide is directly responsible for global warming, Gore’s actions in the 2000 American Presidential election is directly responsible for the global political meltdown experienced in many nations.

Last year Conservative leader Angela Merkel and the chairman of the Social Democrats, Franz Muentefering splitGermany in an “us against them” political fight reminiscent of America’s Conservatives and Liberals 2000 Presidential election.


Italy’s government was in limbo early this year as Silvio Berlusconi and Romano Prodi disputed over votes casted. They had their own hang Chad crisis.

Italy’s own red state blue state divide.

Mexico has been thrust into a political crisis, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the left-winger who claims he was robbed of victory in Mexico's contested presidential election was beaten by ruling party conservative Felipe Calderon by just around 244,000 votes out of 41 million cast. Nevertheless Obrador is demanding a recount.

Now in California once again the lawyers are marshalling up to dispute the election results of the 50th Congressional district.

Thanks to Al Gore no longer will two political opponents end their campaigns with only the counting of votes to look forward to. Because of Mr. Gore every election has the potential of being a political meltdown complete with attorneys and court pleadings.

Mr. Gore you are right, the atmosphere has become toxic, the political atmosphere, and if something isn’t done we are in for a major devastating change in the political climate of the world a global meltdown!

Inconvenient but True.

Chavez and Ahmadinejah to Defeat the U.S.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a plan. He is on a mission to destroy Israel and then he’s going to destroy the United States of America. Maybe not in that specific order but he’s trying, but he’ll need some friends to help.

He wrote a letter to the German chancellor to see if the Germans were interested in a joint effort to exterminate the Jews. You know that we have something in common approach; after all there was really no holocaust just a Jewish lie perpetrated to receive world sympathy. Ahmadinejad was hoping that he and Germany’s chancellor had bigotry and anti-Semitism in common. But Germany didn’t want to go there again, at least not publicly.


Not to be deterred Ahmadinejad meet with Russia President Valamir Putin an old cold war enemy of the U.S; should be plenty of possibilities here, but nope not the visceral hatred that Ahmadinejad was hoping for. Russia is more of a passive aggressive, stab the U.S. in the foreign policy back, enemy not the in your face comrade that Ahmadinejad was looking for. Russia would prefer to sell weaponry to the enemies of the U.S. rather than openly oppose it.


So off to Venezuela, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez leftist Venezuelan leader has publicly condemned Israel for what he called the "terrorism" and "madness" of its attacks in Qana Lebanon. Hey a match made in heaven! For that President Chavez will receive a medal!

The 1st grade order of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a distinction of valor? Not quite, this award was to show Iran's gratitude for President Chavez’s "support for Iran's stance on the international scene, especially its opposition to a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency."


Ahmadinejad inferred that President Chavez has resisted American imperialism for years. American imperialism? Oh he’s talking about corporate imperialism. Yes corporations are exerting power and control globally but that’s not an American phenomenon due to the fact that most corporations view themselves as international world entities not American companies.

And if asked whether they are American companies most would defer the question rather than claim America.



Why is this important? It is important because Venezuela and Iran wrongly accuses America of imperialistic goals yet they will be doing business with the very companies that are the source for their complaints against the U.S. In fact they will be enabling those companies to extent their global goals for economic power and control.

Ironically, if Iran and Venezuela were to do business with any of the oil companies or if they buy weapons from any of the global weapon suppliers they will be propagating the imperialism that they claim they are resisting by resisting America, corporate imperialism.

Iran President Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Chavez are anti-Semitic racist bigots who hate American democracy furthermore any claims that they will save the human race, by finishing off the U.S. “empire,” is only justification to attempt to destroy the democracies that are represented by America and Israel.

The democratic governments of America and Israel are not threats to the peoples of the world however the theocratic and leftist tyrannous ruler ships of Iran and Venezuela are. Especially when they have designs for remaking the world into their own images.

That would be called imperialism the very thing that Ahmadinejad and Chavez say that they wish to save the world from. Now that’s duplicitous and dangerous. The world needs saving, only it needs saving from these two dangerous governments not the U.S.

What Value is a U.N. Resolution?

The U.N. is working furiously to put together a resolutionto bring about peace between Hezbollah and Israel now that the result of Hezbollah’s aggression against Israel has resulted in the death of civilians in Qana Lebanon.

