#3
They stand a snowballs chance, but I liked what I read. Illegal aliens and Islam are nothing but trouble.
I was at one time a proponent of the Constitution party, however they seem to have disingrated needlessly over abortion.
#6
LH, Who are the bigots? A dark age theocracy who claim the status of a race and the right to murder all opponents? A third world population with an average of 4 years of education?
#7
The moonbats aren't taking over the dems, the Commies own the democrats, lock, stock, and trigger. Break down the family, break down the religion, break down the customs, recognize any of this ? It's the Communist playbook, the MSM code of behavior, the dems in action.
#10
#4 good, get all the bigots out of the GOP.
Posted by liberalhawk
I agree, LH - soon as you clean your own whorehouse, and identify the GOP bigots, and the qualities that you use to define them as such. I expect your definition is rather loose, while having UN-type loopholes for the Dem candidates. Color me a continual-skeptic of your agenda
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/11/2007 22:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
If loyalty to America makes me a bigot, then call me a bigot and let's be done with all this prinking about. At least they are trying to do something when so many others seek to preserve a status quo of ever-diminishing importance.
I don't know if y'all frequent Belmont Club regularly, but he makes an observation today that absolutely nails it.
"When pundits say that Iraq is in the throes of a civil war, perhaps the correct conflict to which it should be compared is the Spanish Civil War. Although many of the elements of that conflict were driven by peculiarly Iberian causes, it was far more importantly the focal point of a world struggle between democracy and fascism. It is impossible to understand the events in Iraq today as simply the result of the mindless bungling of George Bush. It is above all the locus of the major clash between two contending trends in the 21st century. And like the Spanish Civil War, Iraq may be the most unavoidable event of the age."
The comments are also worthy.
A) And like the Spanish Civil War....
1) the left in the West has romanticized the conflict and missed the true nature of the insurgency (e.g. Moore's "founding fathers", etc.). Read Orwell. We all know Hitler backed Franco, but Uncle Joe (Stalin) and his ruthles cadres used and killed the naive romantics who flocked from the West.
2) Iraq is likely the prelude to a much larger conflict between fascism and freedom.
B) But the issues at stake are larger than that.
I see it as the 7th century life vs. 21st century life, man against woman, living vs. glorification of death, barbarianism vs civilization.
C) "...it was far more importantly the focal point of a world struggle between democracy and fascism."
But how many knew that at the time? It took the event of W.W. II and the benefit of hindsight to put the Spanish Civil War in its proper perspective. As already noted, neither side was ideologically pure, a point that Orwell discovered during the course of his enlistment/disillusionment with the Loyalists and detailed in his book, Homage to Catalonia.
The stakes for the future seem so much easier to discern at a so much earlier stage in this struggle that it amazes me people aren't able to see it. Of course those who don't now see it eventually will, when it's too late. And then our defeat will be anyone's fault but their own.
#2
The mailing to (the National Enquirer?) at American Media, Inc convinced me this was done by someone with little knowledge of the USA. If you want to make a political statement, why send it a trashy tabloid publisher?
I can almost hear Saddam or Bin Laden saying in response to, "Where should we send the anthrax?"
"Send the anthrax to American leaders and the American media."
#3
Phil, National Enquirer gets more eyeballs per week than the NYT. It's in the checkout counters of every supermarket in the US. They could also be depended on to play it up big-time. (Which they didn't which I find damn odd).
#4
Being that the mailings stopped after the limelight, spotlight, and surveillance was put on Dr. Hatfield, I believe they got their man albeit 'the proof still isn't in the pudding'! The FBI has forced him to live the straight and narrow path in the open; until they can nail him in the future with corroborating evidence!
#9
Also, the detestable neo-nazi biologist, eugenicist and animal rights freak Peter Singer lives within a few blocks of the post office where the envelopes were mailed in Princeton.
#11
Another false flag operation by Bushitler. Along with 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, the Bali Bombing, and the Kennedy assassination. Oh, wait - that last one was the Space Aliens.
