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!

Scientific Relativism

Scientific relativism is moral relativism in a white lab coat. Moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths; moral relativism also suggests that no single standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.

Finally, moral relativism contends that opposing moral positions have no truth-value, and that no preferred standard of reference exists by which to judge them.
So how does a field that is based on logical empirical fact finding give itself over to vacillating situational relativism?

Science like everything else in our society is affected by our society’s over arching belief that no single standard exists. If all paths lead to God in religion and if my religion is as good as yours, then in our relativistic society for those who believe in God, it would naturally follow that all paths lead to scientific conclusion and scientifically it is possible to have different scientific conclusion regarding the same subject or study depending to your scientific point of view.

If that sounds ridiculous to you think of what our legal system does each and every time that a scientific expert is called to state hers or his findings then the opposing side calls their scientific expert who states different findings. Findings which are the exact oppose of the first findings even though both scientist used science to come to their respective conclusions.

Need an example? Do you remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill?
In March 1989, the sea at Prince William Sound in Alaska turned black. When a captain who had been drinking allowed his crew to pilot the Exxon Valdez onto Bligh Reef, the ship spilled 11 million gallons of oil. The accident remains the largest oil spill in American waters.

Civil court action lasted well into 1991 when a settlement between Exxon and the federal and Alaskan governments was reached. The oil company agreed to pay $900-million for the spill and promised an additional $100-million if unanticipated damages became evident by 2006. Here’s my point, government-financed researchers said they've uncovered such damages. But scientists financed by Exxon, many of them academics, said unexpected long-term damages don't exist.

How could scientist reach such contradictory conclusion given the same data?
When each side’s scientist’s objectivity was questioned, each side accused the other of conducting biased studies. What’s more, each charged the other with violating the usual rules of scientific discourse. In this case it became clear that we are now in the age of corporate-government scientific relativity an age of science for sell or science for political gain.

"An ecosystem never recovers when there's money to be made off of it," says Robert J. Huggett, a toxicologist who is a consultant for the company now known as Exxon Mobil and who this summer retired as vice president for research at Michigan State University.

"It's a little bit of a discouraging comment on science, really," says Daniel Esler, a research associate at Simon Fraser University who has worked on the spill's effects with government financing. "It's unfortunate that one can predict the results of studies based on who's doing it."

In 2001 government scientists conducted a $500,000 project to evaluate how much oil lingered on the sound's beaches. Led by Jeffrey W. Short, a research chemist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Auke Bay, Alaska, the work began in May and continued until September.

In August Mr. Short was surprised to see he had company. "Exxon shows up and starts following us around," he recalls. "After we left a beach, they'd go and look at what we did. It's a free ocean, so that's fine."

The Anchorage Daily News solicited essays from Mr. Short and from Mr. Page, of Bowdoin College, who was the scientist tracking Mr. Short's progress that summer.

In a January 2002 column in that newspaper, Mr. Short reported that the persistence and toxicity of the oil were "substantially greater than previously recognized." Mr. Page, in a counterargument, undercut the research, charging that Mr. Short's study was biased. He also said that the government researchers had not performed all the work they reported.

Is this not Scientific Relativism? Findings or conclusion which results are based on who’s doing the study.

Or consider this the Union of Concerned Scientists released two reports detailing multiple examples of the Bush administration's unprecedented manipulation, distortion, and suppression of government science. However a check of the UCS website finds no report detailing the examples of corporate misuse of science.

What, there is none? Nor do they show any other administrations alleged distortion of government science.

Are we to conclude that the Bush administration is the only administration that has used science for political goals or is this a blatant show of anti-Bush bias by the 9,000 scientist that lent their names to this apparent partisan organization.

Finally, the Conservation Science Institute says in their Ethics Initiative, “Credibility in science has become an enormous problem. Some observers point to the 'believability gap' as a main reason for ecosystem degradation. Much of this credibility gap is the result of individuals and institutions that have strong interests in finding answers that suit their own immediate profitability. Industry-sponsored science, for example, is often suspect.”

Science has been modernized, corporatized and politicized, that being the case, every time one hears a scientific opinion or read a scientific study one must ask, from who’s scientific perspective does this come? Because I guarantee you that even if we are speaking about a scientific fact you will be able to find scientific opinion, research or a study that would completely contradict it in this age of scientific relativism.

