Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Peres quits Labour, will work for Sharon's new Kadima party
The BBC is reporting that Shimon Peres, a long-time leader in Israeli politics, has quit the Labour Party to back Ariel Sharon and his newly-formed Kadima party:
Veteran Israeli politician Shimon Peres has quit the Labour Party and announced his support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for March's general election.
***
"My period of service within the [Labour] party has come to an end," he told a press conference in Tel Aviv.
"His [Sharon's] mind is set to continue the peace process and he is open to new ideas for peace. I support his election to seek these aims."
Prime Minister Sharon founded the centrist Kadima party earlier this month, redrawing at a stroke the entire political landscape. Several opinion polls in Israeli newspapers have suggested that Kadima, the Hebrew word for "forward", could win next year's election.
Veteran Israeli politician Shimon Peres has quit the Labour Party and announced his support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for March's general election.
***
"My period of service within the [Labour] party has come to an end," he told a press conference in Tel Aviv.
"His [Sharon's] mind is set to continue the peace process and he is open to new ideas for peace. I support his election to seek these aims."
Prime Minister Sharon founded the centrist Kadima party earlier this month, redrawing at a stroke the entire political landscape. Several opinion polls in Israeli newspapers have suggested that Kadima, the Hebrew word for "forward", could win next year's election.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Metamorphosis
Throughout his reign of terror, Saddam Hussein labored mightily to convince everyone – the people of Iraq, neighboring countries, the world community and potential adversaries, both foreign and domestic – that he was the all-powerful, all-knowing ruler of Iraq.
Like Stalin, he wanted one and all to believe that he knew everything that happened, that his agents were everywhere, that nothing happened in Iraq without his knowledge and approval. Like Stalin, he made sure that people, sometimes whole families, disappeared without trace or reason often enough to convince everyone else that even thinking thoughts of which Saddam would not approve could get you “disappeared” to one of his prisons or mass graves.
And when things happened without his approval, an assassination attempt here, a little rebellion there, he became the merciless and all-powerful engine of vengeance, executing the entire families of those suspected of involvement, destroying the orchards and fields of entire villages suspected of being the homes of those suspected of being involved. Sometimes even destroying entire villages and killing all the inhabitants, using such means as poison gas and mass execution.
He embarked on a pattern of forced relocation according to ethnic or religious background. You lived where you were told you could live. You lived the way you were told you could live. And you lived in fear that someone, anyone, might denounce you as insufficiently reverent toward the all-knowing, all-powerful Saddam. Whether it was true or not made no difference. And so even if you followed all the rules, you lived in fear of Saddam.
Which was just what he wanted.
But watch now, as the trial of Saddam unfolds, and behold! A startling metamorphosis will occur. Aided and abetted by a virulently, unreasonably, and incredibly stupid anti-Bush press, Saddam will be transformed before your very eyes into a victim, a lovable and well-meaning benevolent dictator who was ignorant of the terrible goings-on around him. Who had no knowledge of the atrocities carried out in his name by evil underlings who deceived him and hid the awful truth from him.
The underlings, confronted by incontrovertible proof of their involvement in vast and incomprehensible atrocities (which will receive scant coverage from a world media busy with its search for another picture of some guy in US custody wearing underwear on his head) will claim they were just following orders. Saddam will of course deny ever having given the orders. And blame will be laid at the feet of a group of Saddamite functionaries now conveniently dead. These dead monsters will become the scapegoats, the evil ones who victimized both the Iraqi people and their beloved and benevolent leader.
Never mind the fact that the world knows well that any subordinate functionaries who sneezed without Saddam's OK died (or disappeared) years ago.
Just watch as the coverage unfolds. The media focus will not be where it should be, on the unspeakable horrors inflicted by the monstrous Saddam Hussein and his evil henchmen. It will be on Saddam, the victim. First victimized by those evil and deceitful henchmen, now victimized by the evil and deceitful US and its Iraqi puppets.
Someone call me if the mainstream media ever decides to actually report news again instead of churning out propaganda in support of its one-world socialist agenda. That is a metamorphosis I’d like to see.
Like Stalin, he wanted one and all to believe that he knew everything that happened, that his agents were everywhere, that nothing happened in Iraq without his knowledge and approval. Like Stalin, he made sure that people, sometimes whole families, disappeared without trace or reason often enough to convince everyone else that even thinking thoughts of which Saddam would not approve could get you “disappeared” to one of his prisons or mass graves.
And when things happened without his approval, an assassination attempt here, a little rebellion there, he became the merciless and all-powerful engine of vengeance, executing the entire families of those suspected of involvement, destroying the orchards and fields of entire villages suspected of being the homes of those suspected of being involved. Sometimes even destroying entire villages and killing all the inhabitants, using such means as poison gas and mass execution.
He embarked on a pattern of forced relocation according to ethnic or religious background. You lived where you were told you could live. You lived the way you were told you could live. And you lived in fear that someone, anyone, might denounce you as insufficiently reverent toward the all-knowing, all-powerful Saddam. Whether it was true or not made no difference. And so even if you followed all the rules, you lived in fear of Saddam.
Which was just what he wanted.
