10/16/2009

Dennis Miller: The other side of 'but'

Dennis Miller: The other side of 'but'
By: Dennis Miller
Op-Ed Contributor
October 16, 2009

I guess I've been hearing it for years now as the country has slid into knee-jerk relativism. Till now though, it's merely been an equivocating grandfather clock in the background, metronomic, at worst nettlesome. It was at the beginning of l'affaire Polanski, though, that I realized how much I've come to detest the word "but."

One liberal pundit or another (banality = interchangeability) was bleating on and on, and I actually heard the words "what Roman Polanski did was wrong but ..." and it hit me like an air horn in a Trappist monastery. With a simple wave of the conjunctive wand, we now believe that we can explain away absolutely anything!

I know man does not live by declarative sentences alone, although you can certainly do a lot worse than Hemingway. Purely and simply, there are certain times in life that you have to pull up short of the logic abyss that is the word "but" and pitch camp on the near side of it. This is one of those times.

To apply a caveat to the forcible rape of a 13-year-old girl by a 40-year-old euro-lech armed with quaaludes and bubbly (and ably assisted by a brain-dead parent) is akin to sailing around the Cape of Good Hope to visit the corner store.

Now while I'm pretty certain Whoopi Goldberg is going to try to put a Roadrunner cloud between herself and her "not a rape-rape" gem, I'm not even sure she has to anymore! I think our society is so inundated with misinformed faux wisdom these days that her swing and a miss moment has already passed. The dogs bark, the caravan/news cycle moves on.

And where do you most often find this contorted gibberish masquerading as insight? Invariably on the backside of the word "but." Liberals have commandeered "but," conservative bunko artists favor "nevertheless," and moderates put you into an induced coma with their incessant "howevers." Pick your poison, fact is we'd all be better off staying on this side of the "but."

If you feel you've got something so wise, so precious, so singularly sagacious, that you want to tag it onto Polanski's atrocity to "shed some light on it," light is in fact your biggest problem because you've got your head shoved so far up your tuchus that they're gonna have to cut in switchback trails to get to it.

The Roman Legions came over the hill flying a single flag, the liberal one. Make of that what you will, I guess occasionally a man is going to be pushed too far. Think Van Heflin in "Shane." Evidently some liberals felt pushed too far by the arrest of Polanski. No doubt some airtight progressive notion about the day of the rape paling in comparison with the days since the rape. Now, I can't tell if Polanski's defenders are completely underthinking this or overthinking it. Either way, they're obviously not thinking. Theirs is a flat-line electroencephalogram.

If we don't have unanimity on the rape and sodomy of a 13-year old girl, well, we're never gonna have it, are we? If "but" appears as a fulcrum in a sentence about an occurrence this horrific, it signals a brokenness in the American spirit that even a card carrying, "eyebrow-raised-higher-than-Pelosi's" skeptic like me could never have imagined.

"But" appears to have become America's verbal Continental Divide. Rainwater falls down one side, drivel the other. Polanski is a monster and the evil he perpetrated on that child demands punishment. No "buts."

*Author's note. Short of its parenthetical use to remind the reader which word was the butt of this screed, not one "but" was used (at appreciable difficulty I might add), in the composition of this piece.

Comedian and commentator extraordinaire Dennis Miller appears regularly in the "Miller Time" segment of "The O'Reilly Factor "on Fox News, as well as his own daily talk radio show heard on more than 250 stations across the country.

10/12/2009

An Open Letter to the President

Dear President Barack Obama:

You are an annoying prick.

Please get the fuck off of my television.

I am sick of hearing your irritating speech patterns and your goofy-looking face, and then the sickening boot-licking sycophants in the mainstream news media slobbering over your every pronouncement like you are the Saviour of all humanity.

Sincerely,

The Citizens of the United States of America.

P.S. Now that you are making some extra bucks, how about getting that stupid mole removed from your face?

9/19/2009

Nationalized Health Care

For my entire adult life, I have worked and struggled and sacrificed most of my dreams to provide for my family, and to make sure each one received medical care as they needed it. I have foregone opportunities because I could not afford to take the chance of not having health insurance, for even a short while.