Why not release the Hostages?

How difficult a decision could it be? Aside from Arab pride which opposes any appearance of submission to the West this Hezbollah stunt was a misguided attempt to keep terrorist activities alive against Israel and by proxy the West and it has failed.

It has failed because Israel didn’t react under the restrains of the West; Israel answered back in the way a provoked Nation would and should. You commit an act of war against our nation we will unequivocally defend ourselves.

Israel’s reaction has given the Arabs pause and created a split
in opinion among Arabs who six years ago would not have given a second thought about supporting Hezbollah over Israel. What has changed?

Democracy, the recent rise to power of Shiites in Iraq, and the tensions of Sunni and Shiites conflicts has changed Arab opinion. These things are all indicative of a split in the way Arabs wish to pursue relations with the West.

There is not unanimous support for Osama bin Laden and terrorism in the Middle East either is there unilateral hatred against the West.

While same Arabs believe that Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, represent "what is left of honor and dignity in times of submission," As columnist Sajed al-Abdali, a Kuwaiti and Sunni Islamist, does and wrote in a column in Al-Rai Al-Amm newspaper.

Al-Abdali believes anyone who disapproves of Hezbollah are "cowards" who should "just stay silent."

However other voices are speaking against Hezbollah and doing this against Arab convention that would not allow even the slightest appearance of support for Israel or dissent without reprisal.

Jordan, housewife Layla Nasser said Nasrallah's men acted with folly when they crossed into Israel and captured two soldiers, igniting the current conflict.

"He reminds me of Saddam Hussein, who dragged Iraq into several similar adventures which have led to the complete destruction of Iraq," she said.

"Nasrallah has done the same and is the cause of Lebanon's destruction," she added. "He is arrogant and irresponsible."

Then there is, Lina, a Shiite banker who declined to give her last name for fear of Hezbollah retaliation, said the group had no right to drag the nation into war.

"In 2000, I supported it because it was a real resistance," she said. "But now I don't, and I don't see any heroism in what it's done so far."

This freedom of opinion is relatively new and just one of the changes that democracy has made.

These changes not only affect the individual but also affect the Middle Eastern region. Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, and Morocco have not backed Hezbollah’s actions against Israel as would be expected.

Saudi Arabia lashed out at Hezbollah for starting the recent fight, Saudi Arabia, whose foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, said bluntly and publicly that Hezbollah's decision to cross the Lebanese border, attack Israel, and kidnap its soldiers has left the Shiite group on its own to face Israel.

This is a remarkable statement because it runs contrary to Osama bin Laden’s theory of provoking a WWIII conflict against the West calling on the Ummah (family) of all Muslims to rise up against the Crusaders (West).

Columnist YOUSSEF IBRAHIM wrote for The New York Sun that the -Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent- he wrote:

Yes, world, there is a silent Arab majority that believes that seventh-century Islam is not fit for 21st-century challenges. That women do not have to look like walking black tents. That men do not have to wear beards and robes, act like lunatics, and run around blowing themselves up in order to enjoy 72 virgins in paradise. And that secular laws, not Islamic Shariah, should rule our day-to-day lives.

So why isn’t the Western Press asking Hezbollah if they perhaps have made a mistake by starting this conflict? And why hasn't the press called for the release of the hostages?

We all know that terrorist read and listen to the Western media, we all want an end to these conflicts. Don’t we? So why not ask… Osama you want the Iraq war over? Call off your 1996 and 1998 Fatwas stop the insurgency and the war is over.

Iran and Syria you want the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel over, why not return the hostages?

Stem Cell Swindled

Nancy Reagan, Michael J. Fox, Brad Pitt, and the late Christopher Reeve all faces for the what could be the biggest tax payer swindle since the government doled out as much as $1.4 billion in bogus assistance to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,tax payers got hoodwinked into paying for such things as football season tickets, a tropical vacation and even a divorce lawyer, congressional hurricane investigators have found.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee that will conduct the hearing said that, “This is an assault on the American taxpayer, prosecutors from the federal level down should be looking at prosecuting these crimes and putting the criminals who committed them in jail for a long time.”