But watch now, as the trial of Saddam unfolds, and behold! A startling metamorphosis will occur. Aided and abetted by a virulently, unreasonably, and incredibly stupid anti-Bush press, Saddam will be transformed before your very eyes into a victim, a lovable and well-meaning benevolent dictator who was ignorant of the terrible goings-on around him. Who had no knowledge of the atrocities carried out in his name by evil underlings who deceived him and hid the awful truth from him.
The underlings, confronted by incontrovertible proof of their involvement in vast and incomprehensible atrocities (which will receive scant coverage from a world media busy with its search for another picture of some guy in US custody wearing underwear on his head) will claim they were just following orders. Saddam will of course deny ever having given the orders. And blame will be laid at the feet of a group of Saddamite functionaries now conveniently dead. These dead monsters will become the scapegoats, the evil ones who victimized both the Iraqi people and their beloved and benevolent leader.
Never mind the fact that the world knows well that any subordinate functionaries who sneezed without Saddam's OK died (or disappeared) years ago.
Just watch as the coverage unfolds. The media focus will not be where it should be, on the unspeakable horrors inflicted by the monstrous Saddam Hussein and his evil henchmen. It will be on Saddam, the victim. First victimized by those evil and deceitful henchmen, now victimized by the evil and deceitful US and its Iraqi puppets.
Someone call me if the mainstream media ever decides to actually report news again instead of churning out propaganda in support of its one-world socialist agenda. That is a metamorphosis I’d like to see.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
No jail time for child-molesting Florida teacher
Fox News is reporting that a 25 year old teacher who repeatedly had sex with a 14 year old student has entered into a plea-bargain which provides for no jail time:
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida teacher charged with having sex with a minor pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior as part of a plea deal that does not include any jail time.
The deal provides that Greco Middle School teacher Debra Lafave, 25, will not serve one day in jail in connection with multiple sex acts with a 14-year-old student unless she violates the terms of the plea agreement, which includes three years of house arrest and seven years' probation.
Can someone please point me to the most recent case in which a male 25 year old teacher repeatedly had sex with a female 14 year old student and did not serve a single day incarcerated?
This woman is a child molester, and if the genders were reversed she would be so labeled and treated accordingly.
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida teacher charged with having sex with a minor pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior as part of a plea deal that does not include any jail time.
The deal provides that Greco Middle School teacher Debra Lafave, 25, will not serve one day in jail in connection with multiple sex acts with a 14-year-old student unless she violates the terms of the plea agreement, which includes three years of house arrest and seven years' probation.
Can someone please point me to the most recent case in which a male 25 year old teacher repeatedly had sex with a female 14 year old student and did not serve a single day incarcerated?
This woman is a child molester, and if the genders were reversed she would be so labeled and treated accordingly.
A Thanksgiving Story
A young man named John received a parrot as a gift. The parrot had a bad attitude and an even worse vocabulary. Every word out of the bird's mouth was rude, obnoxious and laced with profanity. John tried and tried to change the bird's attitude by consistently saying only polite words, playing soft music and anything else he could think of to "clean up" the bird's vocabulary.
Finally, John was fed up and he yelled at the parrot. The parrot yelled back. John shook the parrot and the parrot got angrier and even ruder. John, in desperation, threw up his hands, grabbed the bird and put him in the freezer. For a few minutes the parrot squawked and kicked and screamed. Then suddenly there was total quiet. Not a peep was heard for over a minute.
Fearing that he'd hurt the parrot, John quickly opened the door to the freezer.
The parrot calmly stepped out onto John's outstretched arms and said "I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and actions. I'm sincerely remorseful for my inappropriate transgressions and I fully intend to do everything I can to correct my rude and unforgivable behavior."
John was stunned at the change in the bird's attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had made such a dramatic change in his behavior, the bird continued, "May I ask what the turkey did?"
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Finally, John was fed up and he yelled at the parrot. The parrot yelled back. John shook the parrot and the parrot got angrier and even ruder. John, in desperation, threw up his hands, grabbed the bird and put him in the freezer. For a few minutes the parrot squawked and kicked and screamed. Then suddenly there was total quiet. Not a peep was heard for over a minute.
Fearing that he'd hurt the parrot, John quickly opened the door to the freezer.
The parrot calmly stepped out onto John's outstretched arms and said "I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and actions. I'm sincerely remorseful for my inappropriate transgressions and I fully intend to do everything I can to correct my rude and unforgivable behavior."
John was stunned at the change in the bird's attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had made such a dramatic change in his behavior, the bird continued, "May I ask what the turkey did?"
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Friday, November 18, 2005
"Worst economy since the Great Depression" trickles down
USA Today is reporting on the effect, at the state level, of the Bush economy:
New Hampshire's Legislature is famous for its frugality, a habit that lets the state operate without a sales or income tax. But this week, the Republican-controlled Legislature met in special session to spend a little money: $10 million to help poor people pay heating bills and $3.5 million for electric bills. That's what an $82 million surplus lets legislators do.
"Our revenues are far enough ahead of projections that we don't have to cut anything and can spend a little when emergencies come up — like high heating oil prices," says Republican state Rep. Norman Major, who heads the Ways and Means Committee.