Now, with my children grown and able to take care of themselves, I am being asked, no, told that I must now support a new, more "socially just" system that will provide health insurance to millions of people who do not take personal responsibility in their lives, who do not, and will not make the necessary sacrifices to take care of themselves and their families. I must accept a lower standard of care, and outrageously confiscatory taxes, in order to provide this "free" service to millions of people, a huge portion of whom are of virtually no value to society.

I wonder why, and what is the morality behind it, that I must pay for the health care of other people's children? It is the parents' responsibility to provide for their own offspring, to feed them, educate them, and keep them healthy. It is not mine.

9/02/2009

Hard-Learned Lessons

Each generation, it seems, has to learn first hand of the depth of corruption of the Democratic party. After years of bitching and complaining, name-calling and slander about the Republican party and it's leadership, the Democrats have finally convinced millions of otherwise apathetic young voters to come out to the polls and end the Republican corruption. Well, congratulations to you, young voters. You have gotten your wish. Who knows how long this brave new socialist world will last? You have believed in a saviour, and now he (with the assistance of his co-conspirators, thugs, demagogues, criminals, liars, thieves, and henchmen) is busy delivering on his promises, by stealing money from people who work, and giving it to his own political supporters.

This change in government is not just switching from Republican to Democratic leadership as it has been in the past; since the Democratic party has become dominated by those whom we used to call Communists, Socialists, Fascists, and Anarchists, the whole system is in danger.

These people are trying to institute such changes in the American form of government that it is nearly as bad as if we had lost a war with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and been taken over by soviet bureaucrats and regulators.

I can remember when I was a child, I used to hear a then-common phrase: "It's a free country, isn't it?", meaning "I can do whatever I want to, as long as it harms no one else". It's been decades since I've heard this phrase, or even the sentiment.

Over the past several years, I have heard the leftists repeat various versions of the Benjamin Franklin quote about freedom and security: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." I don't know about whether they would deserve neither, but that is what they will get, for sure. The quote has been used to beat up on George W. Bush, because of the Patriot Act, wherein the government took upon themselves the right to monitor communications with foreign enemies.

Now, we are in a great battle about nationalized health care, where the left wants the government to provide us with the SECURITY of free health care, in exchange for our FREEDOM to choose whether we want to participate. They, who know better than we, will TAKE our money, and give us minimal health care, after siphoning off trillions of dollars for the vast bureaucracy that will be administering this boon from our "generous" government.

The opportunities for corruption are vast. It will be bad for our country, and bad for our citizens, and bad for the people of the earth. I am against it, but there seems little I can do about it. Too bad. I am mostly concerned with the lower quality of life that my children and their children will enjoy due to this power grab. It is very sad.

8/04/2009

Winston Churchill on Islam

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM - IN 1899!

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

8/03/2009

Hey Poor People - Listen Up!

If you think that increasing taxes on "the rich" is not going to affect you, then you are going to be disappointed.

Let me give you a lesson in very basic economics. Don't worry, there is no mathematics involved, just clear, logical thinking.

1. Why are you poor?
2. Why are the rich rich?
3. Who pays the rich man's taxes?
4. Why does raising taxes on the wealthy hurt you, the poor?

1. Why are you poor?
You are poor for one or more of the following reasons: A) You are stupid. B) You are ignorant. C) You are smart (capable), but make stupid and/or ignorant decisions. D) You are smart, but made stupid and/or ignorant decisions. E) "The Man", or "Whitey" is keeping you down. F) Your parents fucked up and damaged you for life, rendering you incapable of overcoming your situation, essentially mentally and socially retarded. G) You had some or a lot of bad luck.

2. Why are the rich rich?
The rich, successful, wealthy, or whatever you want to call them are successful for one or more of the following reasons: A) They are smart. B) They make smart decisions. C) They work hard for success, even if "The Man" or "Whitey" is trying to keep them down. D) Even if their parents fucked up, they realized that now they are independent adults, their past does not have to dictate what their future will be. E) They had some or a lot of good luck.

