Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Obama’s Revenge
Once upon a time, a white teenager from Kansas got pregnant by her black Kenyan boyfriend, Barack Obama Sr., or was it her husband? Whatever. (I say whatever because we’ve never seen either marriage or divorce certificates). Some say the couple was in Kenya visiting relatives when the birth of their son, Barack Obama Jr., occurred. No matter. (I say no matter because we’ve never seen an authentic birth certificate). By the time the baby was two years old his father abandoned him for his other wife and child in Kenya.
I wonder how toddler Barry felt when his father left him, and never reappeared until a single time when the boy was 10. Bewildered? Sad? Lonely? Angry? What do two-year-olds do with those feelings?
It didn’t take long for Barry’s mother to meet and marry an Indonesian native named Lolo Soetoro. They moved to Indonesia, where her child became Barry Soetoro, took on Indonesian citizenship, and was presumably schooled in public, Christian, and Muslim schools. (I say presumably because we’ve never seen those school records). But when Barry was 10 years old, his mother sent him back to the U.S. to be raised by her parents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, although she kept her baby daughter Maya Soetoro with her.
I wonder how the by-now fully-sentient young Barry felt when his mother sent him packing. Sad? Jealous of the baby who remained behind with mommy? Confused and dizzy by the disparate cultures – languages, customs, foods, sights, sounds, schooling – he had experienced? Resentful? What did Barry do with those feelings?
By the time he was 10, the boy had been abandoned three times – by his father, stepfather, and mother. And although he was raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii – where “people of color” were not his color – he found out soon enough that his mixed-race background rendered him, in effect, an outsider. Did that make him feel self-conscious, indignant, victimized?
But he wasn’t altogether an outsider. In Hawaii, young Barry met Frank Marshall Davis, his first and perhaps most influential mentor. The infamous Marshall, a Communist activist (and self-confessed pedophile) taught Barry – was it Obama, Soetero, Dunham? – that white people were the devil incarnate and that blacks were the most “victimized” people on earth.
Yet the abandoned and rejected child was lucky. His white-devil grandparents gave him a comfortable life in Hawaii, and an education that apparently qualified him to attend several prestigious schools – Occidental College in CA, Columbia Univ. in NY City, and Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA.(I say apparently qualified because we’ve never seen any of his college transcripts).
read the rest...
I wonder how toddler Barry felt when his father left him, and never reappeared until a single time when the boy was 10. Bewildered? Sad? Lonely? Angry? What do two-year-olds do with those feelings?
It didn’t take long for Barry’s mother to meet and marry an Indonesian native named Lolo Soetoro. They moved to Indonesia, where her child became Barry Soetoro, took on Indonesian citizenship, and was presumably schooled in public, Christian, and Muslim schools. (I say presumably because we’ve never seen those school records). But when Barry was 10 years old, his mother sent him back to the U.S. to be raised by her parents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, although she kept her baby daughter Maya Soetoro with her.
I wonder how the by-now fully-sentient young Barry felt when his mother sent him packing. Sad? Jealous of the baby who remained behind with mommy? Confused and dizzy by the disparate cultures – languages, customs, foods, sights, sounds, schooling – he had experienced? Resentful? What did Barry do with those feelings?
By the time he was 10, the boy had been abandoned three times – by his father, stepfather, and mother. And although he was raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii – where “people of color” were not his color – he found out soon enough that his mixed-race background rendered him, in effect, an outsider. Did that make him feel self-conscious, indignant, victimized?
But he wasn’t altogether an outsider. In Hawaii, young Barry met Frank Marshall Davis, his first and perhaps most influential mentor. The infamous Marshall, a Communist activist (and self-confessed pedophile) taught Barry – was it Obama, Soetero, Dunham? – that white people were the devil incarnate and that blacks were the most “victimized” people on earth.
Yet the abandoned and rejected child was lucky. His white-devil grandparents gave him a comfortable life in Hawaii, and an education that apparently qualified him to attend several prestigious schools – Occidental College in CA, Columbia Univ. in NY City, and Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA.(I say apparently qualified because we’ve never seen any of his college transcripts).
read the rest...
Muslim Television Channel Founder Charged With Beheading His Wife
The estranged wife of a Muslim television executive feared for her life after filing for divorce last month from her "abusive" husband, her attorney said — and was found beheaded Thursday in his upstate New York TV studio.
Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, was found dead on Thursday at the offices of Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., near Buffalo. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, has reportedly been charged with second-degree murder.
"She was very much aware of the potential ramification of her filing for divorce might have," said attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding. "But she wanted to proceed despite the potential for it to erupt."
DiPirro said the couple had "physical confrontations off and on" for their entire eight-year marriage that had recently escalated to death threats. The grounds for divorce were "cruel and inhuman treatment," DiPirro said, referring to mulitple prior incidents of abuse. She declined to elaborate.
Read the rest...
Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, was found dead on Thursday at the offices of Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., near Buffalo. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, has reportedly been charged with second-degree murder.
"She was very much aware of the potential ramification of her filing for divorce might have," said attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding. "But she wanted to proceed despite the potential for it to erupt."
DiPirro said the couple had "physical confrontations off and on" for their entire eight-year marriage that had recently escalated to death threats. The grounds for divorce were "cruel and inhuman treatment," DiPirro said, referring to mulitple prior incidents of abuse. She declined to elaborate.
Read the rest...
Arab "Friends" Say They Hope We Die, Pray for Success of Terrorists
Just a typical Arab symposium in the Middle East... a Kuwaiti professor dreams of anthrax attacks (ever wonder what 4 pounds of anthrax on the White House lawn would do?), bombing nuke plants (they have a fondness for the Great Lakes), and, of course, the total destruction of Israel. The crowd just laughs when he prays for the success of these psychos. Very eerie video.
Now isn't this the same Kuwait we liberated from Saddam 20 some years ago? ungrateful scumbag!
Now isn't this the same Kuwait we liberated from Saddam 20 some years ago? ungrateful scumbag!
Friday, February 6, 2009
Community organizing explained
Community organizing explained
Posted: February 04, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Immediately after the Democratic National Convention in Colorado, the Boston Globe published a letter from L. David Alinsky. He boasted about how Barack Obama had made extremely effective use of his training in the methods of David's late father, the famous Chicago radical, Saul D. Alinsky.
David Alinsky gloated: "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
What was Saul Alinsky's model that Barack Obama used so successfully to defeat the Clinton machine plus the Republican Party in a dramatic one-two punch never before seen in politics? What is known today as "the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power" are fully set forth in Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals."
Alinsky's worldview was that mankind is divided into three parts: "the Haves, the Have-Nots and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores." His purpose was to teach the Have-Nots how to take power and money away from the Haves by creating mass organizations to seize power, and he frankly admitted that "this means revolution."
He wanted a radical change of America's social and economic structure, and he planned to achieve that through creating public discontent and moral confusion. Alinsky developed strategies to achieve power through mass organization, and organizing was his word for revolution.
He wanted to move the United States from capitalism to socialism, where the means of production would be owned by all the people (i.e., the government). A believer in economic determinism, he viewed unemployment, disease, crime and bigotry as byproducts of capitalism.
"Change" was Alinsky's favorite word, used on page after page. "I will argue," he wrote, "that man's hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change."
Alinsky used what he called "general concepts of change" to move us toward "a science of revolution." What he called "change" meant massive change in our socio-economic structure, and what he called "organizing" meant pursuing confrontational political tactics.
Alinsky taught the Have-Nots to "hate the establishment of the Haves" because they have "power, money, food, security and luxury." He claimed that "justice, morality, law and order are mere words used by the Haves to justify and secure their status quo."
Read the rest...
Posted: February 04, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Immediately after the Democratic National Convention in Colorado, the Boston Globe published a letter from L. David Alinsky. He boasted about how Barack Obama had made extremely effective use of his training in the methods of David's late father, the famous Chicago radical, Saul D. Alinsky.
David Alinsky gloated: "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
What was Saul Alinsky's model that Barack Obama used so successfully to defeat the Clinton machine plus the Republican Party in a dramatic one-two punch never before seen in politics? What is known today as "the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power" are fully set forth in Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals."
Alinsky's worldview was that mankind is divided into three parts: "the Haves, the Have-Nots and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores." His purpose was to teach the Have-Nots how to take power and money away from the Haves by creating mass organizations to seize power, and he frankly admitted that "this means revolution."
He wanted a radical change of America's social and economic structure, and he planned to achieve that through creating public discontent and moral confusion. Alinsky developed strategies to achieve power through mass organization, and organizing was his word for revolution.