Tax payers don’t usually like being ripped off unless of course it is for a good purpose like stem cell research. If it is stem cell research then please take 3 billion dollars that’s what the state of California is being fleeced for.

Did I say fleeced? Are the tax payers of the state of California going to be ripped off? Usually when one speaks of stem cells it is in noble terms as in regenerating damaged nerves for someone like Christopher Reeves to walking again, growing vital organs, and even producing body parts. That’s the misdirection, the reality is the real backers of stem cell research are profiteers who plan to use publicly-funded government research to yield usurious private profits for themselves.

Imagine the government funding a business venture of millions of dollars up front, and then a private citizen receives all the profit with no loan to repay. Venture capitalists are always paid for the moneys that they front. But the moneys that will be fronted by the venture capitalists tax payers of the United States of America will be free and clear to the private patent owners of stem cells.

Flocking to California in hopes of striking gold has been the way of the entrepreneur since at least 1849, no matter how speculative the industry. Modern-day prospectors are again looking to the state with wide eyes, but this time the focus is not on nuggets or dot-coms or movie cameras. Today, stem cell research is the center of attention, with the state betting $3 billion of taxpayer money (funded by bonds) that it will fuel the economy. "Every hundred years there are one or two major turning points in science akin to the discovery of penicillin, and stem cells is one of them,” says Hans Keirstead, head of the Reeve-Irvine Research Center at the University of California at Irvine.

That is what the proposed Senate vote to expand the availability of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is really all about. It’s about using your tax dollars to make someone extremely rich. And you thought that you were being morally superior to the opponents of government embryonic stem cell research. Wrong!

You’ve been wrong about everything, the so called federal limit on stem cells research is only a limit on federal funding. In other words, there is actually no limit on embryonic stem cell research. Any private researchers many assume the risk of putting up their own money and do research with embryonic cells but why use their own money when they can use tax payer’s moneys? Yes, tax payer money that you, the tax payer, are so willing to give over to the profiteers of stem cell research.

it’s important to remember that there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. Anyone who wants to do it is free to do so, he or she just can't do it on the public's dollar. If it held the promise that proponents claim, top pharmaceutical companies would be vying for chances to throw their research dollars at it. After all, if it worked as promised they could expect to make huge profits. That they don't see such prospects should tell us something.
As a result, those seeking to continue to spend their time working on embryonic stem cell research have to go looking for other sources of funding, and all that's left for them is the federal treasury. And that's what it's all about. –Michael Reagan, The Hype behind Stem Cell Research

The perfect win-win situation, private owners of stem cell technology and politicians will use tax payer moneys to profit with and tax payers foot the bill of research and development.

A recent study of the National Academy of Sciences and Engineering proposed a $5 billion quasi-governmental company "to channel federal money into private applied research"; that is, publicly-funded research that will yield private profit. Another report, entitled The Government Role in Civilian Technology: Building a New Alliance, calls for new efforts to extend "the close and longstanding" government-industry relationship that has "helped to establish the commercial biotechnology industry." It recommends a government-funded "Civilian Technology Corporation" to assist U.S. industry to commercialize technology by encouraging "cooperative R&D ventures in pre-commercial areas"; "pre-commercial," to ensure that profit is restricted to private wealth and power. The ventures will be "cooperative," with the public paying the costs up to the point of product development. At that point costs change to gains, and the public hands the enterprise over to private industry, the traditional pattern.--Noam Chomsky, The Pentagon System

The only losers will be tax payers who will fund the original research billions of dollars and be charged again and again after patents are placed on the stem cell research that they have originally funded.
Tax payers will then be sold back the research that they funded a double dipping into tax payer’s pockets. But amazingly a President who will not allow for tax payers to fund this research is the bad guy while those who are engaged in swindling the tax payer have your full support.

Big pharmaceutical companies,which often drive medical research toward the consumer market, are more accustomed to profiting from selling medications, often pills, administered to a wide range of people afflicted with particular symptoms or illnesses. Those companies are not designed to profit from individual, customized treatments.