3. Who pays the rich man's taxes?
The rich man, nearly every one in America, got rich through his own efforts. Most of the people whom you would call "rich" own some kind of business, that sells stuff you want to buy, or services you want to buy, or sells stuff or services that companies you buy stuff or services from want to buy. In other words, they start a company; sometimes it is a corporation, sometimes it is just a little mom-and-pop store. They work hard. When the government steals money from them (which the government calls "taxes"), the business owner increases the price of the stuff or services that he is selling. It cannot be any other way. He cannot pay money he does not have; he has to get it from you.

4. Why does raising taxes on the wealthy hurt you, the poor?
Now that you know how it works, here is what you need to understand: Raising taxes on the rich is raising taxes on EVERYONE, including YOU! YOU are paying the taxes, not "The Rich". YOU are paying. When you pay more for stuff you NEED, you have less money left over for stuff you WANT.

The message you need to understand is, whenever the government raises taxes on ANYONE, it is raising taxes on EVERYONE!

So, stop being stupid, stop being ignorant, stop doing stupid and ignorant things, like voting for politicians that raise taxes. Learn how to manage your money, start a business, and become rich yourself.

THIS IS THE REAL AMERICAN DREAM! GETTING TO KEEP THE MONEY YOU EARN!

8/02/2009

Rich People

Why are wealthy people always vilified? They aren't all evil, any more than all members of any particular group are evil. The rich, in our country, usually got rich because they did something great, and America allows people to be rewarded for doing great things. (It used to, anyway).

Rich people are generally smart, and very good with managing their money.

I never had a good job that was owned by a poor person. I did work for a less than rich person once, and during that time I always had to worry about first, getting a paycheck, and then, my paycheck clearing the bank.

Just like I don't want to go to a doctor who drives a crappy old car and lives in a cheap apartment, I do not want to work for anyone who is not personally rich. Wealth is a sign of competence. It makes me comfortable to know that the people who issue me my paycheck know exactly what they are doing, and that I can count on continued income, and always getting paid for the work I do.

When did Doctors become the Bad Guys?

When did Doctors become the bad guys? President Fuck Up says that doctors are performing unnecessary procedures just to collect higher reimbursements from insurance companies. What a laugh! Fraud does indeed occur, but when it does, it is big news. What that means is that it is extremely rare.

And, what is so terrible about health insurance as it now stands? My health insurance has enabled me to be able to afford to save the lives of my children and wife, and myself, on numerous occasions. The insurance companies are good, not bad.

The fact that some people have no insurance is what is bad. This can be remedied by congress, but they want to take a sledge hammer to fix something that only takes a quarter of a turn with a screwdriver. They want to dismantle the entire system of health care, including how doctors perform their jobs, and how much they can be paid, when the market place can handle that much more efficiently than any government regulation could.

As for me, I would be uncomfortable getting medical care from a doctor who drives a 1992 Pinto to work, and has plastic stacking chairs on bare linoleum floors in his waiting room. He had damn well better be driving at least a $50,000 car, and living in a nicer house than me. That means he is good at what he does. When I am sick, or a member of my family is sick, I want the most competent help I can find, not the cheapest.

Taxation is Killing the American Dream

Freedom includes the right to earn and keep your own money. People who work hard should be allowed to keep their money. That, indeed, is the American dream, not owning a house and driving a big car. The right to put yourself into a better position than you started out, by hard work, saving, sacrificing, and careful planning.

My parents had a better life than their parents, and I had a better life than my parents. This was accomplished with hard work (and as always, some good luck). But we were allowed to keep nearly all of what we earned. Now, with all the massive spending of the new federal government, under the administration of President Fuck Up and the Chicago mob, taxes will only go up. They propose new taxes on everything. They are even proposing taxing the air we breathe! Carbon dioxide is going to be taxed! That is absurd. CO2 is a natural gas that is generated whenever anything burns, and by all living animals as they breathe. CO2 is used by plants and converted back into O2, which is what we need to live. Taxing it is outrageous.

Global Whining

Global whining alarmists are touting that the consensus of scientists around the world agrees that the average global temperature is increasing. So what? Big deal. The earth’s temperature has been fluctuating for billions of years. They claim that human production of CO2 is causing it. Maybe it is true, but maybe it isn’t.