He wanted to move the United States from capitalism to socialism, where the means of production would be owned by all the people (i.e., the government). A believer in economic determinism, he viewed unemployment, disease, crime and bigotry as byproducts of capitalism.
"Change" was Alinsky's favorite word, used on page after page. "I will argue," he wrote, "that man's hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change."
Alinsky used what he called "general concepts of change" to move us toward "a science of revolution." What he called "change" meant massive change in our socio-economic structure, and what he called "organizing" meant pursuing confrontational political tactics.
Alinsky taught the Have-Nots to "hate the establishment of the Haves" because they have "power, money, food, security and luxury." He claimed that "justice, morality, law and order are mere words used by the Haves to justify and secure their status quo."
Read the rest...
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Nancy Pelosi: Dumb as a STUMP
WTF is it with politicians? How do these so obviously "dumb as dirt" idiots keep getting elected?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Allah Imposed Hitler Upon The Jews To Punish Them :
Holocaust denial doesn't work anymore so lets turn it to Islams advantage. And we're supposed to think all cultures are equal? This vermin needs to be removed from our midsts as soon as possible.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Fight Back Against the Tolerance Fascists
Here's the reality: 95% of the time, if not more, when people yowl about racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, hatred of the poor, the environment, old people, etc., it's not true. Worse yet, most of the people doing the shouting KNOW IT'S NOT TRUE. They're merely crying wolf for political gain because they believe they may benefit personally from it -- or in the case of organizations like the NAACP, La Raza, GLAAD, CAIR, NOW and the alphabet soup of other groups that make a living off of having grievances, because it keeps them rolling in money and publicity.
Read it all...
Read it all...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The British called - They want their guns back!
This is what's happening in Britain, but we're not far behind. We hear repeated calls for complete bans, but what will taking guns away from honest, responsible, legal gun owners accomplish, NOTHING. Drug dealers and predominantly ethnic gangs in major cities don't by legal guns. And shooting innocent people is part of their culture, and aren't we supposed to be more multi-cultural? Phone or write to your local MP/MPP and tell them to go after criminals instead of honest, law abiding citizens.
And this innocent Canadian young lady has more where with all and common sense then most leftist politicians. Have peek, she's great!
And this innocent Canadian young lady has more where with all and common sense then most leftist politicians. Have peek, she's great!
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’
Evidence Item 985645431 that AGW is a bullshit hoax. When will our political elite pull their collective heads out of their @sses and brush this hoax aside and get on with things that really effect us?
This is something I thought I’d never see. This press release today is from the Senate EPW blog of James Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident report and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements:
For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.
EPW press release below - Anthony
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Read entire article
Also read this
This is something I thought I’d never see. This press release today is from the Senate EPW blog of James Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident report and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements:
The Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. John Theon, was established by NASA Headquarters to review existing weather support capabilities and plans and to recommend a course of action to the NSTS Program. Included on the panel were representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.
EPW press release below - Anthony
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Read entire article
Also read this
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Killjoys blow smoke on character-building era
By IAN GILLESPIE
This last week, the province of Ontario made it illegal to smoke in a vehicle containing passengers under 16 years of age.
On some levels, I'm sure this is a dandy idea. After all, scientists tell us, although it packs far less of a satisfying buzz, second-hand smoke is still pretty doggone dangerous.
(Although the jury is still out on third-hand smoke, which as I understand it occurs when you kiss somebody who watched a movie that showed somebody smoking a cigarette.)
But sometimes, I wonder if we're being a tad overly-protective of our young people, particularly when I think back to the halcyon days of my youth in the mid-1960s.
Back then, of course, almost everybody smoked, including non-smokers, hockey players, pets, Sunday school teachers and my grandmother.
And while it's true my dad usually forced grandma to sit in the basement when she lit up, that actually had more to do with my dad's relationship with his mother-in-law than any concerns about the dangerous effects of tobacco.
I still fondly recall when, for no reason other than they were thoroughly fed up with me, my parents would drop me off for the day, or in one instance, for about 15 years, at my grandmother's house, where I'd happily light her cigarettes (because she was extremely health conscious, she smoked only menthol brands), crack open her bottles of beer and join her in gleefully insulting the neighbours.
I should point out that my beloved grandmother, who insisted on calling me Butch because she thought Ian was a wussy name, insulted everyone, regardless of their heritage, appearance or economic status. And not a day goes by when I don't thank my lucky stars grammy taught me so much about equality, inclusiveness and the life- affirming benefits of all-round, cranky cussedness.