"Pharmaceutical companies do mostly mass-marketed medicines. If stem cells deliver on their promise they will be more individually administered, and that's a completely different business model," said Harvard Business School professor Debora Spar, who published an article on the business of stem cells in the "New England Journal of Medicine" earlier this year.
This has left the concept of stem cells as a marketable industry in a state of flux. The lifeblood of American capitalism, venture capitalist-funded start-up companies, has yet to pinpoint a way to profit from stem cells' promise. Spar estimated that only 10 private firms in the United States were actively involved in embryonic stem-cell research in 2003.
For venture capitalists, the problem is defining a profitable exit strategy. Biotech start-ups often cash out when they're bought out by large pharmaceutical companies, returning money to their investors. But the hesitancy of big pharmaceutical companies to embrace the science coupled with stem cells' uncertain revenue streams make buyouts an iffy proposition.

Stem cell research will help a lot of people only not always in the ways that you’ve traditionally thought about medical advances helping mankind. These patent- able scientific research finds are the next 1800’s gold rush for the 21 century and taxpayers will be the ones staking the claims for big pharmaceuticals if congress approves government funding of embryonic stem cell research. And with all of the Liberal support for this, when we look back in a few years to see how the many have enriched the few no one will be able to say that it was Bush’s fault!

Why can’t Peace Keepers Keep the Peace?

Annan's guilt at his silence when he could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda appears to have intensified as he watched the U.N. Security Council do nothing meaningful to stop the genocide in Darfur for these three years and instead engage in crafting empty proposals that amounted to a minuet of death.--Nat Hentoff, The Village Voice

I’m for some preemptive peace so why hasn’t the United Nations worked with nation states to win the peace? Yes it’s easy to blame Israel for reacting to Lebanon militia group Hezbollah’s acts of war kidnapping of 2 Israeli military personnel. And it’s easy to fault President Bush for his policy of preemtive action and strike-first policy against terrorists.
However if you are opposed to the Bush doctrine of protecting America from terrorists who declared war against America in 1996and again in 1998 then join me in demanding that the United Nations launch an initiative of preemptive peace.

I believe that this recent escalation of violence the Iraq war and the conflict between Lebanon and Israel, should be blamed on the United Nations’ inability to effectively use their influence for peace. Why can’t they keep the peace?

The U.N. operates on an annual peacekeeping budget of approximately $4.72 billion dollars with 97.57million dollars earmarked for keeping the peace in Lebanon so just why didn’t the U.N. do anything to preempt the actions of Hezbollah?

And why are there wars raging internationally when we have an international body whose primary function has been to promote peace among the nation states of the world?

That question was put to the secretary general of the United Nations Kofi Annan twice, once in an interview that he did in Canada with Evan Solomon and one he did with Jim Lehrer on News Hour on PBS.

In the Evan Solomon interviewthe secretary general responded thusly:

EVAN SOLOMON:Tell us... Why the UN is actually relevant?

KOFI ANNAN: I think the UN is a unique organization. It is the only organization in the world that has not only the convenient power we have, bringing 191 member states together, but when it comes to development of international law and collective action and the question of legitimacy, there’s no other organization than the UN. And, in fact, it’s become quite clear that it’s the UN that can confer legitimacy on situations which individual countries, however powerful, cannot do.

EVAN SOLOMON: But even if in cases like Kosovo, which was a NATO operation, the UN missed it, in Rwanda the UN, as you well know…that in fact there’s an argument to be made that the UN outside of Korea, that really, maybe the 1991 Gulf War, that the UN has failed to accomplish its mission.

KOFI ANNAN: I think it depends on how one accesses success and failure. Even if we were to stay in the peacekeeping area, which you have indicated, you should remember the UN operations in places like Cambodia, Mozambique and many others where we have succeeded the work the UN did in Central America. But the UN is much, much more than a peacekeeping operation. We do incredible work in the humanitarian area, in the economic and social area, in development of international law…

EVAN SOLOMON: Quickly before we leave, April 7th is the 10-year anniversary of Rwanda a situation you brought up. During that time you were the head of the peacekeeping mission. General Dallaire has written a book about it and has talked about it. At that time, he sent a fax to you and to Maurice Baril saying he needed troops and he never got them. I wonder, 10 years later now that you’re the secretary general, do you regret not sending troops and answering Romeo Dallaire’s fax in a different way?
KOFI ANNAN: No, I wish we could have sent troops. I mean, this Rwanda experience and tragedy was a nightmare for all of us. It was a really painful experience for me, personally, and in fact at one stage looking for troops we spoke to 80 countries and no one would send troops. You have to understand the UN doesn't have troops. We borrow them from governments. There are two things that make that happen you need a mandate from the Security Council and then you need to get the troops. But, I think, lets back up for a minute, we must also remember that Rwanda was happening when we were pulling out of Somalia, after the death of the 18 soldiers and governments really had no appetite to take on any such mission. That fax from General Dallaire was not the only information indicating that things were serious. There were council members who had better information than we did, but the will was not there…