A consensus does not make a scientific fact. In the 1700s and 1800s, the vast consensus of scientists agreed that Negroes (black Africans) were an inferior race of humans. In the 1900s, the consensus of German scientists, along with many others around the world, agreed that Jews were an inferior race. These scientific “conclusions” were used to justify slavery and mass murder.

Carl Sagan, a scientist, made a statement regarding extraordinary claims: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” There has been no “extraordinary evidence” regarding global whining, just computer models. These computer models, when fed information from the past several decades, are not even able to project the actual climate we are having today. How can they be relied upon to predict what will happen in the distant future?

One last thing – it is well known among scientists and scientifically literate people (who are not ideologically driven), that correlation is not necessarily causation. Just as ice cream sales increase in hot weather, it is not accurate to say that increased ice cream sales causes hot weather, likewise, just as CO2 levels rise with warmer average temperatures, it is not accurate to say that the CO2 causes the higher temperatures. They may go hand in hand, but it may be that either one causes the other, or that a third factor is involved.

7/15/2009

Health Care Reform

The Democrats and President Obama are trying to institute health care reform. They will create such a fucked-up mess that everyone will pay more and suffer more. Health care will benefit only people who are not very ill.

The blame lies, in my opinion, with the REPUBLICANS. For several years, they had virtual control of the legislative and executive branches of government. Everybody who thinks knows that health care is in need of reform. Republican sponsored reform would have been fucked-up too, but it would have been better than the abortion being sponsored by the Democrats now. When they had the opportunity, the Republicans simply ignored the problem. Too expensive, so we will just ignore it.

Every thinking person knows that in politics, as in everything else in life, the pendulum swings back and forth. The Republicans could not hold on to power indefinitely, so they should have addressed this issue when they had the chance.

Now we have this national nightmare that will last for generations before being fixed or abandoned. Thanks a lot, you self-serving politicians who call yourselves Republicans. You deferred the decision until the neo-communists who call themselves the Democratic party were able to call all the shots.

I would like to propose that we march to Washington, DC, with pitchforks, torches, and AK-47's, and lynch the entire lot of them; both Houses of Congress, the Executive branch, and the Supreme Court.

Of course, realistically speaking, the problem is, we would simply have replacement politicians filling in the gap, probably in about two weeks, and everything would be back the way it was.

Maybe a military takover would be good?

Just thinking out loud.

7/09/2009

St. Augustine on Curiosity ***

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity... It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.


- St. Augustine

***10/5/2013 - Note: this is probably a misquote, for the purpose of defaming St. Augustine.  I published it without any research as to its veracity, and I regret it.  He is a revered figure in Christianity and western culture, and whether we subscribe to his philosophy and views or not, everyone deserves at least to be described accurately. - James Carr.

5/12/2009

Great financial advice

Obvious to people who are good with money, but for the rest of us, this is the best advice I've heard in a long time:


... "I realize $400 seems like a lot of money right now, but it’s not the end of the world. Get on a written, monthly budget, and give every dollar you make a name on paper before the month begins. You’ll have to pay some Stupid Tax, but you can take care of this in no time if you stop eating out for a while and have a monster, blow-out garage sale this weekend. Close the account, cut that card into tiny, little pieces, and never go back into debt again!" ...


Here's another great piece of advice I overheard years ago: "If you don't save money, you're stupid!"

5/08/2009

The Democrat War on Morality

I take my title from the ridiculously titled book, "The Republican War on Science".

Government policy decisions often, if not always, have a moral component. Intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals (who are very influentual in the Democrat party) try very hard to remove morality from any consideration of the value of a proposed policy...unless, of course, the moral position supports their idea.

As an atheist, I do not believe there is an absolute standard of morality dictated by an omnipotent supernatural being. So what am I talking about? Morality is whatever we say it is, right? Well, yes. The important thing that these "intellectuals" seem to forget is that we, as a society, do say what morality is.

