Slashdot Mirror

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/22/soros-oil-spill-payoff/

This guy will make some money from the moratorium :)

Yes.

"there is substantial evidence of [Saddam] Hussein's associations with world terrorism before we invaded Iraq. The Iraqi dictator aided, abetted, and provided sanctuary to Abu Nidal's terrorists, Abu Abbas, and all kinds of radical Islamic terrorist groups - Hizbollah and Hamas among them."

Saddam's relationship with Abu Nidal (the nom de guerre of Palestinian terrorist Sabri al-Bana) deserves special scrutiny since, as many intelligence analysts and commentators have noted, he was "the bin Laden of the 1970s and 1980s." That is, at that time he was the most lethal and feared terrorist in the world.

Salaries For Suicide Bombers - Iraq Pays $25,000 To Families Of 'Martyrs'

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.

Palestinians get Saddam funds

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

The Senate's Intelligence

"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."

"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime."

Christopher Hitchens debates Iraq with Reagan Jr.

Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties

The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:

The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private arm

While it may be some time before we learn if his position is correct, the book is an interesting read, even just from its reviews of prior conclusions. It is certainly not a book written in the style of "buy my diet book so I can get rich".

A review of his position can be found in a an article written in 2002: "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B367127E3-4395-4DB8-90E0-AC52B2D86AF4%7D, though it written in a firebrand style, which the book is not.

Are there laws against muslims?
Are there any concentration camps?
And I don't mean prisons. Remember that the abuses were condemned, and covered by the press.
Then there's the tiny point of actually having a plan to exterminate muslims...

This is nowhere near Nazi Germany. This is not the same direction - and totally not the same modus operandi. I can't say the US government and agencies are acting like they should - but it is more like Soviet Russia (oh, and modern day Russia too) than Nazi Germany.
However, you might get a hold of an emerging situation where another country tries (and I hope it will fail) to be. That country got the right (or wrong, depends on your POV) leader for it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=20552

Here's another one, about the rape epidemic in Sweden by Muslims. Apparently some teenage girls there even designed an "anti-rape belt" because the problem is so bad.

And this isn't just some hoodlums committing crimes which authorities would disapprove of. What do top Muslim clerics think of it? "An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are 'asking for rape.'" It's actually the view of Islamic authorities that it's ok to rape women.

If these aren't clear-cut signs that Muslims (especially men) have no place in western society, I don't know what is. There is no "misjudgement" of muslim culture and religion on my part, only on yours as you have turned a blind eye towards the atrocities condoned by top Muslim religious authorities.

Excellent question. In seperate interview at http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?I D=26818 Mr. Greene answers the following:

FP: So how much do teachers get paid on an annual basis? And how much do they get paid on an annual basis if you factor in that they only work 10 months a year?

Greene: On an annual basis the average teacher in the United States is paid about $47,000 for 38 weeks of work. The equivalent for 50 weeks of work would be about $62,000.

But more to your point I think he addresses what you want to know in this quote later in the interview:

Some critics of the BLS figures argue that weekly earnings by teachers are understated because other professionals receive paid vacations while teacher vacations are counted as weeks not worked. First it is important to note that not all professionals receive paid vacations, especially self-employed professionals. Second, teachers have more paid days off, such as sick days, personal leave days, etc..., than do other workers. So, an apple-to-apple comparison of weekly pay still shows that public school teachers, on average, are better paid than the average white collar and professional worker.

It is true that teacher pay looks less impressive on annual basis, but most teachers are only paid to work about 38 weeks per year, which makes comparisons of annual salaries inappropriate. Teachers can use those weeks off to spend time with family, engage in other activities they enjoy, or take other employment to supplement their incomes. That time off is worth money and cannot simply be ignored when looking at teacher pay. If it were irrelevant, then teachers should be willing to switch to 12 month employment without additional compensation. But of course, most teachers (rightly) would expect to be paid more if they were expected to work all year.

The United States has a full spectrum of nut groups. And that's just fine.

• White nationalist group
• Black nationalist group
• Pro-Israel nationalist group
• Anti-Israel nationalist group.
• Pro-war
• Anti-war

They keep each other honest.

Diagnosis: Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Please seek medical help immediately.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp ?ID=3321

Old news. Do try to keep up.

I think that most 'true' hard-core geeks tend to be very liberal, perhaps having something to do with reading/watching Science Fiction stories, as the best of them often emphasize compassion, understanding and attempt to acknowledge society's ills.

Compassion and acknowledging society's ills are hardly limited to liberals.

Slashdot has a strong Libertarian trend, and the Left is well represented as well, especially when the Europeans and expatriates start chiming in.

If you caught idiots such as them on an honest day, you will find that they intentionally push their 'views' farther 'right' than they themselves believe, as many foolish people cling to the idea that 'the truth is in the middle', and by pushing their slander they hope to shove the public to their view points. I don't believe that kind of posturing is possible on the 'left' as liberals don't seem to stand for it.

You don't have to look hard on the left to find vitriol, nutters, all manner of other ideas, various troubling developments and unbalanced views. That isn't even starting to scratch the surface.

I think that most 'true' hard-core geeks tend to be very liberal, perhaps having something to do with reading/watching Science Fiction stories, as the best of them often emphasize compassion, understanding and attempt to acknowledge society's ills.

Compassion and acknowledging society's ills are hardly limited to liberals.

Slashdot has a strong Libertarian trend, and the Left is well represented as well, especially when the Europeans and expatriates start chiming in.

If you caught idiots such as them on an honest day, you will find that they intentionally push their 'views' farther 'right' than they themselves believe, as many foolish people cling to the idea that 'the truth is in the middle', and by pushing their slander they hope to shove the public to their view points. I don't believe that kind of posturing is possible on the 'left' as liberals don't seem to stand for it.

You don't have to look hard on the left to find vitriol, nutters, all manner of other ideas, various troubling developments and unbalanced views. That isn't even starting to scratch the surface.