It is clear that Mr. Annan views the U.N. as the International answer for world governance and legitimacy but what is stunningly clear is that the U.N. is not very willing to acknowledge its failures in keeping peace in the world not in Rwanda, Kosovo or the Gulf war.

In Mr. Annan’s interview with PBS’s Jim Lehrerthe U.N.’s peacekeeping effectiveness was discussed again this time regarding Sudan:

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary General, a lot of people are asking -- this has been going on for three years. Over 200,000 people have died; 2 million have been displaced. And it's right all in public view. This has been well-known and reported all over the world. Why has it taken so long to stop this?

KOFI ANNAN: That is a very good question; that's a painful part. I mean, you can imagine my anguish as a human being and as an African, an African secretary general, to see us going through this after what we went through in Rwanda. It's very painful and difficult to take.

But the question is: Why hasn't anything been done? Let me say that, first of all, it is a complex issue, but it's also a question of will, the will of the member states to move. It's a complication that the Sudanese have introduced by resisting help. If the Sudanese had been able to protect their own people and prevent what is going on in Darfur, we would not even be talking about deployment of U.N. troops. Having failed to do so, I think they have an obligation to accept help from the international community to help with their protection. And the international community has an obligation. You may recall that, at the last summit in September, the member states pledged solemnly, individually and collectively, to take responsibility for the protection of people in such situations, arguing that it is a responsibility of each member state to protect this population. But where they fail, or are unable to do so, or they themselves are the perpetrators, the international community, through the Council, has to take action, and, if need be, by force. And now we have to redeem that pledge, that solemn pledge of September…

JIM LEHRER: Would it be correct to say that this whole episode, as you just described it, is an indication of where the weaknesses of the United Nations are their inability to move quickly and stop something like this?
KOFI ANNAN: Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that we are an organization of 191 member states. You need to get the decisions taken. And since we don't have an army, we need to run around getting support and help from governments.

I have often described the way we operate and run this peacekeeping operation -- it would be a bit like telling the fire department in Washington, D.C., that, "We know
you need a fire department, but we'll get you one and build you one when the fire breaks," because it's when the fire breaks that we start putting together the army, we start collecting the money to create an army that will go in.

And so there is the built-in delay in the way we operate. And this is why where member states deem that it is extremely urgent to move quickly, they've tended to put together a coalition of the willing, a multinational force, outside the U.N. so that they can move quickly. And in these situations, rapidity of deployment is a very important issue.

Why hasn't anything been done? In 10 years of the Sudanese government’s murdersof African Christians and Animists in the south of the country –and then on African Muslims in its Darfur region the U.N. has done what the U.N. does. That is meetings, issuance of reports, conferences, issuance of statements, and talking about peace, the same with Somalia, the same with Rwanda, or Kosovo or the Gulf war or Iraq or Lebanon and Israel.

Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “UN is a unique organization. It is the only organization in the world that has not only the convenient power we have, bringing 191 member states together, but when it comes to development of international law and collective action and the question of legitimacy, there’s no other organization than the UN. And, in fact, it’s become quite clear that it’s the UN that can confer legitimacy on situations which individual countries, however powerful, cannot do.”

That’s all good Mr. Annan but if you are an international peacekeeping organization with billions of dollars of annual budget could you offer a little peace? Please?

MJDWYW

Make Jesus Do What You Want or The Church of Orwellian-Machiavellianism

“A prince,” wrote Niccolo Machiavelli in 1532, “must appear to all who see and hear him to be…pious…faithful…honest…humane, and completely religious. And nothing is more important than to appear to have that last quality.”

A prince need not actually be religious, the Renaissance political analyst hastened to add, and will probably be more effective as a ruler if he is unencumbered by genuine religious scruples. But a prince must appear to be religious “because the masses always follow appearances…and the world is nothing other than the masses.”