Even if the ultimate source of our western (or American at least) morality is ultimately from Judeo-Christian influences, the fact remains that we have a moral code. Some aspects of this moral code are in dispute, some are under attack; however, there is still an underlying, albeit unspoken sense of what is right and what is wrong. Nearly everyone has it. Liberals and conservatives each agree on most questions of right and wrong. Who would argue against this list?

Wrong
Murder
Robbery
Rape
Torture
Imprisonment

Right
Fairness
Kindness
Saving a Life
Sharing
Freedom of Choice
Justice

Don’t all Americans find the practice of killing infant girls (in China) repulsive? Don’t we all find the radical Muslim practice of kidnapping and beheading westerners to be evil? Didn’t we all think the murder, in German death camps, of over 12 million humans to be an abhorrent and despicable action? Don’t we all think the deliberate starvation of entire populations in Africa to be evil? Can you remember how you felt in the hours and days after the attacks on America on September 11, 2001? Didn’t you cry, thinking of the thousands of murdered people, the families left without a father or without a mother, the sons, daughters, wives, husbands, and friends murdered by murderous fanatical religious freaks?

So, why do "liberals" and "conservatives" (as opposed to the political left and right, which are affiliated, but not necessarily the same) disagree on what is right and wrong? It appears to be a matter of perspective. Most people don’t think about why they feel the way they do, they just feel that way. If you are opposed to capital punishment but in favor of legal abortion, or vice-versa, it does not make you a bad person, even if demagogues (A.K.A. politicians) try to convince you otherwise.

Capital Punishment
Liberal: Killing is wrong, and allowing the state to kill for revenge is also wrong. Sometimes innocent persons are convicted and executed. Because of this, capital punishment should be eliminated.
Conservative: When an innocent person is killed, the murderer should pay with his life. To do otherwise is a mockery of principles of justice. The system is not perfect, but there are many safeguards built into our legal system, so the incidence of innocent people being executed is extremely rare. Though tragic, this is not a good reason to abandon the principle of executing murderers.

Abortion
Liberal: A woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body. It is a matter of personal freedom.
Conservative: A baby is the most innocent person there is. Aborting a baby is as evil as killing a newborn infant.

Torture
Liberal: We must never use enhanced interrogation techniques, because it is torture. Torture is wrong under all circumstances. Information obtained under torture is unreliable.
Conservative: When the lives of thousands of Americans are at stake, enhanced interrogation techniques should be used to protect lives. Aggressive interrogation has been effective in getting valuable, reliable information that has protected American lives.

…and so the debate goes. Both sides have merit, but often one side prevails and imposes its will on the other. This leads to discontentment, which politicians exploit for their own advantage. What should be done is compromise. This partly assuages the deeply felt feelings of each side of an issue. For example, abortion should be legal up to a certain point, but not after. Capital Punishment should be an option only when the case and evidence is reviewed by an impartial panel of judges. Enhanced interrogation techniques must only be used under the approval of a bipartisan panel of Senators and the President.

Morality is an important part of being human. Even criminals have their own moral code. Our laws and policies must be moral. If they are not, then people lose respect for the law in general, and ignore it. This will lead to social chaos.

5/01/2009

Andrew McCarthy's Letter to Attorney General Holder

Declining the invitation to endorse a pre-determined policy of releasing trained terrorists into the United States


By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants -- or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear -- most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany -- that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [administration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from theUnited States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section

4/30/2009

Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld

Great review. Red Eye is my favorite television show. Watching it is addictive.



‘Red Eye’ at 500
by Matt Patterson

Is there a stranger show on television than “Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld“?

Careening between train wreck and brilliance (often within the same five minute segment), “Red Eye” has been providing necrophilia jokes and toilet humor alongside serious political commentary and biting social satire for over two years now. In fact, “Red Eye,” which airs nightly at 3:00 am on Fox News, recently celebrated its 500th show. In honor of this momentous occasion, I would like to address those poor unfortunate viewers who have yet to tune in, and inform them why they need to start warming up their TiVos like, NOW! people.



The ringleader is Greg Gutfeld, former editor of Maxim U.K and Men’s Health magazines. His cohorts include Bill Schulz (the best side-kick since Andy Richter) and droll and dreary ombudsman Andy Levy. This crew is rounded out nightly by a rotating rogue’s gallery of bloggers, comedians, news anchors, beauty queens, medical examiners, rockers, freaks, and former C.I.A. agents. Oh, and Gutfeld’s mom.