[F]or some of the Christians who had made it out in this convoy, it was not just privations they wanted to talk about, but their ordeal at the hands of Hezbollah— a contrast to the Shiites, who make up a vast majority of the population in southern Lebanon and broadly support the militia.
“Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”
“Please,’’ he added, “write that in your newspaper.”

Many Christians from Ramesh and Ain Ebel considered Hezbollah’s fighting methods as much of an outrage as the Israeli strikes. Mr. Amar said Hezbollah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back.
One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters, had killed a man who was trying to leave Bint Jbail.
“This is what’s happening, but no one wants to say it” for fear of Hezbollah, she said.By SABRINA TAVERNISE,New York Times

But what value is a U.N. resolution when the U.N. will not enforce them? There were 16 or 17 U.N. sanctions against Saddam Hussein which did not prevent Saddam from escalating tensions to the point of war in Iraq. Though the U.N. sanctioned Iraq, it did not actually enforce policy to prevent the Iraqi actions that ultimately caused war.



There is presently a resolution in place, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 mandated in 2004 which called for the disarming, disbanding and disengagement of all militias within Lebanon. This 2004 resolutioncalls for the Secretary General to follow up in 30 days to ensure that the resolution was honored.

Since that resolution Hezbollah has not left Lebanon but has cemented it’s position in the country by infiltrating the Lebanese government and spreading out near the Lebanon Israeli border where it has attacked Israel hundreds of times with missile launches and kidnapping of foreigners.

In Hezbollah’s last kidnapping they used a United Nations vehicle to kidnap two Israeli soldiers.

Aside from this the U.N. is presently working for a resolution to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment. A Iranian state radio commentary said Saturday that Tehran would reject a proposed U.N. resolution that calls for it to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of August or face the threat of international sanctions.

If U.N. resolutions have no binding effect on Muslim nation states what value is an U.N. resolution at all?

World opinion is clambering for cease-fire however if Israel agrees to a U.N. resolution for a cease-fire what is the guarantee that Hezbollah or any Islamic nation state will honor a United Nations resolution for peace? Judging from history there is none.

Forward to the Stone Age

That is were Islam is taking world relations, diplomacy and the U.N., forward into the stone age. And just how is U.N. diplomacy working in the middle east?

Not very well because the U.N. has been taken over by Muslims who are protecting other Muslim terrorists while they use the cover of the U.N. to condemn Israel. The world can not wait for the U.N. if something is going to be done it will have to be done in spite of the U.N.

President Bush is sending U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice back to the middle east to attempt to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and Hezbollah to which Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution says, "If she does not get a ceasefire she will have failed, the feeling is that Israel is doing Washington's work in the Middle East."

Now just wait a minute, who’s feelings? Muslims? And why is it that Mr. Telhami is projecting failure on Secretary Rice’s efforts when failure has already occurred by the U.N.? I’ll tell you why, it’s because success by the United States will further expose U.N. worthlessness.

First of all Mr. Telhami you’ve recently stated that the Arab world holds the United States responsible for Israel's behavior and believes Jerusalem had been given a green light by Washington to continue launching attacks on Lebanese targets.

But here’s what you’ve failed to mention, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559! In 2004 the security council passed this resolution stating that Hezbollah should be disband, disarm and vacate Lebanon in additon to that they gave Secretary General Kofi Annan 30 days to see that this was accomplished. So Hezbollah according the the U.N. and international law, should not be in Lebanon in any form or fashion, Hezbollah should not be kidnapping Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah should not be shooting missiles into Israel. According to the U.N. there should no Hezbollah!

So in reality Israel is doing the work of the U.N. not the United States! But because the U.N. is the most inept, corrupt institution ever to attempt to be a world diplomatic organization. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice must do it themselves while the likes of the Brookings Institution hurls untruthful burbs at them.

John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said it was time for the Security Council to start considering a response, but he, too, ruled out a cease-fire. You know what I say Mr. Bolton? Since 2004, I say it was well over due that the U.N. considered a response!

"I think it's a very fundamental question how a terrorist group agrees to a cease-fire," Bolton said. "How do you hold a terrorist group accountable? Who runs the terrorist group? Who makes the commitments that the terrorist group will abide by a cease-fire? What does a terrorist group think a cease-fire is?"