LOL, you are new at this internet thing, right? Exactly how far do you think you have to go to find claims that global warming is a hoax?

Pointing out that the overwhelming majority of such articles in the popular press have zero scientific credibility is merely a public service, and it has NOTHING to do with what the BBC is looking for. The BCC are looking for real, scientific arguments against global warming that have been suppressed by the scientific establishment. You won't find it on some internet tabloid, if it exists at all. It is more likely to be on the homepage of some fringe university researcher in danger of getting fired.

Canadian Suicide Car Bombers??

This Canadian suicide bomber killed fellow Canadians in Afghanistan. These Canadian Al Qaeda supporters, who had world-wide connections, were preparing to start attacking various targets in Canada, and were trying to obtain enough explosives for a large truck bomb. Al Qaeda has warned Canada that it is subject to attack (due at least in part to the fact that Canadians as a whole don't follow extreme Islam). If Britain can have suicide bombers attack inside the country, I doubt that there is any reason Canada couldn't. A suicide bicycle bomber killed four Candian soldiers in September, and a suicide car bomber killed two Canadian soldiers last week. Canadians are already being killed by suicide terrorists, at least one of which was Canadian, and there are more like minded people already operating in Canada, partially due to extremists exploiting holes in Canada's immigration policy. Hopefully, when the Canadian security services break up terror cells in the future, they won't just deport them, but will send them to prison. Canada is a great nation facing some difficult choices and tasks.

Del Vecchio: One that comes to mind is the frequently heard statement that the US fought a war in Vietnam and lost. People take this to mean that the full might of the US was brought to bear on a small country with comparatively little military technology, and the small country won against all odds. This has fostered great insecurity among many Americans about our ability to accomplish military goals, which again tends to paralyze us in the world today. But the fact is that the US never fought a real war against North Vietnam, nor even fought with all possible resources and tactics in the South. We fought a holding action until the South Vietnamese had a chance to stand on their own. After Vietnamization and the departure from Vietnam of all US ground units, the South was in fact able to repel a very conventional invasion from the North, one that involved 200,000 men, hundreds of tanks, and artillery pieces superior to what we'd given the South. So we had in fact achieved our major goal. Clearly the South fell and there was a loss, and a failure on our part to support the South as we'd promised; but we did not fight and lose a war in the normal sense, and such a statement is misleading.
. ...
Del Vecchio: Well, the US did achieve victory, in that by 1972 our troops were gone, the major cities and smaller provincial capitals were pacified, traffic went up and down the length of SVN safely, the once-powerful VC were a fraction of their former strength, and only the constant injection of fresh Northern cannon fodder and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail kept the conflict going. The crowning confirmation of our success was the destruction of the Easter Invasion by the North, when several divisions of the North Vietnamese Army charged into the South, complete with tanks, excellent artillery, and SAM missiles to down the planes of the South Vietnamese. After months of bitter and very intense fighting, the NVA had to retreat, having taken 40% casualties and lost almost all their tanks and artillery. The goal of the US was to help the South be able to defend itself, and the victory they achieved in '72 demonstrated that when properly supplied and supported, they could do that.

The terrible tragedy was that after '72 the flow of supplies from the US to SVN went to a trickle while the flow of supplies to NVN from China and the Soviet Bloc swelled to a torrent. Once Congress removed the President's power to even offer air support to the South if the North invaded again, the North knew they had the edge. They prepared very carefully for almost two years and then sent 20 full divisions into the South in a blitzkrieg that would have made Rommel proud. There were some valiant stands by SVN units, but in the end, the lack of supplies and absence of US air power doomed them.

The shame of it was that all we had to do was keep up supplies to SVN and promise the North that any invasion of the South would precipitate massive US bombing both of the invading forces and critical targets in the North, and very likely today Vietnam would be like Korea, with a communist North and a free and prosperous democratic South.

And the architects of the outcome?

. ... Nixon signed a truce in Vietnam and withdrew American troops. His goal was "peace with honor," which meant denying a Communist victory in South Vietnam. The truce was an uneasy one depending on a credible American threat to resume hostilities if the Commu

Del Vecchio: One that comes to mind is the frequently heard statement that the US fought a war in Vietnam and lost. People take this to mean that the full might of the US was brought to bear on a small country with comparatively little military technology, and the small country won against all odds. This has fostered great insecurity among many Americans about our ability to accomplish military goals, which again tends to paralyze us in the world today. But the fact is that the US never fought a real war against North Vietnam, nor even fought with all possible resources and tactics in the South. We fought a holding action until the South Vietnamese had a chance to stand on their own. After Vietnamization and the departure from Vietnam of all US ground units, the South was in fact able to repel a very conventional invasion from the North, one that involved 200,000 men, hundreds of tanks, and artillery pieces superior to what we'd given the South. So we had in fact achieved our major goal. Clearly the South fell and there was a loss, and a failure on our part to support the South as we'd promised; but we did not fight and lose a war in the normal sense, and such a statement is misleading.
. ...
Del Vecchio: Well, the US did achieve victory, in that by 1972 our troops were gone, the major cities and smaller provincial capitals were pacified, traffic went up and down the length of SVN safely, the once-powerful VC were a fraction of their former strength, and only the constant injection of fresh Northern cannon fodder and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail kept the conflict going. The crowning confirmation of our success was the destruction of the Easter Invasion by the North, when several divisions of the North Vietnamese Army charged into the South, complete with tanks, excellent artillery, and SAM missiles to down the planes of the South Vietnamese. After months of bitter and very intense fighting, the NVA had to retreat, having taken 40% casualties and lost almost all their tanks and artillery. The goal of the US was to help the South be able to defend itself, and the victory they achieved in '72 demonstrated that when properly supplied and supported, they could do that.