The beauty of this ever simmering stew is you never know how it’s going to go down - sometimes it warms the belly, and sometimes you gag on the mix (Nutmeg?! In stew?!). You find ostensibly serious people being unexpectedly hilarious (Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter’s fierce, young-Mr. Burns-visage belies a devastating Don Rickles wit), and ostensibly funny people addressing serious subjects - all with wildly varying success.
“Red Eye” is like a great punk song - individually the instruments are out of tune and none of the musicians have the slightest clue what they’re doing. But somehow it all comes together in a life-affirming vortex of awesomeness that makes you bang your head and pump your fist and thank God that the Ramones were too stupid and too smart to do anything else.

But “Red Eye” is not a punk song - it is a television show. Its sire is not the Ramones, but Steve Allen (R.I.P.), a mantle once picked up and gloriously carried by David Letterman, before he got infected with namby-pamby liberalism and I-know-what’s-best-for-you paternalism.

“Red Eye” will have none of that, and as a consequence is both the most daring and disgusting hour on the air. The “Red Eye” crew act like they are not even aware that they are on television half the time; or at least, they act like they are acting like that, and that is their genius.

So the question is not really “Is there a stranger show on television?” to which the answer is manifestly no. The question is “Is there a better show on television?”

Yes, frequently. But watch anyway. We’d hate for these boys to have to get real jobs.



Matt Patterson is a columnist and commentator whose work has appeared in The Washington Examiner, The Baltimore Sun, Townhall, and Pajamas Media. He is the author of “Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln & Ann Rutledge Story.” His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com.

4/15/2009

Americans with No Abilities Act

Washington, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans.

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.'

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement warehouse stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'

'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint , Michigan , due to her inability to remember "Righty-Tighty, Lefty-Loosey." 'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durban (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.

4/10/2009

'Cause I'm the Tax Man

What's next? Is nothing sacred in this world?

From BBC:


Sweden targets strippers for tax

Sweden's tax authorities are seeking the bare facts about webcam strippers' income, estimating that hundreds of Swedish women are dodging the law.

The search involves tax officials examining websites that feature Swedish strippers, in an effort to identify them and chase them for tax returns.

The tax loss is estimated at about 40m Swedish kronor (£3.3m) annually.

Project leader Dag Hardyson said 200 Swedish strippers had been investigated so far. He said the total could be 500.

"They are young girls, we can see from the photos. We think that perhaps they are not well informed about the rules," said Mr Hardyson, head of the tax authority's national project on internet trade.

The investigation into strippers is part of a wider tax project that includes online poker and fake trader locations.

Detective work

Mr Hardyson told BBC News that the strippers could be liable to pay about half of their earnings in tax. Striptease via webcam is quite legal in Sweden, unlike prostitution, he added.

"I don't think they have any costs really - almost 100% of what they earn is pocketed. Many have regular work and this is extra income. We want them to register their activity as a business - it's still taxable, even if it's a hobby," he said.

He stressed the difficulty of identifying strippers, saying the contact information on the websites was often "not obvious".

"We have to visit the companies behind the websites to get the information, then we have to work with the electronic wallets where the money is going in."

He said the Swedish tax authorities had been tipped off about Swedish internet strippers by the Dutch authorities, who had started a similar investigation earlier.

Web search tools like spiders had failed to detect the Swedish strippers.

"When we investigated the sites manually it worked better," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7993694.stm

Taxman
by George Harrison:


Let me tell you
How it will be.
There's one for you,
Nineteen for me,

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don't
Take it all.

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

If you drive a car,
I'll tax the street.
If you try to sit,
I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I'll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I'll tax your feet.

Taxman!

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Don't ask me what I want it for,
(Uh-uh, Mr. Wilson.)
If you don't want to pay some more.
(Uh-uh, Mr. Heath.)

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

And my advice to
Those who die.
(Taxman!)
Declare the pennies
On your eyes.
(Taxman!)