Those were character-building times.
So too were the days when I'd visit my uncle and we'd load up his air rifle and pellet gun, find a comfortable perch in the back bedroom and then blast away at the various cats, dogs and squirrels that had the temerity to venture into his backyard.
Today, of course, some tree- hugging, pet-loving do-gooder would likely claim that taking pot shots at animals is cruel. To which I respond: Yeah, well, what about the hand-eye co-ordination? What about the vocabulary lessons I so effortlessly absorbed when my uncle missed his target? And what happened to your face? Huh!?
These are tough times, and I often wonder if today's kids, who know next to nothing about guns, or smoking, or how to pack an ice ball that'll leave a permanent mark -- are really equipped for facing the daunting challenges ahead.
I mean, who would you rather have leading us into the future? Somebody wearing a seat-belt, a helmet and a happy-face smile? Or somebody who understands how to empty a school with a smoke bomb made from a ballpoint pen?
I don't think I need to answer that.
This last week, the province of Ontario made it illegal to smoke in a vehicle containing passengers under 16 years of age.
On some levels, I'm sure this is a dandy idea. After all, scientists tell us, although it packs far less of a satisfying buzz, second-hand smoke is still pretty doggone dangerous.
(Although the jury is still out on third-hand smoke, which as I understand it occurs when you kiss somebody who watched a movie that showed somebody smoking a cigarette.)
But sometimes, I wonder if we're being a tad overly-protective of our young people, particularly when I think back to the halcyon days of my youth in the mid-1960s.
Back then, of course, almost everybody smoked, including non-smokers, hockey players, pets, Sunday school teachers and my grandmother.
And while it's true my dad usually forced grandma to sit in the basement when she lit up, that actually had more to do with my dad's relationship with his mother-in-law than any concerns about the dangerous effects of tobacco.
I still fondly recall when, for no reason other than they were thoroughly fed up with me, my parents would drop me off for the day, or in one instance, for about 15 years, at my grandmother's house, where I'd happily light her cigarettes (because she was extremely health conscious, she smoked only menthol brands), crack open her bottles of beer and join her in gleefully insulting the neighbours.
I should point out that my beloved grandmother, who insisted on calling me Butch because she thought Ian was a wussy name, insulted everyone, regardless of their heritage, appearance or economic status. And not a day goes by when I don't thank my lucky stars grammy taught me so much about equality, inclusiveness and the life- affirming benefits of all-round, cranky cussedness.
Those were character-building times.
So too were the days when I'd visit my uncle and we'd load up his air rifle and pellet gun, find a comfortable perch in the back bedroom and then blast away at the various cats, dogs and squirrels that had the temerity to venture into his backyard.
Today, of course, some tree- hugging, pet-loving do-gooder would likely claim that taking pot shots at animals is cruel. To which I respond: Yeah, well, what about the hand-eye co-ordination? What about the vocabulary lessons I so effortlessly absorbed when my uncle missed his target? And what happened to your face? Huh!?
These are tough times, and I often wonder if today's kids, who know next to nothing about guns, or smoking, or how to pack an ice ball that'll leave a permanent mark -- are really equipped for facing the daunting challenges ahead.
I mean, who would you rather have leading us into the future? Somebody wearing a seat-belt, a helmet and a happy-face smile? Or somebody who understands how to empty a school with a smoke bomb made from a ballpoint pen?
I don't think I need to answer that.
Shame on The Netherlands
This is a truly dark day for Holland. Being "Persecuted" by the legal system, for showing how muslims act, in accordance with their koran is now considered a hate crime. The truth is no longer a defence in the Netherlands. The unbridled fear, of the religion of "peace" has gripped the liberal leftists of Europe and, they have decided to sacrifice their own populations to the will of the violent, anti-western, anti-civilization islamists that they themselves have imported.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Dutch court to prosecute Wilders for Fitna
This is beyond the pale. That this can happen in the once most liberal country in the world is very worrisome. Has the Dutch, liberal, government gone that far down the the road to Dhimmitude that the complaints of nine muslims can turn the Judiciary upside down? SAD, sad day indeed.
“I Will Not Stand Trial Alone”
by Baron Bodissey
There’s one thing you can say about the Dutch political establishment: it is thoroughly immune to irony.
The images of burning cars and firebombed synagogues have barely faded from the TV screens of the Netherlands.