The terrible tragedy was that after '72 the flow of supplies from the US to SVN went to a trickle while the flow of supplies to NVN from China and the Soviet Bloc swelled to a torrent. Once Congress removed the President's power to even offer air support to the South if the North invaded again, the North knew they had the edge. They prepared very carefully for almost two years and then sent 20 full divisions into the South in a blitzkrieg that would have made Rommel proud. There were some valiant stands by SVN units, but in the end, the lack of supplies and absence of US air power doomed them.

The shame of it was that all we had to do was keep up supplies to SVN and promise the North that any invasion of the South would precipitate massive US bombing both of the invading forces and critical targets in the North, and very likely today Vietnam would be like Korea, with a communist North and a free and prosperous democratic South.

And the architects of the outcome?

. ... Nixon signed a truce in Vietnam and withdrew American troops. His goal was "peace with honor," which meant denying a Communist victory in South Vietnam. The truce was an uneasy one depending on a credible American threat to resume hostilities if the Commu

Mr. Cole appears to be the only prominent academic in America to have embraced "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a highly controversial paper by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard. Mr. Cole told the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday that the paper argues the "virtually axiomatic" point held by the rest of the world that a "powerful pro-Israel lobby exists." The result is that "U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been dangerously skewed."

But the paper has been roundly attacked for sloppy generalizations. The two authors claim that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel." Even Noam Chomsky, a far-left critic of Israel, wrote that we "have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion." But Mr. Cole praises the two professors for seeking "to end the taboo [on discussions of the "Israel lobby"], enforced by knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism."

'What [the research] showed is that Saddam's procurement network is alive and well and has been working steadily despite the sanctions,' said Milhollin. 'There are a lot of companies out there willing to break the embargo.'

Motz said: 'We are seeing everything from just some basic negotiations that probably didn't go anywhere once the firms figured out what was trying to be purchased to contracts that were actually implemented and goods that were found in Iraq by the inspectors. We have contracts for missile engine components, for guidance components for missiles. We actually found some high-end machine tools that are useful for making nuclear weapons, military goods such as [conventional] helicopters and aircraft which were clearly embargoed.'

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts. Saddam, the Bomb and Me

Moreover, Iraq put itself in a state of war with the United States by violating the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War. Iraqi forces shot at American and British warplanes assigned to enforce the U.N.-imposed "no-fly zones" over Iraq on a daily basis long before the 2003 war. Kofi Annan's Iraq Blunder

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

WP - the arguments

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.

White phosphorous is no more of a "chemical weapon", as normally understood, than napalm. Or course, flame weapons have been subject to controversy of their own.

As for Noam Chomsky he has been documenting U.S. war crimes in places from Nicaragua to Vietnam for 40 years now. He is an American hero and if the MSM dared to give him a voice and people were made aware of the level of violence the U.S.government has committed against the world we might see new leadership in the U.S. and live in a much more ethical country. Of course we will never see that because it would threaten the corporate bottom line.

There are other views about Chomsky. And it isn't the corporate bottom line I would worry so much about....

Left-Wing Monster: Pol Pot

While Pol Pot was carrying out his genocide, numerous American leftists functioned as his apologists. Notable among these was the American-hating MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who viewed Pol Pot as a revolutionary hero. When news of the "killing fields" became increasingly publicized, Chomsky's faith in Pol Pot could not be shaken. He initially tried to minimize the magnitude of Pol Pot's atrocities (saying that he had killed only "a few thousand people at most").[64] He suggested that the forced expulsion of the population from Phnom Penh was most likely necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. Wrote Chomsky, "the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives."[65] In a 1977 article in The Nation, Chomsky attacked those witnesses and writers who were shedding ever-brighter rays of light on Pol Pot's holocaust; he accused them of trying to spread anti-communist propaganda. In 1980, when it was indisputable that a huge proportion of Cambodia's population had died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky again blamed an unfortunate failure of the rice c

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

WP - the arguments

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.

White phosphorous is no more of a "chemical weapon", as normally understood, than napalm. Or course, flame weapons have been subject to controversy of their own.

As for Noam Chomsky he has been documenting U.S. war crimes in places from Nicaragua to Vietnam for 40 years now. He is an American hero and if the MSM dared to give him a voice and people were made aware of the level of violence the U.S.government has committed against the world we might see new leadership in the U.S. and live in a much more ethical country. Of course we will never see that because it would threaten the corporate bottom line.

There are other views about Chomsky. And it isn't the corporate bottom line I would worry so much about....

Left-Wing Monster: Pol Pot

While Pol Pot was carrying out his genocide, numerous American leftists functioned as his apologists. Notable among these was the American-hating MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who viewed Pol Pot as a revolutionary hero. When news of the "killing fields" became increasingly publicized, Chomsky's faith in Pol Pot could not be shaken. He initially tried to minimize the magnitude of Pol Pot's atrocities (saying that he had killed only "a few thousand people at most").[64] He suggested that the forced expulsion of the population from Phnom Penh was most likely necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. Wrote Chomsky, "the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives."[65] In a 1977 article in The Nation, Chomsky attacked those witnesses and writers who were shedding ever-brighter rays of light on Pol Pot's holocaust; he accused them of trying to spread anti-communist propaganda. In 1980, when it was indisputable that a huge proportion of Cambodia's population had died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky again blamed an unfortunate failure of the rice c

Don't worry; you'll matter when you become a billionaire.

. .... because it is well known that billionaire councils appoint the president?

It is a good thing that all of the billionaires were for Bush.... or were they?

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

There should be nothing novel in this. Recently, Palestinian extremists forced two Fox News reporters to "convert" to Islam after taking them hostage. There is a long history of this.