“Hezbollah is an Islamic militant group that does not recognize Israel as a state. It holds effective military and political control over southern Lebanon, and is the most potent political force on Lebanon's fractured political landscape.”

“As I speak, though, Hezbollah continues to operate in southern Lebanon with impunity, defying the will of the Security Council, as established in Resolution 1559,” said Bolton.

“We are working hard with others to bring about its full implementation and the full extension of its authority by the government over all Lebanese territory.

If that were done, then Israel would be less subject to terrorist attacks and the people of Lebanon would not be subject to the reign of terror that Hezbollah inflicts.

We are actively considering a variety of methods on how best to secure the implementation of Resolution 1559.”

Some member states have called for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. But we must ask our colleagues, "How do you negotiate and maintain a cease-fire with a terrorist organization, one which does not even recognize the right of Israel to exist?" Yes indeed Mr. Bolton how does one negotiate with a stone age mentially?


The truth is Hezbollah is the U.N.’s failure and this fight is the U.N.’s fight not Israel’s and certainly not the United States but in spite of that Hezbollah says it is fighting a U.S.-Israeli plan to wipe out all Israel's foes in the Middle East and has vowed to accept no "humiliating" terms to end the violence. The truth is Hezbollah is defying U.N. security council resolution 1559 not Israel and not the United States!

International concern has mounted at civilian casualties in the war and at the humanitarian crisis it has caused in Lebanon. Hezbollah fault again, traditionally military or militia protects the innocent. Hezbollah uses the innocent for strategic military advantage, civilians are only sheilds to Hezbollah.


Attempting to negotiate with Islamic terrorist and Islamist who blame Israel and the United States for for their own failings and who are in clear violation of the U.N. and U.N. resolution 1559 has moved world relations toward archaic sharia laws and forward to the stone age. That is what is happening here and that is solely the fault of the United Nations.

Muslims shame the memory of Salah al-Din

According to the Ottawa Citizen, Canadian Newspaper, terrorism and Hezbollah has been exposed for the God forsaken cowards that they are.

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Hezbollah are no warriors like Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, the Kurdish Islam warrior, who defeated the crusaders and recaptured Jerusalem in the 10th. century by a direct military confrontation. No Hezbollah hides behind the women and children of Lebanon which is their main tactic for waging their guerrilla warfare against Israel.

They also hide behind the cover of the United Nations and launch their attacks surrounding and near the Lebanon U.N. compound, so when Israel responses to Hezbollah’s unprovoked attacks Hezbollah can then broadcast on Al-Jazeera the deaths of the women and children that Hezbollah used as shields.

They say look at the women and children that Israel has killed when in secret Hezbollah planning meetings they strategize the placement of missile launches and Hezbollah headquarters in populated Muslim areas making sure that there are plenty women and children.

One thing is clear Islamic terrorist kill other sects of Muslims, they bomb other Muslims shrines and Mosques, they strap bombs on Muslim children for suicide missions, and they use the United Nations for cover to launch their bombs into Israel.

They value no one’s life not even their own. These terrorist only use the deaths of women and children for their propaganda promises. They could care less that these death occurred. As a matter of fact they would kill women and children themselves if of the wrong Islamic sect.

Don’t be fooled the recent call for war against Israel is not to defend Muslims it is a call to destroy Israel which Muslims have been attempting to do since 1948. And Muslim terrorist will kill other Muslims to accomplish this and they already have in Baghdad and Jerusalem.

Islamic aggression is the cause for this war and if Muslims continue to blame Israel and the world for Islam’s own evil, there will be no peace just a religion of terrorist who wages war on the world in its attempt to spread Islamic Imperialism world-wide. But brave warriors in the image of Salah al-Din they are not!

Cease Fire? How about Cease the Hatred and Bigotry against Israel?

Who is the most condemned nation in the history of the U.N.? China, the Soviet Union, or North Korea? Nope it’s Israel according to Jonah Goldberg, The Great U.N. Delusion, Townhall.com.

Given all that we know regarding world politics and terrorism I find this statement extremely provocative.