State and local governments are enjoying their strongest revenue growth in 15 years, giving legislatures the power to spend billions without raising tax rates.
This, of course, is the “worst economy since the depression” that the left keeps harping on. Let’s see, where is all this additional revenue coming from? Why, from the same place as the increase in federal revenues that has cut almost 23% from the federal deficit from 2004 to 2005…the economic expansion that has resulted from the Bush tax cuts.
Everybody since Julius Caesar, at least, everybody who is smarter than my toaster, has understood that cutting taxes results in economic expansion which results in increased tax revenues from lower tax rates. Don’t expect to hear any of this on your tv newscast though, because it certainly doesn’t mesh very well with the left’s “terrible horrible no good economy” blather, or the “tax cuts for the rich” mantra.
Want to see a liberal’s head explode? Ask him/her/it if tax cuts are evil, why did John Kennedy advocate cutting taxes? Ask them if they can tell you how many million lower income working folks have been removed from the tax rolls completely by the Bush tax cut structure. Ask them if they’re aware of the fact that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of the total taxes paid now than they did before the tax cuts. On second thought, don’t bother. Their heads may spin around or explode, which is fun to see, but you won’t change any minds. They already know what they think, and there is no point in confusing them with actual facts and figures.
So where is this money going to go?
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, chairman of the National Governors Association, says that replenishing rainy-day funds that states tapped heavily during an economic downturn in 2001 and 2002 will be a priority. "A lot of governors are nervous, even with the surpluses, because nobody wants to go back and make big cuts in education and Medicaid that we saw during tough times," he says.
Some early spending plans:
•Education. New Mexico will give teachers 6% pay hikes. Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski, a Republican, wants to increase spending per pupil 8.7% to $5,347. California may be required to spend billions more on schools and after-school programs voters approved.
•Medicaid. States have started again to expand eligibility in health care programs for the poor. Illinois will offer subsidized health coverage to all 243,000 uninsured children in the state, regardless of family income.
•Pension plans. Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Tennessee will consider putting part of their surpluses into pensions for civil servants. Many states have underfunded pension plans that, if not fixed, will cost taxpayers large amounts in 20 years.
But remember, 2006 is an election year. So watch and see which state legislatures maintain a rational approach, and which engage in an orgy of vote-buying spending projects and pork-barrel boondoggles.
New Hampshire's Legislature is famous for its frugality, a habit that lets the state operate without a sales or income tax. But this week, the Republican-controlled Legislature met in special session to spend a little money: $10 million to help poor people pay heating bills and $3.5 million for electric bills. That's what an $82 million surplus lets legislators do.
"Our revenues are far enough ahead of projections that we don't have to cut anything and can spend a little when emergencies come up — like high heating oil prices," says Republican state Rep. Norman Major, who heads the Ways and Means Committee.
State and local governments are enjoying their strongest revenue growth in 15 years, giving legislatures the power to spend billions without raising tax rates.
This, of course, is the “worst economy since the depression” that the left keeps harping on. Let’s see, where is all this additional revenue coming from? Why, from the same place as the increase in federal revenues that has cut almost 23% from the federal deficit from 2004 to 2005…the economic expansion that has resulted from the Bush tax cuts.
Everybody since Julius Caesar, at least, everybody who is smarter than my toaster, has understood that cutting taxes results in economic expansion which results in increased tax revenues from lower tax rates. Don’t expect to hear any of this on your tv newscast though, because it certainly doesn’t mesh very well with the left’s “terrible horrible no good economy” blather, or the “tax cuts for the rich” mantra.
Want to see a liberal’s head explode? Ask him/her/it if tax cuts are evil, why did John Kennedy advocate cutting taxes? Ask them if they can tell you how many million lower income working folks have been removed from the tax rolls completely by the Bush tax cut structure. Ask them if they’re aware of the fact that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of the total taxes paid now than they did before the tax cuts. On second thought, don’t bother. Their heads may spin around or explode, which is fun to see, but you won’t change any minds. They already know what they think, and there is no point in confusing them with actual facts and figures.
So where is this money going to go?
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, chairman of the National Governors Association, says that replenishing rainy-day funds that states tapped heavily during an economic downturn in 2001 and 2002 will be a priority. "A lot of governors are nervous, even with the surpluses, because nobody wants to go back and make big cuts in education and Medicaid that we saw during tough times," he says.
Some early spending plans:
•Education. New Mexico will give teachers 6% pay hikes. Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski, a Republican, wants to increase spending per pupil 8.7% to $5,347. California may be required to spend billions more on schools and after-school programs voters approved.
•Medicaid. States have started again to expand eligibility in health care programs for the poor. Illinois will offer subsidized health coverage to all 243,000 uninsured children in the state, regardless of family income.
•Pension plans. Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Tennessee will consider putting part of their surpluses into pensions for civil servants. Many states have underfunded pension plans that, if not fixed, will cost taxpayers large amounts in 20 years.
But remember, 2006 is an election year. So watch and see which state legislatures maintain a rational approach, and which engage in an orgy of vote-buying spending projects and pork-barrel boondoggles.