George Orwell coined the term doublethink in his classic novel 1984. Doublethink is the power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

This word has made its way into the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Winston Smith the novel's protagonist, described doublethink in this fashion:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'

The gospels record that Judus betrayed Jesus in order to get Jesus to do what Judus wanted. Betrayed with a kiss whereas men now use language. Why I’m I bring this up for discussion, because After two devastating defeats one in 2000 and again in 2004 in the early months of 2005 Democrats studied polls, conducted focus groups and visited clergy... to repent of their sins?

Naw get serious! To strategize silly, party leaders believe that they lost the value vote and if they are going to win the Congress back in 2006 and the White House back in 2008 they had better learn how to make Jesus do what they want him to. You know, they need to talk like they have the same values as Conservatives when in fact they really deplore Conservative values.

This is pure Orwellian- Machavellian fascist politics at it’s ultimate, let’s see how it works.

The Democrats now realize that they can't win by narrowing their appeal to their base they realize that they must reach out to those that they have up to now demonized and belittled, Christians.

So they have paid people to listen to Rush, to learn not only what Christians care about but also what Christians were being told.

What they found is that there was a growing God-gap between them and the voters, particularly “middle to lowerclass economic white voters,” who see the Democrats as Godless and hostile to traditional values and “anti-religious”; they’ve also found that married women, who are increasingly voting Republican, place moral values at the top of their list of concerns; and that Bush had managed to win 64 percent of non-college, nonunion white voters in 2004, 41 percent of whom attend church at least once a week.

The most significant finding was that voters were making choices based more on their faith than on their physical needs, said House Democratic Caucus Chairman James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

So what’s the fix? How are Democrats going to win in 2006 and 2008 they believe that all that they must do is change the way that they speak about religion.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democrats’ presumptive front-runner in 2008, has called abortion a tragedy while endorsing pregnancy-prevention programs, including legislation to require insurance coverage of contraceptives. Like the RU-486, the morning after pill. Well isn’t that two contradictory ideas? Yes but that’s perfectly fine Democrat Orwellian politics or Clintonese as we use to call it.

When the voters listen to Democrats speak in 2006 and again in 2008, some party veterans and strategists worry about what they will hear.

In their report titled “The Politics of Polarization,” released in October, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck warned that “relying on language and ‘framing’ can be a surefire recipe for disaster in an electorate that values personal honesty and integrity even more than experience or positions on issues.”

Indeed, one veteran House Democrat said he is worried the attempt may appear manufactured.

“What worries me about the Democrats is that just when the Christian conservatives realize they have been used by Republicans they are going to see the Democrats using the same phrases and making hollow gestures,” the Democrat said.

Well, Christian conservatives have not been used by Republicans that is just another example of Democratic Orwellian speak by a Democrat who wishes that he could use the Christian conservatives to win in 2006 and 2008 but can’t so he states that Republican are using them to create the thought in the minds of some Christians in order to create a rift between Christian and conservatives. This statement was made to exploit that vurnability, if it happens, at some time. Will it work? Democrats are hoping.

What about homosexuals will Democrats leave their commitment to homosexuals to court the Christian conservative. No get real, They’ll just tweek the language just a bit.

Dan Gerstein, formerly communications director for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and now an independent consultant and commentator, said tolerance of the civil rights of homosexuals should not turn the Democrats into an intolerant party. He means intolerant of Christian Conservatives.

“It’s an arrogant presumption that if you are opposed to gay marriage you are ipso facto a bigot,” he said.

Gerstein said he blames the “angry and activist” the netroot or leftist bloggers like the daily Kos the core Democratic base for hindering the party’s ability to connect with values voters because they have placed freedom, individual rights and tolerance before morality, fracturing the necessary balance. Democrats intend to narraw the faith gap.

“We don’t have the luxury of narrowing our appeal. We have no choice but to broaden our appeal and be more inclusive,” Gerstein said. “And there is a way to do so premised on respect that won’t require us to change or fudge our principles.”

Yes there is, and that is to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them. Orwellian Democrats can do this but doing this is exactly the opposite of having conservative Christian values.

Democrats just haven’t figured that out yet.