He also wants us to jettison the Constitution and adopt Sharia law, stop drug & alcohol use, homosexuality, sexual immorality, sleeping around, adultery, charging interest on loans, etc., etc. At least it would be easy to remember the penalty for many of these infractions: death, death, death, etc.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which every

The views cited in the linked article may be lies or they may be the sincere view of some Muslims, but they are not representative of mainstream Muslim views and behavior. The mainstream Muslim position (that of the Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools of law, but not that of the Hanafi) is that People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, are to be permitted to keep their religion provided that they submit to the second-class status of dhimmitude. All others must either convert to Islam or be killed. This is considered not to conflict with the statement "There is no compulsion in Islam" on the grounds that no one is forced to convert - they are free to accept death instead. This also makes the very important point that no conclusion can be drawn from isolated quotations from the Qur'an. The Qur'an is vague on many matters, silent on many, and even contradicts itself on some. Most of Islamic law is based on the hadith, the reported sayings of the Prophet, not on explicit statements in the Qur'an. To find out what Muslims actually believe, you need to look at the hadith and at how they are interpreted by Muslim legal scholars.

Historically, Islam has spread to a large extent by warfare and forced conversion. Here's an article about the reporters recently kidnapped in Gaza who were released only after being coerced into formal conversion to Islam. It contains an accurate summary of forced conversion throughout the history of Islam, including very recent events.

Oh wait I think you meant we have a greater relationship with Israel because we view the Israelis as "white people". You might be right about that.

The US is friends with Israel because the Israelis are viewed as "white people", eh? All of them? (Is that just Israelis, or all Jews?) I guess that puts them in the same company as some of the other "white folk" that the US has supported, or fought and died for, like Koreans and South Viet Namese. (~50,000 dead American soldiers in each country) And then there are those other famous "white folk" that we support, the Taiwanese, the Japanese, and the Kuwaitis. And don't forget Iraq, where American soldiers are currently fighting and dying to aid a newly elected democratic government, apparently of "white folk", in stabilizing the country.

On a tangent, I hear that Leftist anti-Semitism is becoming a problem.

These stories had circulated for years but resurfaced on May 13, 2003, in the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma, headlined, "Bush Family Funded Adolf Hitler." As the Associated Press reports, Prescott had been on the board of Union Banking Corp., whose majority owner, the Thyssen family of Germany, indeed had funded the Nazis against a feared communist takeover of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Family leader Fritz Thyssen broke with Hitler over the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews, was stripped of his citizenship and fortune, and was in a Nazi prison at the time the elder Bush sat on that board. There is no evidence that Prescott Bush, who owned just one share of Union Banking, had anything to do with the Thyssen political work in Germany.

. .... Discussing this controversy, columnist Joe Conason of the New York Observer writes, "Henry Ford was a Nazi collaborator. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a Nazi sympathizer. Unless additional information emerges to indict him, Prescott Bush Sr. was neither. To misuse such terms for political advantage against his grandson is to trivialize very grave offenses."

One of Phillips's most attention-grabbing chapters posits the theory that the Bushes were involved in the rise of Adolf Hitler. While he correctly notes that Brown Brothers Harriman, an investment-banking firm employing Prescott Bush and George H. Walker (George W.'s great-grandfather), invested in Nazi-era German companies, Phillips fails to note that it was Averell Harriman, later FDR's ambassador to Moscow and Truman's commerce secretary, who initiated these investments (and some in Soviet Russia) before either of the Bushes joined the firm. Prescott Bush did not oversee these investments; the reality is that he was involved almost exclusively in managing the firm's domestic portfolio. It was Harriman who largely managed the foreign investments and, accordingly, it was he who met German and Soviet leaders.

Phillips also makes much of the fact that Prescott Bush was involved with the Union Banking Corporation, which was seized by federal authorities in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, a story frequently cited on left-wing websites. But what Phillips fails to mention is that Bush had only a token role in the bank: Of the more than four thousand shares, Prescott Bush owned only one -- urged on him by Harriman. Moreover, despite the conspiratorial argument that members of the WASP elite always work together hand in glove, Bush and Harriman were never as close as Phillips leads one to believe: Harriman actually campaigned aggressively against Bush in his 1952 senate race.

While tieing up traffic would be considered a benifit they are definatly planning to kill people.
For other examples see London, Madrid or for just recently see Germany where they were planning to blow up the train and kill all passengers.

How many stories do I need to read on Slashdot, Digg, Fark, Google News, Wikipedia about things like this before people start doing something about things like this?

The last time any citizens got serious about doing something about police brutality, conservative hero Ronald Reagan signed one of the first modern gun control laws to disarm them; their leaders were targeted for harrassment by federal and local governments, and some were assassinated.

Millions, can seem to get into the millions. How about some links?

My fault, I should have simply said "over a million."

1
2>
3>

There are as many as you might want to go Googling for.

Actually, Bin Laden and many others have had a long-term vision for how to turn the United States into an Islamic state... but perhaps that's one of those "details" you're considering as trifling. Here, and plenty of other places if you bother to look.

And the "wipe Israel off the map" thing is deliberate disinfomation, no one in power ever said that.

O RLY?

Say Iran does get the bomb. What does that change?

Well, see, here's a word you need to look up: "apocalyptic". In this case, Iran's leadership actually has an uncommon extremist Muslim attitude that the end of the world isn't really a bad thing, and helping it along would be Allah's work. They don't mind triggering it. I know that in your little fantasy world, it's nice to think that they're just perfectly rational, Western-thinking people who just want to do what's best for their country; it's simply not the case. That's why it's relatively safer, for instance, for Israel or India to have the bomb - they truly care about self-preservation. Iran's leadership does not. Ignorance FTL.

No, thinking that invading was an improvement was lunacy.

Well, Saddam's regime killed somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000 people, depending on which mass graves you count, over a period of around 25 years. That's 12,000 - 24,000 people a year. Right now, around 35,000 people have died over three years, the majority of whom died in the initial invasion... and that's if you ignore the lack of state-run torture chambers and the numbers of dead we simply haven't found. So actually, the death rate is lower (if you take the best-case numbers for Saddam) and, in fact, far lower (if you take a more realistic tally) than it was during Saddam's regime. That's right, the war there is killing fewer people than peace was. Learn2Count. And, if you've been paying attention, people who commit atrocities there (including some coalition soldiers) are being taken to task for crimes - this is new for Iraq, on any level. (Please spare me the "put Bush on trial" obvious inane response.)