It's only "lying" if you're a Republican
The Stanford Review has one of the most egregious examples of Democrats spinning their previous positions on Iraq that I’ve yet seen. Senator Jay Rockefeller trying to explain that he didn’t really say what he actually said, and anyway, he didn’t mean what he said, and anyway, he had bad information, and besides that blah blah blah…
WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch. SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
After a little more semantic gymnastics and tangentially related BS wherein Rockefeller refuses to accept responsibility for his clearly defined position on Iraq in 2002, we get this remarkable exchange, possibly the ultimate in denial of reality:
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
There you have it boys and girls. The ultimate in nanny-stater denial of the role of personal responsibility.
Obviously, Karl Rove’s evil mind-control ray was operating at full power, causing Senator Rockefeller to say things he never would have said of his own free will, and can’t be held accountable for now.
Rockefeller, of course, went on to say that he relied on bad intelligence…which Wallace had already pointed out was the same as, or possibly even more detailed than, what the President presented to congress.
So here's the question for Senator Rockefeller: if you were relying on intelligence which turned out to be flawed, doesn't that make you a LIAR? Doesn't that mean "Rockefeller lied, people died"? Oh, sorry, I forgot...we have to apply that leftist double-standard here.
You know, that media double standard that means acting on the information you have available is only lying if you're a Republican.
The same double standard that makes CBS a victim in the National Guard memo fraud, hoodwinked by segment producers Mary Mapes, rather than a willing participant, ratifying the actions of Managing Editor Dan Rather.
WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch. SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
After a little more semantic gymnastics and tangentially related BS wherein Rockefeller refuses to accept responsibility for his clearly defined position on Iraq in 2002, we get this remarkable exchange, possibly the ultimate in denial of reality:
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
There you have it boys and girls. The ultimate in nanny-stater denial of the role of personal responsibility.
Obviously, Karl Rove’s evil mind-control ray was operating at full power, causing Senator Rockefeller to say things he never would have said of his own free will, and can’t be held accountable for now.
Rockefeller, of course, went on to say that he relied on bad intelligence…which Wallace had already pointed out was the same as, or possibly even more detailed than, what the President presented to congress.
So here's the question for Senator Rockefeller: if you were relying on intelligence which turned out to be flawed, doesn't that make you a LIAR? Doesn't that mean "Rockefeller lied, people died"? Oh, sorry, I forgot...we have to apply that leftist double-standard here.
You know, that media double standard that means acting on the information you have available is only lying if you're a Republican.
The same double standard that makes CBS a victim in the National Guard memo fraud, hoodwinked by segment producers Mary Mapes, rather than a willing participant, ratifying the actions of Managing Editor Dan Rather.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
"Great Lakes Triangle" strikes again
Some of you may not know it, but there is a "Great Lakes Triangle" into which more planes and boats have disappeared than the famed "Bermuda Triangle". And according to this report, it has happened again:
MARBLEHEAD, Ohio -- The U.S. Coast Guard is helping to search for a missing barge on Lake Erie Tuesday.
The garbage barge was being towed by a tugboat when it came lose somewhere between Sandusky and Cleveland.
The crew does not know where it was lost. The tug Kurt R. Luedtke backtracked its original path, did not locate the barge. A Coast Guard Station Marblehead 47-foot utility boat is assisting the tug to find the garbage barge.
Ummmmmmmm...OK.........how do you "lose" a barge that you're towing, and not have any idea when it happened? Doesn't somebody look back there once in a while to make sure what you're towing is still following you?
MARBLEHEAD, Ohio -- The U.S. Coast Guard is helping to search for a missing barge on Lake Erie Tuesday.
The garbage barge was being towed by a tugboat when it came lose somewhere between Sandusky and Cleveland.
The crew does not know where it was lost. The tug Kurt R. Luedtke backtracked its original path, did not locate the barge. A Coast Guard Station Marblehead 47-foot utility boat is assisting the tug to find the garbage barge.
Ummmmmmmm...OK.........how do you "lose" a barge that you're towing, and not have any idea when it happened? Doesn't somebody look back there once in a while to make sure what you're towing is still following you?
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Ohio: "progressive reforms" defeated
Four major ballot issues failed in Ohio yesterday, providing an indication that there is no "Democratic" or leftward groundswell at the grassroots level in this state.
Like most "progressive reforms", the four ballot issues in Ohio were aimed at "taking the politics out of politics". Funded largely by out-of-state organizations (MoveOn, for example) and big labor, the measures would have put the redrawing of electoral districts and the management of elections in Ohio into the hands of non-elected committees of appointed members (retired judges, party hacks, depending on the specific proposal), allowed unrestricted advance absentee voting and imposed further campaign finance restrictions.
The problem with all such measures is that, while "taking the politics out of the process" of drawing electoral districts, running elections, etc. might initially sound like a good idea, it in effect tries to remove the functions of government from elected officials. Power then becomes concentrated in the hands of bureaucrats who are answerable to NOBODY, including the voters.
Trying to take the politics out of what are political functions is ultimately counterproductive. Elections are supposed to have consequences. We are supposed toget the government we elect, and be able to throw them out if we aren't happy.