Liberalism’s Dead-end

In the past American Liberals always touted Europe as the model of what America should be. From Justices on the Supreme Court to Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry, Liberal elitists felt and told Americans that wisdom and refinement were things best taught to Americans by Europeans.

These same Liberals also promoted a push to remake America into the image of Europe. Hillary Clinton’s 1993 Health care reform was based on the European’s socialist model, Bill Clinton’s attempt to introduce social change for gays into the United States military as well as his order to put U.S. troops under that authority of the United Nations both were attempts to move America into line with European thought and values.

Europeans are ever the cultural elitists who think themselves much more refined and sophisticated than the coarse Cowboys of America. Only one thing conflicted with the thought of European superiority and that was, and is, America’s real superiority in Global influence, economic power and military power.

But alas Europe’s attempts to wrest the position of world leader away from America is failing. Considering that Europe’s attempt to become the United States of Europe (does any of this look familiar?) is wrought with problems because there is not unanimous support from the various nation states, France being the biggest obstacle to a unified Europe.

[Europe] a continent that dreamed of eliminating national borders, hostility toward immigrants — especially those from Muslim countries — is causing national boundaries to spring back to life.—Charles Kupchan, the Globalist

Also considering that the government subsidized Airbus is not doing well economically and when you think about the present social disorder that is in almost every European nation just what is it that the America Liberals wish Americans to emulate?

when they voted down the European constitution in 2005, many French citizens blamed the “ultra-liberal” EU for their economic woes. This spring, rioters took to the streets of Paris to block labor reforms. Italians grumble that the euro has depressed their economy. –Charles Kupchan, the Globalist

France, Germany and Italy, governments, are squeezed from above by the pressures of competitive markets (Corporations and Globalism) — and from below by an electorate (the people) clinging to the comforts of the past and fearful of the uncertainties of the future.

The result is a political stalemate and economic stagnation, which only intensifies the public’s discontent and its skepticism of the benefits of European integration. In other words, the people are rejecting Europe’s embrace of Globalism and its attempt to move away from socialism.


As Charles Kupchan points out, “European leaders will have to give up the pretense of business as usual — and acknowledge the gravity of the current political crisis.”

European Liberalism is losing out to Globalism. So too American Liberals will have to face the reality that policies based on the Liberal European model are Dead-ends and if they’ve got nothing else to offer, in essence they have no where to lead America.

Where is World Rage!

I’m enraged! I had this piece ready to go with every insult I could muster against anyone who would dare slaughter 190 Indian people by bomb. And then I realized that there is really not any world anger about this horrific massacre. No real out cry against terrorism and that’s sad.

Equally I grieve for the people of Mumbai, India but not as much as I grieve for a world that believes that these people or any people deserve this attack.
America 2001—3,000 people
Bali 2002—202 people
Madrid2004—191 people
London 2005—52 people
India 1993, 2006—250 and 190 people

How long will world opinion tolerate, no, favor terrorism and despise terrorism’s victims?

Who will succeed Kofi Annan

Secretary General to the United Nations Kofi Annan's second and final five-year term in Office ends on December 31, 2006. His successor, who will be chosen by the Council around October, will take over on January 1, 2007 just who might that be?

According to a time-honored convention, the secretary-general position has not been held by any of the world's major political or economic powers, thus in the past ruling out nations like the U.S., Japan, Russia, France, Germany, India and China.

U.N. General Assembly resolution 51/241 of 1997 states that attention should be paid to regional rotation and gender equality. Although its Asia's turn by convention, eastern European nations are now saying that they should be given a shot at the top U.N. spot, as no one from that bloc of nations has ever held it before; unlike Asia, Latin America, Africa and western Europe.

Some candidates being mentioned are, Surakiart Sathirathai of Thailand, Ban Ki-Moon of South Korea, Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, Nafis Sadik of Pakistan and Shashi Tharoor of India.

Due to the U.N.'s resolutions for regional rotation and gender equality and also the time-honored convention that no one from a world major political or economic power hold the position of secretary-general former U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton can not be considered.

Annan's final term in Office has been plagued with scandal and mismanagement, Oil-for-food program, sweetheart deals for his son Cojo and U.N. Corruption and sexual charges have be characteristic under his leadership.

Also the U.N. Did not seem at all effective at keeping world peace the next secretary-general will have a tremendous undertaking setting the world body's affairs in order.