And the history books don't have that many examples of an occupied country "making it".

Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, dozens of colonial countries thanks to England and France, some of which are doing well and others of which are not. Kuwait, however, I agree - they suffered under occupation. Good point.

Complete conjecture. Would Iran being communist be any worse than the current state of affairs? Without a time machine we cannot answer that.

Great - according to your argument here, it is impossible to discuss what would have happened if anything in the past had happened differently. So why discuss the past at all? You can dismiss anything people say like "NATO won the cold war" by saying "not necessarily - that's your interpretation" but as soon as anyone tries to discuss what would have happened had we not done what we'd done, you say "you can't prove that!" May as well just stick your fingers in your ears and scream so you don't have to hear what other people are saying; it's a toddler's conversational tactic.

If you want to sound smart, don't tell other people they're stupid when you can't spell "hypocrisy" or "sentence" (not to mention "agree", "asinine", "parallels", "aside", and a number of other grade-school words. We'll forgive your butchering of "Reichstag". That's a hard one.)

Nobody's saying that the U.S. has behaved well, either in the past or now, but at least some people are debating it with at least a decent grasp of both sides of the issue; you're just another grandstanding underinformed U.S.-hater, just as bad as the pro-America yahoos.

>provide proof

The Council Of American islamic relations (a front for the terrorist lobby):

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10356/tracking_down _terrorist_financing.html#2
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3437
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/394

Enough proof there...

They even tried to shut anti-cair up, but no dice

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3511
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=18919

Some Muslim organizations in the United States have also condemned CAIR. Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA) denounced CAIR, saying: "There are many Muslim organizations that claim to speak on behalf of the Muslim community but that in reality are not moderate, but extremist."

Seif Ashmawy, an Egyptian Muslim and peace activist, who published the "Voice of Peace" newsletter about Muslim affairs, said: "It is a known fact that CAIR has defended, apologized for, and rationalized the actions of extremists groups ... The real challenge for moderates like myself is to prevent my Muslim brethren from being deceived by extremist groups that pretend to represent their interests."

Steven Pomerantz, former FBI assistant director and chief of the FBI's counter-terrorism section, once charged that CAIR's activities "effectively give aid to international terrorist groups." Other American Muslim leaders have raised questions about their possible alliances with radical groups, and many academics are disturbed by the groups' prominence.

On February 2, 1995, CAIR advisory board member Imam Siraj Wahaj was accused by the United States Department of Justice as one of several "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments," including the World Trade Center in 1993. He was a character witness during convicted Islamic terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman's World Trade Center bombing trial.

Convicted Members of CAIR

A number of other CAIR officials have been charged with, and some convicted of, offenses related to the support of Islamist terrorism.

In December, 2001, Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was charged and deported from the United States because he was the executive director and co-founder of Global Relief Foundation, a terrorist front organization that for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas and a co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties with front groups that fund Islamic terrorism. In 2005, Elashi and two of his brothers were convicted on 21 counts of federal terrorism charges related to funding Hamas and the illegal export of electronics equipment to U.S. State Department-designated state sponsors of terrorism.

In January 2003, CAIR's director of community relations and founder of the Islamic Assembly of North America, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties to front groups that fund Islamist terrorism. Khafagi pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.

In August 2003, CAIR's former civil-rights coordinator, Randall "Ismail" Royer, along with ten other men known as the "Virginia jihad group" were indicted on 41 counts, including training and participating in jihad activities overseas. The group had connections with Lashkar-e-Taiba and five of them possessed AK-47-style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Four of th

It's equally amazing the mental gymnastics some will go through to avoid facing the fact

Deception and Agendas are aplenty, and we will not know whether or not you are right
for some time, but...consider Iran's step to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/49819 40.stm

If you want to send a message that you are totally above board you would NOT subvert
inspections by nearly 100% EU inspection teams, Iraq did this as well.

Playing shell games, delaying inspectors from the EU, and declaring numerous massive
presidential palaces off limits. Having huge stockpiles of "pesticides" that fit
dual use in ammo dumps and bunkers with aerial camouflage .

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=13168

Former Iraqi officers speaking of the chemical weapons, and their coverup over
intercepted phone calls in Iraq prior to the 2nd gulf war .

http://www.slate.com/id/2078196/

17 UN resolutions that were ignored time an time again .

The shell game, deceptions, and intimidation used against the inspectors and
lack of "Full Inspections".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/09/08/wirq208.xml

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page277.asp

If Iraq and Saddam were innocent , why then the elaborate deceptions,
intimidation, hauling top soil away...

To me ...

It's equally amazing the mental gymnastics some will go through to avoid facing the fact

Ex-MislTech

No, Nixon's Southern strategy was intended to get the racist to vote Republican, and it's still considered a valid tactic in the GOP. It's why Zel Miller made it all the way up North to Cincinatti with Bush in '04, but got his ticket home before heading up into Akron and Cleveland.

You resorted to this ditto Byrd screed? How effin original. Byrd was indeed a racist, as well as a KKK member throughout most of the forties, but I mentioned Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968.

From Wikipedia:

In the NAACP's Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003-2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100% for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington, DC, remarking that "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently."

From a 2005 Washington Post Book Review:

James Tolbert, president of the West Virginia chapter of the NAACP and an occasional critic of the senator, said Byrd transcended his past by gradually embracing more enlightened social views and by simply owning up to his past mistakes. "He doesn't try to lie his way out of things," Tolbert said. "If he's wrong, he'll say he's wrong."

[. . .]

Still, says Ken Hechler, 90, a liberal Democratic former U.S. House member from West Virginia who served with Byrd in Congress, "It's impossible for anyone to try to whitewash the KKK and its overall symbolism."