Ever since Israel stood up and declared its independence in 1948 the spirit of the anti-Jew has risen up in the practitioners of Islam which has lead the practitioners of Islam to channel Adolph Hitler like anti-Semitism and as a result they hate Jews for sport. Oh you thought that Islamic hatred of the Jews was for land? Wrong. They have stated on many occasions that they intend to eliminate the Jews.

Palestine wasn’t Islamic land at the time that the land was apportioned between Arabs and Jews in 1947 the land was under British control as the British conquered the Ottoman Empire and Britain divided the land between the Arabs and the Jews.


In 1920, following the defeat of the Turks, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the peace conferences after World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine was created by the League of Nations. The Mandate was international recognition for the stated purpose of "establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people."

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly, in its 128th plenary session, by a two-thirds vote (33 to 13 with Britain and nine others abstaining) passed Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

The Jewish community of Palestine jubilantly accepted partition despite the small size and strategic vulnerability of the proposed state.

After the vote was announced, the six Arab delegations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen stormed out threatening war and the annihilation of the Palestinian Jews. Pakistan's delegation followed suit. The Arab national movement in Palestine, as well as all the Arab states, angrily rejected partition.

They demanded the entire country for themselves and threatened to resist partition by force. Had they accepted the UN proposal in 1947, the independent Palestinian Arab state, covering an area much larger than Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, would have been created along with Israel. Instead, they rejected the plan and launched a war to destroy the nascent Jewish state.

The world was involved in dividing the land among the Arabs and the Jews through the United Nations and voted as such:

Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting:
In favour: 33
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: 13
Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstained: 10
Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Notice that the backers for Hamas and Hezbollah, Lebanon, Iran and Syria are among the dissenters in the 1947 vote.

Given the Arabs threats for violent dissent and their continual attacks against the world community’s decision one can link the current attacks on Israel directly to the Arab’s rejection of the United Nation’s resolution 181.

Arab violence against the Jews in Palestine started immediately and continues to this day. Mordechai Palzur, the former chief of protocol at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, quotes a report published in Foreign Relations of the United States 1947 by Robert Macatee, consul general of Jerusalem:

• It is tragic that many of the present casualties comprise innocent and harmless people going about their daily business. They are picked off while riding in buses, walking along the streets and stray shots even find them while asleep in their beds. A Jewish woman, mother of five children, was shot in Jerusalem while hanging out clothes on the roof. The ambulance rushing her to the hospital was machine gunned and finally the mourners following her to the funeral were attacked and one of them was stabbed to death.

The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee's spokesman, told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:
• The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.

Yes everyone who wishes for peace desires a cease fire, but that will never be accomplished unless there is an end to the hatred and bigotry against Israel and Jewish people.

Jewish People have the same rights to the land as the Arabs according to the United Nations resolution 181 and any violence perpetrated against Israel is not only against the Jews it is also perpetrated against the world because it was the U.N. that planned and approved the allocation of land in which the Arabs currently dispute.

This dispute is against the decision that the world made in 1947 in apportioning the land. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas are in violation the world’s decision and they must not be treated as if Israel is equally at fault. No, aggressors against Israel bear the responsibility for continual aggression against Israel and any cease fire must be directed squarely at them. As well the world must call for the end of anti-Semitism.

If Secretary General Kofi Annan wishes to make pronouncements about the war and who's using excessive force let him pronounce an end to Arab anti-Semitism that statement alone will do more good for world peace than any he is presently making against Israel!

Citizens of the World must pay Taxes

You’re probably familiar with the term, taxation without representation. In fact as an American you understand that the idea of imposing taxes on the British colonies in America in 1764 is what ultimately lead to the colonies in America rebelling against Britain and declaring themselves independent of Great Britain.

On July 11th, 2006 Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-OK) introduced a bill that requires the annual withholding of 20 percent of US regular budget dues to the United Nations "and other applicable international organizations" until the President certifies that no UN entity nor any other international organization has imposed, developed, supported or publicized any proposal concerning taxation or the imposition of fees on the US Government or American citizens. The bill - S. 3633 - is cosponsored by 31 senators.

What is this? Richard W. Rahn, writing in the Washington Times warns of an impending plan by two world organizations, the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to impose taxes on you a citizen of the United States of America.

Actually these world bodies are planning to impose taxes on the people of the world.
The present system of funding the U.N. leaves payment of dues to the world body completely at the discretion of U.N. member nation states. These members, whose governing bodies approve or disapprove funding the U.N., would be completely by passed as the U.N. is looking for a more direct way of receiving its funding.