The cries of “Heil Hitler!” and “Jews to the gas!” that mingled with “Allahu akhbar!” are still echoing in the glass-strewn streets.
Yet Geert Wilders — who speaks out against these barbaric forces, and proposes to halt the Islamization of his country in order to put a stop to them — is the one who is being prosecuted for “hate speech”.
The true heirs of National Socialism rage unimpeded through the streets of Europe, while Geert Wilders is the one who “incites hatred” and “insults groups of people”.
Go figure.
Wilders: Court decision is an assault on free speech
By Claudia van Zanten
The PVV leader said he was deeply affected by the ruling of the court in Amsterdam. The court decided Wednesday to prosecute PVV leader Geert Wilders for “discrimination, incitement to hatred, and insulting groups of people.”
“This is apparently is the way the Netherlands sticks together. If you give your opinion, you run the risk of being prosecuted. Taking part in the public debate has become a dangerous activity,” Wilders said in a response.
Islamization of the Netherlands
“If I have to stand trial, I will not be alone, stand trial alone, but also with the hundreds of thousands of Dutch people who reject the Islamization of the Netherlands,” says the PVV leader.
“Their opinion is only represented in The Hague [parliament] by the Party for Freedom. Who else will stand for our culture when I have to remain silent? This strengthens me in these harsh days,” he continues.
Wilders is worried of the costs of the court case. “We depend on small donations. The PVV is the only party that is not conditional on making itself dependent on subsidies. The ruling of the Court will endanger the survival of the Party for Freedom. The hundreds of thousands we will loose on the costs are impossible for us to afford.”
“A Black Day”
- - - - - - - - -
The PVV leader considers today “a black day.”
The court is of the opinion that the statements on Islam and Muslims produce a “reasonable suspicion of guilt”. Therefore, the Criminal Judge has to pass a judgment on it, the court finds. The Judge must also pass a judgment on Wilders’ comparison of the Quran with Mein Kampf.
Concern
The VVD [Liberal party] calls it worrisome that a parliamentarian is being prosecuted for statements which he makes as a politician. It is the task of member of parliament let his views be heard in society, according to VVD MP Fred Teeven.
“It is good that the justice is going to express itself in a debate that increasingly polarizes,” PvdA [Labour] member Ton Heerts says.
Support Geert Wilders in his battle for free speech and against dhimmitude.
Sign the petition in support of Geert
“I Will Not Stand Trial Alone”
by Baron Bodissey
There’s one thing you can say about the Dutch political establishment: it is thoroughly immune to irony.
The images of burning cars and firebombed synagogues have barely faded from the TV screens of the Netherlands.
The cries of “Heil Hitler!” and “Jews to the gas!” that mingled with “Allahu akhbar!” are still echoing in the glass-strewn streets.
Yet Geert Wilders — who speaks out against these barbaric forces, and proposes to halt the Islamization of his country in order to put a stop to them — is the one who is being prosecuted for “hate speech”.
The true heirs of National Socialism rage unimpeded through the streets of Europe, while Geert Wilders is the one who “incites hatred” and “insults groups of people”.
Go figure.
Wilders: Court decision is an assault on free speech
By Claudia van Zanten
The PVV leader said he was deeply affected by the ruling of the court in Amsterdam. The court decided Wednesday to prosecute PVV leader Geert Wilders for “discrimination, incitement to hatred, and insulting groups of people.”
“This is apparently is the way the Netherlands sticks together. If you give your opinion, you run the risk of being prosecuted. Taking part in the public debate has become a dangerous activity,” Wilders said in a response.
Islamization of the Netherlands
“If I have to stand trial, I will not be alone, stand trial alone, but also with the hundreds of thousands of Dutch people who reject the Islamization of the Netherlands,” says the PVV leader.
“Their opinion is only represented in The Hague [parliament] by the Party for Freedom. Who else will stand for our culture when I have to remain silent? This strengthens me in these harsh days,” he continues.
Wilders is worried of the costs of the court case. “We depend on small donations. The PVV is the only party that is not conditional on making itself dependent on subsidies. The ruling of the Court will endanger the survival of the Party for Freedom. The hundreds of thousands we will loose on the costs are impossible for us to afford.”
“A Black Day”
- - - - - - - - -
The PVV leader considers today “a black day.”
The court is of the opinion that the statements on Islam and Muslims produce a “reasonable suspicion of guilt”. Therefore, the Criminal Judge has to pass a judgment on it, the court finds. The Judge must also pass a judgment on Wilders’ comparison of the Quran with Mein Kampf.