Oh, one last thing... take a closer look at the four Ohio ballot issues. Clearly, the real intent wasn't "reform", it was to try and make it possible to STEAL elections in Ohio, as was done in the Washington governor's race and the Presidential election in Wisconsin in 2004.
Why did Kerry lose in places like Ohio and Missouri? One reason is that, unlike the masses living in the anthills of the big cities, folks spread out across the midwest seem to have a sort of internal "BS meter". They generally seem to know when they're being hoodwinked. Those meters were buzzing yesterday, like they did every time Kerry pretended to go goose hunting or compared the economic situation to the Great Depression. Or tried to explain for the fifteenth time why he didn't really mean what he said any of the last fourteeen times on any given issue, or told yet another version of the "Christmas in Cambodia" fable.
Like most "progressive reforms", the four ballot issues in Ohio were aimed at "taking the politics out of politics". Funded largely by out-of-state organizations (MoveOn, for example) and big labor, the measures would have put the redrawing of electoral districts and the management of elections in Ohio into the hands of non-elected committees of appointed members (retired judges, party hacks, depending on the specific proposal), allowed unrestricted advance absentee voting and imposed further campaign finance restrictions.
The problem with all such measures is that, while "taking the politics out of the process" of drawing electoral districts, running elections, etc. might initially sound like a good idea, it in effect tries to remove the functions of government from elected officials. Power then becomes concentrated in the hands of bureaucrats who are answerable to NOBODY, including the voters.
Trying to take the politics out of what are political functions is ultimately counterproductive. Elections are supposed to have consequences. We are supposed toget the government we elect, and be able to throw them out if we aren't happy.
Oh, one last thing... take a closer look at the four Ohio ballot issues. Clearly, the real intent wasn't "reform", it was to try and make it possible to STEAL elections in Ohio, as was done in the Washington governor's race and the Presidential election in Wisconsin in 2004.
Why did Kerry lose in places like Ohio and Missouri? One reason is that, unlike the masses living in the anthills of the big cities, folks spread out across the midwest seem to have a sort of internal "BS meter". They generally seem to know when they're being hoodwinked. Those meters were buzzing yesterday, like they did every time Kerry pretended to go goose hunting or compared the economic situation to the Great Depression. Or tried to explain for the fifteenth time why he didn't really mean what he said any of the last fourteeen times on any given issue, or told yet another version of the "Christmas in Cambodia" fable.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Public schools sponsor anti-US "field trip"
Posting at BabbleFest, J.P Jones reports on a school-sponsored trip to an anti-US anti-Bush hatefest:
From Neil Boortz' website:
If you are sending your child to a government school for their daily programming, chances are overwhelming that your bundle of joy is going to wind up becoming a liberal Democrat. Today, courtesy of The Los Angeles Unified School District, we're going to show you how it's done.
There was a Bush-bashing rally being held in Los Angeles the other day. It was called "The World Can't Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime." Eager for as many people to attend as possible, the school district allowed 800 high school students from 10 schools to walk right out of class to attend. No word if they were given extra credit for their participation.
On top of that, adult staff were supplied to accompany them, and buses were provided for their return. That's right...taxpayer money being spent for the whole thing. Now stop and ask yourself something for a minute...suppose an anti-Hillary Clinton rally were being held. Would the same courtesy be extended? Of course not. The students wouldn't even be given the time of day to attend.
But because it was an event protesting the evil George Bush....the liberal, leftist, bedwetting school administration jumped right on board. Those who send their children off to be indoctrinated in government schools should take note.
Through the wonder of modern technology which is the internet, we don't have to guess at what went on at this school-sponsored day trip.
Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, we have available a photographic sampling of the fine educational fare made available to the kiddies at taxpayer expense, compiled and published by the seemingly ever-present Zombie. Check out the photo gallery for yourself, and watch for the three main themes: Communism is the world's salvation, 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, and, of course, President Bush is evil/retarded/Hitler/a chimp.
Remember, some school administrators decided this was a wise expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. Do you know what they're doing in your kids' schools? Maybe you better find out.
From Neil Boortz' website:
If you are sending your child to a government school for their daily programming, chances are overwhelming that your bundle of joy is going to wind up becoming a liberal Democrat. Today, courtesy of The Los Angeles Unified School District, we're going to show you how it's done.
There was a Bush-bashing rally being held in Los Angeles the other day. It was called "The World Can't Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime." Eager for as many people to attend as possible, the school district allowed 800 high school students from 10 schools to walk right out of class to attend. No word if they were given extra credit for their participation.
On top of that, adult staff were supplied to accompany them, and buses were provided for their return. That's right...taxpayer money being spent for the whole thing. Now stop and ask yourself something for a minute...suppose an anti-Hillary Clinton rally were being held. Would the same courtesy be extended? Of course not. The students wouldn't even be given the time of day to attend.
But because it was an event protesting the evil George Bush....the liberal, leftist, bedwetting school administration jumped right on board. Those who send their children off to be indoctrinated in government schools should take note.
Through the wonder of modern technology which is the internet, we don't have to guess at what went on at this school-sponsored day trip.
Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, we have available a photographic sampling of the fine educational fare made available to the kiddies at taxpayer expense, compiled and published by the seemingly ever-present Zombie. Check out the photo gallery for yourself, and watch for the three main themes: Communism is the world's salvation, 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, and, of course, President Bush is evil/retarded/Hitler/a chimp.
Remember, some school administrators decided this was a wise expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. Do you know what they're doing in your kids' schools? Maybe you better find out.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
BBC now casting Muslim riots as "oppressed poor" lashing out
Apparently, the MSM ignored the Muslim riots in Europe until they could figure out how to spin it so it fits the agenda. Last post, we told you Reuters was spinning the Islamist uprising as "class warfare". Now the BBC follows suit with this report, which describes the escalating, and spreading, violence in terms of "poor immigrant" neighborhoods, never mentioning the word "muslim" until the closing paragraphs:
In scenes of escalating unrest overnight on Wednesday, shots were fired at police and firefighters, while gangs besieged a police station, set fire to a car showroom and threw petrol bombs. At least 177 cars were also set alight.
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who earlier met the dead teenagers' families, said the violence was "not spontaneous" but rather "well organised".
He said the government would not allow "troublemakers, a bunch of hoodlums, think they can do whatever they want".
On Thursday afternoon, Mr de Villepin held talks with Mr Sarkozy, other ministers, as well as MPs and mayors from affected towns.
The areas affected are poor, largely immigrant communities with high levels of unemployment.
Minister for Social Cohesion Jean-Louis Borloo said the government had to react "firmly", but added that France must also acknowledge its failure to deal with anger simmering in poor suburbs for decades.
Muslim leaders have urged politicians to show respect for immigrant communities.
Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, said people in the suburbs "must be given the conditions to live with dignity as human beings", not in "disgraceful squats".
There you have it. Muslims who have refused to assimilate and remained cloistered in their own self-contained communities, hamstrung by the backward cultural blindness of their Islamic societies, figures France needs to "show them respect" and "give them" the "conditions to live with dignity."
This is what happens when a socialist state with a stagnant economy creates the impression that it will "provide" for everyone, and then allows mass immigration of people who are not the least bit interested in assimilation. What you get is a large population of unemployed and largely unemployable foreigners living within your borders demanding that you support them in their separate society.
My hunch is that this is organized violence intented to intimidate France and the French. We'll see what comes of it.
I wonder what will happen when the UN wants us to provide troops to protect the Muslim population in a European nation that wakes up and realizes it's being overrun by foreigners who have every intention of making that country their own, and decides to do something about it.
In scenes of escalating unrest overnight on Wednesday, shots were fired at police and firefighters, while gangs besieged a police station, set fire to a car showroom and threw petrol bombs. At least 177 cars were also set alight.
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who earlier met the dead teenagers' families, said the violence was "not spontaneous" but rather "well organised".
He said the government would not allow "troublemakers, a bunch of hoodlums, think they can do whatever they want".
On Thursday afternoon, Mr de Villepin held talks with Mr Sarkozy, other ministers, as well as MPs and mayors from affected towns.
The areas affected are poor, largely immigrant communities with high levels of unemployment.
Minister for Social Cohesion Jean-Louis Borloo said the government had to react "firmly", but added that France must also acknowledge its failure to deal with anger simmering in poor suburbs for decades.
Muslim leaders have urged politicians to show respect for immigrant communities.
Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, said people in the suburbs "must be given the conditions to live with dignity as human beings", not in "disgraceful squats".
There you have it. Muslims who have refused to assimilate and remained cloistered in their own self-contained communities, hamstrung by the backward cultural blindness of their Islamic societies, figures France needs to "show them respect" and "give them" the "conditions to live with dignity."
This is what happens when a socialist state with a stagnant economy creates the impression that it will "provide" for everyone, and then allows mass immigration of people who are not the least bit interested in assimilation. What you get is a large population of unemployed and largely unemployable foreigners living within your borders demanding that you support them in their separate society.
My hunch is that this is organized violence intented to intimidate France and the French. We'll see what comes of it.
I wonder what will happen when the UN wants us to provide troops to protect the Muslim population in a European nation that wakes up and realizes it's being overrun by foreigners who have every intention of making that country their own, and decides to do something about it.
Reuters spins French muslim riots as "class warfare"
Betraying an astonishingly socialist orientation, Reuters reports on the most recent night of riots in French muslim communities without ever once using the word "muslim", instead explaining the violence as entirely a matter of the oppressed poor of Paris lashing out over social injustice:
Rioters shot at police and fire fighter crews in the worst night of a week of violence in poor suburbs that ring Paris, as France's conservative government struggled to quell the unrest.
Youths who rampaged on Wednesday night left a trail of burned cars, buses and shops in nine suburbs north and east of Paris, home to North African and black African minorities frustrated at their failure to get jobs or recognition in French society.
An oblique reference to violence, crime and rioting elsewhere in Europe also makes no mention of the fact that the rioters are muslims, and that the riots in Denmark are clearly attributed, by the rioters, to offenses against "the prophet", such as pictures published in a newspaper.