"But at the same time," he added, "we honor those people who publicly admit the error of their ways."

Last week, Byrd said: "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

Eric Pianin, "A Senator's Shame: Byrd, in His New Book, Again Confronts Early Ties to KKK", Washington Post, June 19, 2005

The KKK charges at Byrd are an ad hominem attack attempting to downplay his eloquent antiwar sppeches upon the Senate floor, by a grouping of the usual suspects for disinformation's right-sided insertion, most notably in this case Malkin and Horowitz. Horowitz's traitorous past makes him an extremely reprehensible hypocrite in this regard. They cannot refute his antiwar, and instead play an evil game.

Byrd has admitted his mistakes, many times. Horowitz just blames the left for his newlefty evilness. Who is the better man.

Ah this explains why you hold to arrguments without attribution.

David Horowitz is a hypocrital unrepentant self-admitted American traitor.

Read Davey's own confession.

He willfully divulged classified American Intelligence, not for a higher purpose such as stopping an immoral war, but to just hurt America, and his release of information materially aided two foreign governments, one the USSR. He also committed conspiracy. That is irrelevant since the statute of limitations has run out, but there is no statute of limitations for treason, and this his was a public confession.

And he always seems to be whinning about Fonda. this is what is known as Moral relativism, something the right has always claimed only happens on the left, but it seems that it just travelled over to the other side of the political bipolarity with the people who always played that immoral game, trotskyites and new lefties.

Horowitz is a typical Contemporary Conservative, who thinks responsibility is for everybody but themselves.

His rationalisation for political polarity switch is classic. Well past the time that anybody in their right mind still considered to Black Panthers to be political, after it had become public knowledge that they had become an ongoing criminal enterprise, Horowitz got a friend of his a job with them. The friend was murdered, but David, being what he's always been, a neoposeur, refused to accept personal responsibility in this death, and instead blames the "left", how lame, how positively dialectic of the Maoist.

Read the whole interview: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=20154

Marx was a genius, wrong in many places but with a searing insight into the limitations of capitalism.

The Mike Adams whom you quote as saying "Marxism is an emotional disorder, not a political philosophy" is a blogging me-too. He seems reasonably intelligent but his incoherent partisan bias prevents him from seeing that Russian Communism is less communism than American Capitalism is capitalism. He's certainly in no position to critique Marxism as an emotional disorder given the quasi-neocon tone of the articles he writes for FrontPage.

"Free-market" capitalism is a fiction, one that is functionalized by government protectionism and pragmatic socialism. Yes, it's a heck of a lot better than Russian communism, which was nothing but bureaucratic totalitarianism jump-started by genocide. However, to not realize that American-style capitalism could be improved by more judicious application of socialist principles (read Marxism) is short-sighted at best.

It's sort of like the mouth saying "I'm the one chewing all this food so I'm going to keep it all to myself" without understanding the role the rest of the body parts play in the process, including "useless" parts such as the earlobes, armpit hair, and the appendix.

Snort is an Open Source program, which means that it's source code is already available to the Chinese, Iranians and anyone else who wants it. I assume that Sourcefire's closed source products are based in one way or another on the technology in Snort, which makes it very difficult to understand the FBI and Pentagon's objections other than in the context of an anti-Israel political decision.

I geuss the FBI has the resources to hunt down and entrap Jewish political lobbyists but not to catch terrorists or say anything about a terrorist supporting Arab state taking over the country's ports.

If you want a good insight on how the military and the current administration views the world, I suggest reading about Tom Barnett. There's an interview at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=16779

There's a video of a talk he gave via CSPAN from a June 2004 at http://theconspiracy.us/CSPAN/ has the video in XviD format (can someone torrent this?)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=21387

From Larry Elder (read the whole article at http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?I D=13282):

Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al-Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a "toxic cloud," Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died!

So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Loftus, a former Army officer, served as a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general. Author of several books, Loftus once received a Pulitzer Prize nomination.

John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al-Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.

Larry Elder: They couldn't have obtained it from Syria?

Loftus: Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam's Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. It would be useless against U.S. troops; the rubber suits were immune to it. So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it. Now, in the last few weeks, there's a controversy that Syria has been trying to get rid of this stuff.

They're selling it to al-Qaeda is one supposition. We know the Sudanese government demanded that the Syrian government empty its warehouse in Khartoum where they've been hiding illegal missiles along with components of Weapons of Mass Destruction. But there's no doubt these guys confessed on Jordanian television that they received the training for this mission in Iraq. . . And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as VX. It's very rare, and very tough to manufacture . . . one of the most destructive chemical mass-production weapons that you can use. . . They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch's brew of nasty chemicals that were going to go into this poison cloud, and this would have gone over shopping malls, hospitals . . . .

Elder: You said that the Russians told Saddam, "There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons."

Loftus: Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's not generally known, but the CIA has found 41 different material breaches where Saddam did have a weapons of mass destruction program of various types. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.

Elder: It seems to me that this is a huge, huge story.

Loftus: It's embarrassing to the (press). They've staked their reputations that this stuff wasn't there. And now all of a sudden we have al Qaeda agents from Iraq showing up with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Elder: David Kay said, in an interim report, that there was a possibility that WMD components were shipped to Syria. ...

"The American people are being lied to and they simply accept it."

Way to prove yourself Leftist. Seems all the Left can do recently is create their own realities.

The American Right increasingly uses the logic of non sequitur and ad hominen in their less than substantive attacks upon the left. Ironic, as well as a further indication of Contemporary Conservatism's continuing plunging fall into the abyss of moral relevance, which began in 1968 when Nixon played his "southern strategy", and openly courted the racist vote.

One ugly godawful thing to have done to the party of Lincoln.

Nixon won, and the GOP has never looked back. Now neoconivving trotskyites speak for contemporary conservatives, and self-confessed American traitors are welcomed with open arms in under the Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness, the party of nothing, for everybody.

Ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe there are people out there that want to kill American citizens? Pre-emption is the only way to stop some of them.

Ever stop to think that maybe some people who wish to harm Americans are reacting self-defensively to previous Administrations' wrongful actions against them? You solution for this is 10 eyes for an eye?

And he spake a parable unto them,
Can the blind lead the blind?
shall they not both fall into the ditch?
--Luke 6:39

Provost Maher's false impression of the Academic Bill of Rights is the result of a nation-wide campaign against the Bill, which has been conducted by professor-unions, like the American Association of University Professors, who are intent on defending the status quo. This campaign has been exceptionally dishonest relying not on reasoned disagreement with the reforms the Bill is proposing, but on misrepresenting them as something they are not. For example: Contrary to what has been asserted to this committee by hostile witnesses, the Academic Bill of Rights would not impose legislative control of academic decisions; it would not give students equal rights with teachers; it would not ban controversy from the classroom and it would not force teachers to teach unscholarly, unscientific points of view like Holocaust denial or Intelligent Design. All these charges have been made against the Academic Bill of Rights before this committee. All of these claims are demonstrably false.

The Academic Bill of Rights can be simply summarized as an effort to restore the principles that the academic profession has traditionally honored but in all too many cases no longer observes -- as the testimonies by David French, Stephen Balch and Steven Zelnick have amply demonstrated. The Academic Bill of Rights is furthermore an attempt to express and codify as student rights what are already recognized as faculty responsibilities in regard to academic freedom.

The Strange Dishonest Campaign Against Academic Freedom :

Ever since I launched the campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights some eighteen months ago in October 2003, the most salient feature of the battle against it has been the dishonesty of its academic opponents. The opposition has gone so far as to compare my campaign for intellectual diversity on college campuses to Mao Zedong's purge of the Communist Party elite, during the "cultural revolution," surely an unintended reflection on the critics themselves. And this is only the beginning of the attacks.

William E. Scheuerman, chair of the AFT's higher education division, called the legislation "crazy," "Orwellian," and McCarthyite. Scheurman, president of United University Professions, which represents faculty members at the State University of New York, said that the legislation's provisions requiring equal representation of views on controversial issues would require courses on the Holocaust to change so that "on Monday we would hear that the Holocaust was bad, on Wednesday that it was good, and on Friday that it never happened." There is no such provision in the Academic Bill of Rights.

The fact is that I planned this campaign to repair a broken academic process as a non-partisan effort, and specifically to be viewpoint neutral. The very first principle of the Academic Bill of Rights, for example, forbids the firing of professors on the basis of their political views. In launching the campaign I hoped to restore the educational guidelines that had been in place when I was an undergraduate at Columbia University in the 1950s.

These guidelines had protected me as a student with leftwing views in the McCarthy era. My parents were both Communists, teachers who had lost their jobs during the loyalty investigations of that time. I was then a budding "New Leftist," and my views reflected my Marxist upbringing. Yet in all the years I was at Columbia, my professors never singled me out for my political leanings, but treated me instead like any other student. The papers I wrote were examined for the way I handled the evidence and constructed my arguments, never for the political conclusions or judgments I made.

Today, I am grateful to

Provost Maher's false impression of the Academic Bill of Rights is the result of a nation-wide campaign against the Bill, which has been conducted by professor-unions, like the American Association of University Professors, who are intent on defending the status quo. This campaign has been exceptionally dishonest relying not on reasoned disagreement with the reforms the Bill is proposing, but on misrepresenting them as something they are not. For example: Contrary to what has been asserted to this committee by hostile witnesses, the Academic Bill of Rights would not impose legislative control of academic decisions; it would not give students equal rights with teachers; it would not ban controversy from the classroom and it would not force teachers to teach unscholarly, unscientific points of view like Holocaust denial or Intelligent Design. All these charges have been made against the Academic Bill of Rights before this committee. All of these claims are demonstrably false.

The Academic Bill of Rights can be simply summarized as an effort to restore the principles that the academic profession has traditionally honored but in all too many cases no longer observes -- as the testimonies by David French, Stephen Balch and Steven Zelnick have amply demonstrated. The Academic Bill of Rights is furthermore an attempt to express and codify as student rights what are already recognized as faculty responsibilities in regard to academic freedom.

The Strange Dishonest Campaign Against Academic Freedom :

Ever since I launched the campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights some eighteen months ago in October 2003, the most salient feature of the battle against it has been the dishonesty of its academic opponents. The opposition has gone so far as to compare my campaign for intellectual diversity on college campuses to Mao Zedong's purge of the Communist Party elite, during the "cultural revolution," surely an unintended reflection on the critics themselves. And this is only the beginning of the attacks.

William E. Scheuerman, chair of the AFT's higher education division, called the legislation "crazy," "Orwellian," and McCarthyite. Scheurman, president of United University Professions, which represents faculty members at the State University of New York, said that the legislation's provisions requiring equal representation of views on controversial issues would require courses on the Holocaust to change so that "on Monday we would hear that the Holocaust was bad, on Wednesday that it was good, and on Friday that it never happened." There is no such provision in the Academic Bill of Rights.

The fact is that I planned this campaign to repair a broken academic process as a non-partisan effort, and specifically to be viewpoint neutral. The very first principle of the Academic Bill of Rights, for example, forbids the firing of professors on the basis of their political views. In launching the campaign I hoped to restore the educational guidelines that had been in place when I was an undergraduate at Columbia University in the 1950s.

These guidelines had protected me as a student with leftwing views in the McCarthy era. My parents were both Communists, teachers who had lost their jobs during the loyalty investigations of that time. I was then a budding "New Leftist," and my views reflected my Marxist upbringing. Yet in all the years I was at Columbia, my professors never singled me out for my political leanings, but treated me instead like any other student. The papers I wrote were examined for the way I handled the evidence and constructed my arguments, never for the political conclusions or judgments I made.