Concern
The VVD [Liberal party] calls it worrisome that a parliamentarian is being prosecuted for statements which he makes as a politician. It is the task of member of parliament let his views be heard in society, according to VVD MP Fred Teeven.
“It is good that the justice is going to express itself in a debate that increasingly polarizes,” PvdA [Labour] member Ton Heerts says.
Support Geert Wilders in his battle for free speech and against dhimmitude.
Sign the petition in support of Geert
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Awakening of a Dumb (Gay) American
by Charles Winecoff
Having never been big on the holidays, I decided to do something different this past Christmas. Instead of sending fruit-of-the-month baskets to family and friends, I made gift donations to ActforAmerica.org, the grassroots watchdog group, founded by Lebanese-American Brigitte Gabriel that keeps an eye on the spread of Islamic supremacy and jihad here in the US.
Yes, Virginia, there is a jihad. I was pretty sure all Americans were aware of that.
But I quickly learned that the topic has basically become taboo here in the civilized world – kind of like the way homosexuality used to be before people fought back. Despite the fact that we are currently at war with Islamic extremists who are fervently devoted to annihilating the Great Satan (that’s you and me), I received two reactions for the donations I made.
One was silence. No perfunctory thank yous, just cold-as-a-morgue-slab silence. Apparently, such a gift didn’t deserve an acknowledgment. We don’t talk about those things.
The other was anger – please remove us from the mailing list immediately – upsetting to someone like me, who takes disapproval very hard. (For the record, ActforAmerica.org did not automatically add anyone to their mailing list, but simply sent out brochures about the organization.)
Of the two reactions, I preferred the anger; it seemed healthier, gave me something to respond to, and got me thinking. I realized I had to come out of the closet – again. The first time was in 1977, when, as a teenager, I had to cope with the fact that I was gay. Luckily, I lived in New York City, where gay people were visible and vocal. So as scared as I was, at least I knew I wasn’t alone.
But here in L.A., in 2008, it occurred to me that I might be alone. Still, the cat was out of the bag. I realized I couldn’t pass anymore as a good Left-leaning homo. The camouflage had worn thin. So I wrote an open letter to my friends and family. History certainly does repeat itself, doesn’t it? I share my second coming out with you here.
*********
Dear friends,
I probably should have done this a long time ago, but it has been too convenient (though hardly easy) to simply keep my mouth shut and try not to displease people or get myself into “trouble” in so-called polite society. I’ve always been a people pleaser, constantly changing my opinion to suit others - and frankly, most of the time, I’ve actually been afraid of saying what I really think. But I’m pushing 50 now, I’ve been through a lot – as we all have - and I simply cannot do it anymore.
I am gay and I am American. I didn’t choose either, but those are the facts. I have spent a lifetime working hard to overcome guilt and fear about being gay – and in my lifetime, I have seen a lot of progress in our society regarding the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. No matter what obstacles gay people have faced, and no matter who was President, things have always moved forward. That’s a good thing, and at this late stage in my life I see that America is one of few places on earth where that is possible. A lot of people who do not live here are well aware of America as a place of change. But it has taken me all these decades to understand and appreciate how unique and special that is in this world.
Read the rest...
Having never been big on the holidays, I decided to do something different this past Christmas. Instead of sending fruit-of-the-month baskets to family and friends, I made gift donations to ActforAmerica.org, the grassroots watchdog group, founded by Lebanese-American Brigitte Gabriel that keeps an eye on the spread of Islamic supremacy and jihad here in the US.
Yes, Virginia, there is a jihad. I was pretty sure all Americans were aware of that.
But I quickly learned that the topic has basically become taboo here in the civilized world – kind of like the way homosexuality used to be before people fought back. Despite the fact that we are currently at war with Islamic extremists who are fervently devoted to annihilating the Great Satan (that’s you and me), I received two reactions for the donations I made.
One was silence. No perfunctory thank yous, just cold-as-a-morgue-slab silence. Apparently, such a gift didn’t deserve an acknowledgment. We don’t talk about those things.
The other was anger – please remove us from the mailing list immediately – upsetting to someone like me, who takes disapproval very hard. (For the record, ActforAmerica.org did not automatically add anyone to their mailing list, but simply sent out brochures about the organization.)