The pictures published were simply pictures of Mohammad, not in any way demeaning or offensive. But Islamic law forbids depicting him visually, and muslims throughout Europe have embarked on a course of intimidating Europeans into observing muslim norms, getting Pooh's pal Piglet and piggy banks banned in Britain by making workplace complaints.
The Danish newspaper, which has since hired security guards and received numerous threats, solicited and ran the pictures after having an author complain that artists were afraid to illustrate his work for fear of muslim retribution.
Anyone who doesn't believe that Islam has embarked upon a new age of conquest, aimed at subjugating the world to an Islamic way of life, has his head in the sand. Or perhaps somewhere else where the sun doesn't shine.
Over at CUANAS, they've taken the position that the European Muslim riots are being organized and orchestrated by a central entity. Visit that site for an intriguing series of posts on the topic.
Rioters shot at police and fire fighter crews in the worst night of a week of violence in poor suburbs that ring Paris, as France's conservative government struggled to quell the unrest.
Youths who rampaged on Wednesday night left a trail of burned cars, buses and shops in nine suburbs north and east of Paris, home to North African and black African minorities frustrated at their failure to get jobs or recognition in French society.
An oblique reference to violence, crime and rioting elsewhere in Europe also makes no mention of the fact that the rioters are muslims, and that the riots in Denmark are clearly attributed, by the rioters, to offenses against "the prophet", such as pictures published in a newspaper.
The pictures published were simply pictures of Mohammad, not in any way demeaning or offensive. But Islamic law forbids depicting him visually, and muslims throughout Europe have embarked on a course of intimidating Europeans into observing muslim norms, getting Pooh's pal Piglet and piggy banks banned in Britain by making workplace complaints.
The Danish newspaper, which has since hired security guards and received numerous threats, solicited and ran the pictures after having an author complain that artists were afraid to illustrate his work for fear of muslim retribution.
Anyone who doesn't believe that Islam has embarked upon a new age of conquest, aimed at subjugating the world to an Islamic way of life, has his head in the sand. Or perhaps somewhere else where the sun doesn't shine.
Over at CUANAS, they've taken the position that the European Muslim riots are being organized and orchestrated by a central entity. Visit that site for an intriguing series of posts on the topic.
"Worst economy since depression" keeps humming along
Surely you remember the Kerry mantra from the 2004 campaign... "worst economy since the great depression, worst economy since the great depression..."
It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Despite major natural disasters and rising fuel costs, the Bush economy just keeps rolling along, as this USA Today report shows:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The economy shook off headwinds from hurricanes Katrina and Rita to grow at a faster-than-expected 3.8% annual rate in the third quarter, a Commerce Department report showed Friday.
Strong spending by consumers and the government helped power the expansion as growth in gross domestic product — the measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders — accelerated from the second quarter's 3.3% rate.
Economists had forecast GDP would advance at a 3.6% rate in the July-to-September quarter. The economy has now expanded faster than 3% for 10 straight quarters.
In its first snapshot of third-quarter growth, the Commerce Department said it could not separate the economic effects of the twin hurricanes that struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in late August and September, though it said incomes likely suffered a $40-billion blow from lost wages and rents.
Third-quarter GDP growth would have been more robust if the storms had not placed some drag on incomes.
Despite surging prices at the gasoline pump, the report showed so-called core inflation, which excludes food and energy, declined in the third quarter. A price gauge favored by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy — increased at a 1.3% annual rate compared with 1.7% in the second quarter. That marks the mildest rate of core price rises since the second quarter of 2003.
It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Despite major natural disasters and rising fuel costs, the Bush economy just keeps rolling along, as this USA Today report shows:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The economy shook off headwinds from hurricanes Katrina and Rita to grow at a faster-than-expected 3.8% annual rate in the third quarter, a Commerce Department report showed Friday.
Strong spending by consumers and the government helped power the expansion as growth in gross domestic product — the measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders — accelerated from the second quarter's 3.3% rate.
Economists had forecast GDP would advance at a 3.6% rate in the July-to-September quarter. The economy has now expanded faster than 3% for 10 straight quarters.
In its first snapshot of third-quarter growth, the Commerce Department said it could not separate the economic effects of the twin hurricanes that struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in late August and September, though it said incomes likely suffered a $40-billion blow from lost wages and rents.
Third-quarter GDP growth would have been more robust if the storms had not placed some drag on incomes.
Despite surging prices at the gasoline pump, the report showed so-called core inflation, which excludes food and energy, declined in the third quarter. A price gauge favored by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy — increased at a 1.3% annual rate compared with 1.7% in the second quarter. That marks the mildest rate of core price rises since the second quarter of 2003.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Rioting Muslims in Denmark: "this is our area"
Unless you live in a cave, by now you've heard about the muslim riots which, after several days, appear to be spreading in France and are finally being reported in the MSM.
But in Denmark, where muslims issued death threats after a newspaper published artists' drawings of Mohammad, rioting has gone on virtually unnoticed for days. Viking Observer has the story:
He calls himself 100 percent Palestinian, born in a refugee camp in Lebanon 19 years ago, and now out of work in Denmark.