Today, I am grateful to

Let me begin by saying that lack of intellectual diversity is not a new problem, nor is it a matter of a few isolated incidents or abuses, as some of the witnesses would have you believe. As early as 1991, Yale President Benno Schmidt warned: "The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on campuses. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate the mind." In his last report to the Board of Overseers, retiring Harvard President Derek Bok warned: "What universities can and must resist are deliberate, overt attempts to impose orthodoxy and suppress dissent...In recent years, the threat of orthodoxy has come primarily from within rather than outside the university."

Today, the notion of truth and objectivity is regarded by many professors as antiquated and an obstacle to social change. In this postmodern view, all ideas are political, the classroom is an appropriate place for advocacy, and students should be molded into "change agents" to promote a political agenda. The University of California recently abandoned the provision on academic freedom that cautioned against using the classroom as a "platform for propaganda." The president of the university argued in a letter to the academic senate that the regulation was outdated.

Read what David Horowitz himself had to say about it. And I don't mean the guy who was the consumer reporter on KNBC Channel 4 in Los Angeles, either.

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn, Sec. 297

Todays higher education shouldn't encourage everybody to be different, and it certainly shouldn't encourage everybody to be the same. Observers should wonder why hard science and math professors rarely get into trouble with with political leanings in their subjects, and realize that its because they have huge huge history of established fact that can be seen, felt, measured and observed. Even history has some standardization that students and professors can hold onto, that is until one asks about particular motivations of people and events.

Then take into consideration all the vogue subjects like SO-and-SO studies where all they have to grasp are notions and ideas that ultimate are self reinforcing to ones own political and socialogical thinking. This type of teaching provides the catastrophic regenerative feedback we see to day where only those that think alike are exceptable or worthy of good grades.

Colleges and Universities all over should flock to and agree to David Horowitz "Academic Bill of Rights". http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=50

> Suuuurrre they did. Why don't you submit a link from a credible source, numbnuts.

Sorry, I forgot my opponents are all idiots and can't handle high tech like Google. But I'm here trying to help ya out so..

Credible.. How about the WaPo?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pa gename=article&articleid=A61251-2001Oct2&node=nati on/specials/attacked/archive

Headline: U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed

Slight;y less cannonical for you lefties, but mainstream media nonetheless, I give you The Guardian:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,560624,00.html

Headline: Resentful west spurned Sudan's key terror files

A little more bloggish, but Horowitz runs a fairly reputable operation, he ain't some idiot in his pajamas

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=9721

Headline: How Clinton Kept Bin Laden Free

I don't know which is more shameful, the sorry state of government today, or that so few people think there's a problem. It's sad.

Most people don't think it is a problem for one of two reasons:

1) They think that conducting surveillance on people in direct communication with known members of terrorist organizations that have recently attacked the United States is actually a good idea.

2) They understand that the NSA program is very likely legal, as noted by:
The current Attorney General
A former Clinton administration Assistant Attorney General
The Lawyers at Powerline blog
and others in commentary & response.

High treason is quite explicitly attempting to forcibly overthrow the government. While that might be the effect of the Bush administration, it would be very difficult to prove it as the aim

High treason? Impeachment? right....

First let me say, while your post is off topic, it needed to be said .

Secondly I could not agree more with 90% of what you had to say, and our
politically correct pansies are gonna be the death of us all .

the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was eighty years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, Buffalo ...

This statement I have a different perspective on, and here is why .

The US was not targetted by the Saudi's to import religion here .

We turned our schools into profit centers, 100's of thousands of foreign students to attend
schools in the US at rates SEVERAL times higher than for citizens .

Some of the students stayed and got jobs, and got worker visa's .

Some just did what came natural and had sex on US soil, BOING a US citizen
instant 18 year visa , welcome to america !!!

So in my humble opinion most of the Foreign Nationals on new soil are there because
we either pandered work visas or higher education at a higher rate .

The side effect is 30,000 young middle eastern men on US soil with expired visa's .
Not to worry, the FBI is on the job....yeah right ....truly sad .

If you read the 9-11 investigation the FBI looks like a bunch of idiots, and
some their muslim co-workers border on treason .

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=20487

I personally have an idea what to do with this member of the FBI, but they might kill me for it .

I guess they can't remember the german infiltrators of WWII on US soil .
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it .

The "free world," as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else.

Oh Dear god...your dead on there. I don't think the world knows how much money the
american tax payers paid in to maintain and then end the cold war .

This generation doesn't have the stomach for it . More and more ppl I know here are deciding
to not have children, I am one of them at age 39 that will not have kids ....ever .

It is just too damn expensive, and it just takes a call from an angry neighbor to have
DHS knocking on your door wanting to do a house inspection with a armed officer in tow .

No kids for me, my family line ends right here .

EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots, and assassinations on American network news every night.

In 2005 we were watching all the above in france except for the killing part,
just some poor bloke trying to douse a burning dumpster got beat to death.
And as a commoner its ok, and we must empathize with our disgruntled bus
burning muslim brothers........gimme a break.

Bottom line for Cameron Diaz: There are worse things than John Ashcroft out there.

As a former member of the US military that served overseas I cannot agree with
this statement enough. The coddled and pampered naive evian drinkers do not know
that they are labelled as dhimmi's by the muslims .

Death penalty-In certain schools of Islamic jurisprudence, if a Jew or Christian is convicted of killing a Muslim, the sentence is death, while if a Muslim is convicted of killing a Jew or Christian, the sentence is at most a fine. The following extract from Sahih Al-Bukhari (Hadith 9.50; Narrated by Abu Juhaifa) supports this view:

Maybe as Dhimmi's we can all wear pretty little yellow stars of david as a symbol of unity...

Even in so called modern india 200 women considered untouchables were allowed to be raped
for REAL over and over by a thug that was paying off local police for over a decade.

Recently t

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.