Of the two reactions, I preferred the anger; it seemed healthier, gave me something to respond to, and got me thinking. I realized I had to come out of the closet – again. The first time was in 1977, when, as a teenager, I had to cope with the fact that I was gay. Luckily, I lived in New York City, where gay people were visible and vocal. So as scared as I was, at least I knew I wasn’t alone.
But here in L.A., in 2008, it occurred to me that I might be alone. Still, the cat was out of the bag. I realized I couldn’t pass anymore as a good Left-leaning homo. The camouflage had worn thin. So I wrote an open letter to my friends and family. History certainly does repeat itself, doesn’t it? I share my second coming out with you here.
*********
Dear friends,
I probably should have done this a long time ago, but it has been too convenient (though hardly easy) to simply keep my mouth shut and try not to displease people or get myself into “trouble” in so-called polite society. I’ve always been a people pleaser, constantly changing my opinion to suit others - and frankly, most of the time, I’ve actually been afraid of saying what I really think. But I’m pushing 50 now, I’ve been through a lot – as we all have - and I simply cannot do it anymore.
I am gay and I am American. I didn’t choose either, but those are the facts. I have spent a lifetime working hard to overcome guilt and fear about being gay – and in my lifetime, I have seen a lot of progress in our society regarding the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. No matter what obstacles gay people have faced, and no matter who was President, things have always moved forward. That’s a good thing, and at this late stage in my life I see that America is one of few places on earth where that is possible. A lot of people who do not live here are well aware of America as a place of change. But it has taken me all these decades to understand and appreciate how unique and special that is in this world.
Read the rest...
Democrats Smeared Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960's
By Frances Rice
Character assignation. That's the tactic used by Democrats in the 1960's to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican who was fighting the Democrats and trying to stop them from denying civil rights to blacks.
The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King's home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.
An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963. With the approval of Democrat President John F. Kennedy, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy - President Kennedy's brother - authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King's telephone by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on the telephones in Dr. King's home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King's hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.
The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings' criticism of the Kennedy Administration, according to the author David Garrow in his book, "Bearing the Cross". The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly was that two of Dr. King's associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King. However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.
The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King's reputation continued for years after his death. To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats' smear campaign and made Dr. King's Birthday a holiday.
Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still trying to tarnish his image by making remarks that diminish his civil rights achievements and continuing to claim that Dr. King embraced Communism - a system that is secularist and socialist.
In reality, Dr. King was a Christian who held deeply religious beliefs and was guided by his faith and his Republican Party principles in his struggle to gain equality for blacks. He did not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democrat Party today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and banning God from the public square.
An understanding of who the real Dr. King was can be gained from a glimpse of Dr. King as a young man who participated in an oratorical contest when he was 14 years old. The title of his speech was "The Negro and the Constitution" which had the following sentences: "We cannot have an enlightened democracy with one great group living in ignorance...We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flout the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule...."
If Dr. King were still alive, he would be slandered by Democrats in the same way that they smeared him in the 1960's and demean all black Republicans today.
Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info/
Character assignation. That's the tactic used by Democrats in the 1960's to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican who was fighting the Democrats and trying to stop them from denying civil rights to blacks.
The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King's home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.
An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963. With the approval of Democrat President John F. Kennedy, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy - President Kennedy's brother - authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King's telephone by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on the telephones in Dr. King's home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King's hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.
The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings' criticism of the Kennedy Administration, according to the author David Garrow in his book, "Bearing the Cross". The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly was that two of Dr. King's associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King. However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.
The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King's reputation continued for years after his death. To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats' smear campaign and made Dr. King's Birthday a holiday.
Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still trying to tarnish his image by making remarks that diminish his civil rights achievements and continuing to claim that Dr. King embraced Communism - a system that is secularist and socialist.
In reality, Dr. King was a Christian who held deeply religious beliefs and was guided by his faith and his Republican Party principles in his struggle to gain equality for blacks. He did not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democrat Party today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and banning God from the public square.
An understanding of who the real Dr. King was can be gained from a glimpse of Dr. King as a young man who participated in an oratorical contest when he was 14 years old. The title of his speech was "The Negro and the Constitution" which had the following sentences: "We cannot have an enlightened democracy with one great group living in ignorance...We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flout the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule...."
If Dr. King were still alive, he would be slandered by Democrats in the same way that they smeared him in the 1960's and demean all black Republicans today.
Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info/
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