"The police has to stay away. This is our area. We decide what goes down here".
And then the bit with the drawings of the prophet Muhammed comes around:
We are tired of what we see happening with our prophet. We are tired of Jyllands-Posten. I know it isnt you, but we wont accept what Jyllands-Posten has done to the prophet", he says aggressively, and the others nod approvingly.
Planned for three weeks
To of them are Turks, and it is the first time, that Turks and Palestinians act together, the 19-year-old says.
"We have planned this for three weeks. That is why only two were arrested saturday nigh. The police will cordon off it all. But we know the ways out", he claims, and then disappears, munching on a piece of pizza from Fun Pizza.
This is essentially the palestinian theory of statehood moving into Europe: regardless of lawful authority, the muslim population will do as it pleases, and expressing yourself with violence and destruction is just "their culture". And anyone who is not one of them had better steer clear, or suffer the consequences.
Eventually, with enough bloodshed, enough violence, enough intimidation, enough collusion from leftists who support your "struggle against oppression", it really will become "your area".
All justified in the name of Islam.
But in Denmark, where muslims issued death threats after a newspaper published artists' drawings of Mohammad, rioting has gone on virtually unnoticed for days. Viking Observer has the story:
He calls himself 100 percent Palestinian, born in a refugee camp in Lebanon 19 years ago, and now out of work in Denmark.
"The police has to stay away. This is our area. We decide what goes down here".
And then the bit with the drawings of the prophet Muhammed comes around:
We are tired of what we see happening with our prophet. We are tired of Jyllands-Posten. I know it isnt you, but we wont accept what Jyllands-Posten has done to the prophet", he says aggressively, and the others nod approvingly.
Planned for three weeks
To of them are Turks, and it is the first time, that Turks and Palestinians act together, the 19-year-old says.
"We have planned this for three weeks. That is why only two were arrested saturday nigh. The police will cordon off it all. But we know the ways out", he claims, and then disappears, munching on a piece of pizza from Fun Pizza.
This is essentially the palestinian theory of statehood moving into Europe: regardless of lawful authority, the muslim population will do as it pleases, and expressing yourself with violence and destruction is just "their culture". And anyone who is not one of them had better steer clear, or suffer the consequences.
Eventually, with enough bloodshed, enough violence, enough intimidation, enough collusion from leftists who support your "struggle against oppression", it really will become "your area".
All justified in the name of Islam.
Michael Moore owns 2,000 shares of Halliburton stock
This piece from WorldNet Daily, profiling (and, truthfully, promoting) a book by author Peter Schweitzer, is revealing.
"I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.
He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
If you want to see Moore's own signed Schedule D declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of Peter Schweizer's new book, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy."
And it's just one of the startling revelations by Schweizer, famous for his previous works, "Reagan's War" and "The Bushes."
Other examples:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws enforcing environmental regulations on the private sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years – including a failure to protect endangered species.
Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.
Barbra Streisand is another proponent of environmentalism, yet she drives an SUV, lives in a mansion and has a $22,000 annual water bill. In the past, she has driven to appointments in Beverly Hills in a motor home because of her aversion to using public bathrooms.
Ralph Nader plays the role of the citizen avenger – the populist uninterested in wealth and materialism, pretending to live in a modest apartment. In fact, he lives in fancy homes registered in the names of his siblings.
Schweitzer's point is to expose the rank and pervasive hypocrisy of the so-called "liberals" who want to have the government tell everyone else how they can live, and who take advantage of living in the US to bash the US at every opportunity. It's not too hard to find such examples. For instance, Teddy Kennedy's going out and getting his nephew's avowedly "green" law firm to fight the creation of a wind power generating system off Martha's Vineyard. Although the turbines would be barely visible on the horizon, Teddy doesn't want something so unimportant as the environmentally friendly generation of electricity to interfere with his seaside views...or, I guess, his property value.
"I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.
He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
If you want to see Moore's own signed Schedule D declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of Peter Schweizer's new book, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy."
And it's just one of the startling revelations by Schweizer, famous for his previous works, "Reagan's War" and "The Bushes."
Other examples:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws enforcing environmental regulations on the private sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years – including a failure to protect endangered species.
Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.
Barbra Streisand is another proponent of environmentalism, yet she drives an SUV, lives in a mansion and has a $22,000 annual water bill. In the past, she has driven to appointments in Beverly Hills in a motor home because of her aversion to using public bathrooms.
Ralph Nader plays the role of the citizen avenger – the populist uninterested in wealth and materialism, pretending to live in a modest apartment. In fact, he lives in fancy homes registered in the names of his siblings.
Schweitzer's point is to expose the rank and pervasive hypocrisy of the so-called "liberals" who want to have the government tell everyone else how they can live, and who take advantage of living in the US to bash the US at every opportunity. It's not too hard to find such examples. For instance, Teddy Kennedy's going out and getting his nephew's avowedly "green" law firm to fight the creation of a wind power generating system off Martha's Vineyard. Although the turbines would be barely visible on the horizon, Teddy doesn't want something so unimportant as the environmentally friendly generation of electricity to interfere with his seaside views...or, I guess, his property value.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]