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman,
And you're working for no one but me.
(Taxman!)

2/17/2009

The New Politics of Fear

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." - Barack Hussein Obama, January 20, 2009

From the Wall Street Journal:


FEBRUARY 13, 2009

Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe'

By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER
President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.

In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today's economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never recover.

This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different magnitude. In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931, 6.5%. And then in 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.

This was reflected in unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. That's more than three percentage points below the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression.

Other economic statistics also dispel any analogy between today's economic woes and the Great Depression. Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932, when it fell yet another 13%.

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%. The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan) failures in 1987-88. Stockholders can take some solace from the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90% devaluation of the early 1930s.

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies.

Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, is the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).

1/21/2009

Juan Williams Agrees With Me

He must have been reading my mind.


Here is the article:

Judge Obama on Performance Alone
Let's not celebrate more ordinary speeches.

By JUAN WILLIAMS

JANUARY 20, 2009, 11:31 P.M. ET

With the noon sun high over the U.S. Capitol, Barack Obama yesterday took the oath of office to become president of the United States. On one level, it was a simple matter of political process -- the symbolic transfer of power. Yet words alone cannot convey its meaning.

The calloused hands of slaves, the voices of abolitionists, the hearts of generations who trusted in the naïve promise that any child can become president, will find some reward in a moment that was hard to imagine last year, much less 50 years ago. Our history, so marred by the sin of slavery, has come to the day when a man that an old segregationist would have described as "tea-colored" -- the child of a white woman and an African immigrant, who identifies as a member of the long oppressed and despised black minority -- was chosen by a mostly white nation as the personification of America's best sense of self as a nation of power and virtue.

At the end of the 1965 march calling for passage of the Voting Rights Act, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said politics held the potential to reflect the brilliance of the American creed of justice for all, and a "society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience." Years of hard work lay ahead to shift racist attitudes born of political power being limited to white Americans, he said, then added that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. How long? Not long. Because mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!"

It is neither overweening emotion nor partisanship to see King's moral universe bending toward justice in the act of the first non-white man taking the oath of the presidency. But now that this moment has arrived, there is a question: How shall we judge our new leader?

If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else -- fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism -- then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.

Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.

This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise.

During the Democrats' primaries and caucuses, candidate Obama often got affectionate if not fawning treatment from the American media. Editors, news anchors, columnists and commentators, both white and black but especially those on the political left, too often acted as if they were in a hurry to claim their role in history as supporters of the first black president.

For example, Mr. Obama was forced to give a speech on race as a result of revelations that he'd long attended a church led by a demagogue. It was an ordinary speech. At best it was successful at minimizing a political problem. Yet some in the media equated it to the Gettysburg Address.

The importance of a proud, adversarial press speaking truth about a powerful politician and offering impartial accounts of his actions was frequently and embarrassingly lost. When Mr. Obama's opponents, such as the Clintons, challenged his lack of experience, or pointed out that he was not in the U.S. Senate when he expressed early opposition to the war in Iraq, they were depicted as petty.

Bill Clinton got hit hard when he called Mr. Obama's claims to be a long-standing opponent of the Iraq war "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." The former president accurately said that there was no difference in actual Senate votes on the war between his wife and Mr. Obama. But his comments were not treated by the press as legitimate, hard-ball political fighting. They were cast as possibly racist.

This led to Saturday Night Live's mocking skit -- where the debate moderator was busy hammering the other Democratic nominees with tough questions while inquiring if Mr. Obama was comfortable and needed more water.

When fellow Democrats contending for the nomination rightly pointed to Mr. Obama's thin proposals for dealing with terrorism and extricating the U.S. from Iraq, they were drowned out by loud if often vacuous shouts for change. Yet in the general election campaign and during the transition period, Mr. Obama steadily moved to his former opponents' positions. In fact, he approached Bush-Cheney stands on immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperate in warrantless surveillance.

There is a dangerous trap being set here. The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme.

Several seasons ago, when Philadelphia Eagle's black quarterback Donovan McNabb was struggling, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said the media wanted a black quarterback to do well and gave Mr. McNabb "a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve." Mr. Limbaugh's sin was saying out loud what others had said privately.