Posted by: The Left ||
04/11/2007 20:26 Comments ||
Top||
Iran and Syria lead the U.N. Disarmament Commission.
On April 9, 2007 there was a United Nations believe-it-or-not moment extraordinaire. At the same time that Irans President Ahmadinejad declared his country was now capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, the U.N. reelected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission.
Yes Ripley, the very U.N. body charged with promoting nuclear nonproliferation installed in a senior position the state that the Security Council recently declared violated its nonproliferation resolutions.
So in Iran at the Natanz nuclear facility Ahmadinejad gloated: With great pride, I announce as of today our dear country is among the countries of the world that produces nuclear fuel on an industrial scale. And in New York, courtesy of his U.N. platform, Iranian Disarmament Vice-Chairman Seyed Mohammad Ali Robatjazi railed against noncompliance with the NPT [nuclear nonproliferation treaty] by the United States and the Zionist lobby.
It took the U.N. a mere five days to rehabilitate Iran after the British kidnap victims made it home alive. Just the night before on April 8, Faye Turney, the only female victim, revealed her Iranian abductors stripped her to her underwear, caged her in a tiny, freezing cell, and subjected her to mental torture such as leading her to believe that her death was imminent.
But while this was actually happening to Faye Turney, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, the president of the U.N.s lead human-rights body the U.N. Human Rights Council was making this announcement, March 26, 2006:
I would like to make the following statement adopted by the Council. One, the Human Rights Council has in closed meetings examined the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran Two, the Human Rights Council has decided to discontinue the consideration of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran Three, members of the Human Rights Council should make no reference in the public debate to the confidential decisions and material concerning [the Islamic Republic of Iran]
This is not simply a very bad joke. The U.N. is feted by many as the go-to address for international progress in the world today. Congressman Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, declared at a hearing on U.N. reform in February that the U.N. provides vital support to core U.S. foreign-policy initiatives including on Iran and the way forward is to ratchet up our level of diplomacy there.
Ratchet up suffers from some elementary numerical challenges not to mention the netherworld where that ratcheting is headed. Congressman Lantos and his close friend former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan have long been drinking from the same well. The reformed Human Rights Council was Annans creation. Lantos is the leading advocate of the United States joining the Human Rights Council where presumably we could jump up and down while exercising one vote out of 47. Annan, of his own volition, went to Tehran last September and urged the world not to isolate Iran immediately after the Iranian president had ignored a Security Council deadline to suspend its nuclear activities. Lantos confessed to the House Committee at the end of February that he has been begging for a visa to go to Iran for the past ten years and will be among the first ones to do so once this visa is granted.
Lantos was pleased with his recent trip, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Syria. The U.N. shares his view that one of the worlds leading state sponsors of terrorism ought to be a welcome player on the world stage. Following the election on Monday of Iran as vice chairman, the U.N. Disarmament Commission elected Syria as its rapporteur.
The line between U.N. diplomacy and farce has been crossed. The real tragedy is that the defensible border between our freedom-loving rights-respecting world and the cave of our enemies is fading along with it.
#3
You know the Left > Once again, RUSSIA = Moud's/Iran's announcement is a DIRECT CHALLENGE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD.[ergo America is the only one that must be stopped]. Iff and when the Dems win 2008, all the US-Allied flags propping up on Internet ME Maps will suddenly be credited to the DemoLeft. D ***ng it, HOW CAN THE DEMS LEAVE THE ME AFTER 2008 AND LEAVE BEHIND/ABANDON ALL THEIR SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHH DEMOCRATIC = DEMOCRATIC-Republican FLAGS???
Hassan Nasrallah's loud speech yesterday was a declaration of war on what's left of the Lebanese state. There was a time the Iranian-installed king of Lebanese Shias freely used the country as a vessel for his jihad: farms were set up to grow jihadists, houses hosted rockets and entrances to jihadi tunnels, and wars were launched to tickle the region's strongest and dumbest army, which invariably and reliably gave him what he wanted: death and destruction.