The U.S. Congress, in its "Findings" in support of the proposed legislation, has produced a 47-point list of the advocacy by U.N. officials of various global tax schemes, violations of existing U.S. law of such schemes, massive corruption within the U.N., and notations of the damage to global economic growth and national sovereignty by such tax schemes.

A broad coalition of public policy and taxpayer groups has arisen to support the legislation. On the other side, the normal group of apologists for the U.N. and international organizations, who remain forever blind to the endless U.N. corruption and waste of taxpayer dollars, has emerged to resist restrictions on U.N. funding. Many opponents of the proposed legislation are former U.S. government and other officials who failed to engage in proper oversight of the U.N. and other international organizations during their own terms of government service.

Under U.S. law, it is illegal for a government agency to use taxpayer funds to lobby for more money for the agency. Yet, the U.N. and OECD are doing so. Their spokespersons (paid by taxpayers from sovereign nations) are "lobbying" for more funds for their international institutions. In effect, we have the bizarre situation where the world's taxpayers pay people to advocate higher taxes on themselves -- and even worse, without any sovereign protection for the taxpayers. If this is not tyranny, what is?

The present system, because it limits U.N. or OECD ability to control member dues and payments, is not preferred by The U.N. who has proposed an international tax on aviation fuel, a tax on airline tickets, taxes on international currency transactions, carbon use taxes, including a 4.8-cent tax on each gallon of gasoline, and other taxes on an extensive range of transactions, goods and services.

Presently the U.N. functions with complete autonomy and is not accountable to people in the fashion that the American government is accountable to the American people.

To allow the U.N. access to a source of unlimited income through taxing the people of the world combined with no accountability is a formula for tyranny.

Americans recognized taxation without representation was tyrannous in the 1700’s and declared itself independent of Britain. If the U.N. pursuits this new course of taxation it will be in violation of U.S. laws that prohibits such practices in addition to that Americans should resist such tyranny as it has always been our practice.

Offensive to Islam

Offensive to Islam

I’m of the opinion that there is nothing sacred to the adherents of Islam so why do they readily take offense at anything and everything. We know that what others consider sacred Islamicists routinely destroy for instance the Pakistan Buddhas.

Remember the flush the Koran down the toilet roamer? Boy did Newsweek have to retract that idiotic untrue story! But, Islam was offended and the world was afraid.

Cartoon wars, who can forget that the Danish press, published editorial cartoons depicting in essence the violence of Islam and again Islam was offended to which Islamic violence broke out world-wide. Hummm… Anyone see the irony here?

And then there’s Osama bin Laden who says it’s the crusaders presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia that has him offended, of course, that among other things.

If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. No other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it...

With all of the just described offence I’m seriously wondering what is sacred to Islam because it would seem to me that if one takes offense that one’s holy book might be desecrated then it follows that one would not bomb a Muslim mosque.

Or if Muslims rioted in the streets to protest the newspaper cartoon depiction of the prophet Mohammed one would think that Sunni would not kill Shiite and visa versa or isn’t a fellow Muslim’s life as important as a cartoon?

And if one’s holy cities are so sacred that one wishes all foreigners out of them then why would you yourself desecrate holy cities with bombs?

There is one grand ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, that is a voice of reason in this whole conflicted sorted affair he issues this plea:

"I call on all sons of Iraq... to be aware of the danger threatening their nation's future and stand shoulder to shoulder in confronting it by rejecting hatred and violence," the ayatollah's comments were his strongest public statements on the issue of sectarian violence recently.

It seems to me if Islamicists spent more time reading the Koran they’d have less time to plot against Israel, or to kill fellow Muslims, or to bomb Muslim mosques and to destroy their own holy cities.

And here's a verse that Muslims may not be familiar with,

“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:”

Mark 9:47

I’m thinking that if Muslims stop looking for offenses and start focusing on true piety like, people are more important than cartoons. And mosques and Holy cities should not be bombed because they are HOLY! That would be a step into the 21st century for Islam.

Right now Islam’s clerics and militants are still reliving the medieval crusades which, if anything, should be offensive to Islam and to any modern thinking Muslim!