Nasrallah's Lebanon, before the Hariri assassination planted the seeds of independence, was no more than a passage for his toys. The country's government and army were at his disposal, forwarding weapons and at times negotiating their purchase. It is no surprise then that Nasrallah's number one enemy is an independent and sovereign Lebanon. His militia cannot survive more UNIFIL confiscations, and cannot afford an army and security agencies potentially purged of agents.
His attack on the Hariri tribunal, and defense of the jailed leaders of the former security regime make great sense and should not come as a surprise. Why would he want anything that could rock his shrinking kingdom?
If anyone still does not believe that Nasrallah substituted downtown Beirut for the southern border, read his speech on Sunday. Nasrallah's speech renewed Bashar's war declaration from more than a year ago, and fused it with an Iranian green light to continue hijacking the country until kingdom come. Nasrallah did not waste time after returning from a rumored visit to Iran to transmit marching orders to his slaves: the Lebanese state needs to be overthrown, no presidential election, no national unity government, and no Hariri tribunal. My readers will remember similar calls made by Bashar's stooges in the country during the Berri-Hariri dialogue. I guess Ahmadinejad made his choice vis a vis his relations with the Saudis: it's our Gulf and you're trespassing, and we can kidnap those "blondes" anytime we please.
The Syrian and Iranian reading of events intersect on the perception of a weak US government, failing in Iraq, and torn apart by domestic politics that the dictators, perhaps mistakenly, think would alter the current course. You can always count on dictators to see democratic dissent as a sign of weakness, and proof that they're winning the war.
"When you become a state, come back and demand that we don't [run our own]..."
Back in Lebanon, Nasrallah has made the bed Lebanon will be forced to lie in over the next 2 years- or until a new parliament is elected. Speaking before 1,700 Hizbullah university students, Nasrallah admitted he was running his own state. "When you become a state, come back and demand that we don't [run our own] Having a state depends on a strong army able to confront any Israeli attack."
After belittling the Lebanese army, he accused the Lebanese stateyes, this time it's not the cabinet, but the stateof conspiring against and killing its own people (i.e. Shias). Nasrallah linked this conspiracy to an attempt to take over Lebanon with assistance from the international community. He said the objective since the Hariri assassination (no comment on who killed him!) was to take over the cabinet, parliament and the presidency. But he assured Lebanese that the Syrian-installed president will "stay until the last second of his term", and described him as the "true defender of Lebanese national interests".
Nasrallah did not spare the Lebanese judiciary, which he accused of being subordinate to the UN commission investigating the Hariri murder. He attacked the Hariri tribunal bylaws for overriding the Lebanese judiciary, and said the only legitimate party who can review the tribunal is a cabinet headed by Lahoud (read this to mean the Assad regime). Nasrallah described the four generals implicated in the Hariri assassination as "political prisoners" and said the Hariri tribunal's verdicts were pre-determined and "awaiting the endorsement of the court's bylaws before they're made public".
Nasrallah vetoed a president elected by March 14, warned that the government will not be able to control the army, announced the dialogue and the 19-11 formula dead, and laid out his new conditions: referendum or early elections. There is no doubt that Nasrallah is feeling the heat. His fiery speech confirms the insincerity of his camp's time-buying tactics led by Nabih Berri over the past few months. For many of us, the war he officially declared on the Lebanese state has been ongoing since the removal of the Syrian cloak. It is clear, more than ever, that the battle for Lebanon is a battle against Hizbullah.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Will somebody please cap this worthless turd's terrorist ass?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
.JPG)
Hassan Nasrallah's loud speech yesterday was a declaration of war on what's left of the Lebanese state. There was a time the Iranian-installed king of Lebanese Shias freely used the country as a vessel for his jihad: farms were set up to grow jihadists, houses hosted rockets and entrances to jihadi tunnels, and wars were launched to tickle the region's strongest and dumbest army, which invariably and reliably gave him what he wanted: death and destruction. 