There is a lot more at stake now, and to allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance.

President Obama deserves no less.


Mr. Williams, a political analyst for National Public Radio and Fox News, is the author of several books, including "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965" (Penguin, 1988), and "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America -- and What We Can Do About It" (Crown, 2006).

Happiness and Euphoria

Of all the delusions, self-delusion is the sweetest. - James H. Carr



Perhaps you remember the saying, "The only thing worse than not getting what you want, is getting what you want."

I have observed much celebration, happiness, expressions of satisfaction and general euphoria since the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama yesterday, as the 44th President of the United States of America, along with some extremely low-class, rude behaviour toward the outgoing President. These incidents of disrespect have only served to show what low class assholes Obama supporters, and Democrats in general are.

I believe that I will be one of the few people who are pleased during the Obama presidency, because I expect absolute disaster. With such low expectations, I can only be pleasantly surprised when he makes some policy decision that I like. As President, he can no longer evade making decisions. This will cause dissatisfaction among the various factions who support him. Making decisions and establishing policy will only decrease his popularity over time.

However, this decrease in popularity will be mitigated by a compliant, fawning, lying media; NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc. Since these people in the media virtually coerced millions of less than clear-thinking (a.k.a. stupid) voters to elect Obama, by portraying him as some sort of miracle-working saint, they will be heavily invested in saving face by brushing aside and underplaying negative consequences of his policies, and spinning nearly everything as masterful, briliant, outstanding, inspiring. In a word, genius.

The news and entertainment media in this country, and throughout the world, really, chose this new figurehead to usher in a bright, brave new world, where hunger and misery will end, the lion shall lie down with the lamb, etc., and once again, the whole world will love the USA (which in fact was never the case). They successfully made millions of voters feel guilty at the prospect of voting against him because he is black, or African-American. Nobody wants to be thought of as racist, so this is one great way to prove that America is not racist. And, the mentality that has been fostered over the last 8 years that George Bush is Hitler, and has taken away all of our civil liberties, therefore ANYBODY would be an improvement, so long as he is a Democrat, has successfully convinced enough muddle-headed people to go out and vote for some vague, undefined "Hope", "Change We Can Believe In"; with empty, meaningless slogans like "Yes, we can!", and phrases like "Sea levels will drop", etc.

Martin Luther King said in his "I have a dream" speech, that he dreamed of the day when a man would be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. MLK was a great man, and that was a great sentiment. But people who voted for Obama because of his race (and they number in the tens of millions) are equally racist as those who voted against him because of his race (these number probably in the thousands). To judge a man because of his race is improper, immoral, and is the very definition of racism. Even if your judgement is to vote for him. America, and Democrats in particular, is not a color blind society. MLK looked forward to the day when it would be. It is sad that that day has not yet arrived, and may not arrive for many decades to come.

BHO will go down in the history books as the first African-American President, but he isn't, really. To me (a white person), an African-American, or Black American, is a descendant of slaves brought over from Africa in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. He (or she) is a person who has suffered, or whose parents and/or grandparents have suffered discrimination, revulsion, injustice, and general unfairness, solely because of their race. An African-American has suffered at the hands of an unfair system, even though great strides have been made in the last 50 years or so. An African-American has suffered from a "black" culture that rewards ignorance and ridicules education and accomplishment as selling out to the white man. An African-American, for the most part, has had to grow up in externally or internally imposed "ghettoes", or mostly black communities, with high unemployment and high crime rates. A young black man has an extremely high probability of dying before he reaches maturity, because of the crime and violence in these neighborhoods.

BHO is the son of a young white woman from a wealthy family. His mother was impregnated by a Kenyan philanderer, a serial inseminator, a womanizer, who abandoned his own flesh and blood; indeed, from my admitedly sketchy information, he fathered several children from various women over the years. He was, in my opinion, based on this, an irresponsible, immoral and cruel jerk, an asshole of the highest order. Any man who would abandon his own child is despicable, in my opinion.

BHO was raised in white society by a white grandmother, while he was virtually, partially abandoned by his own mother. He grew up as a brown-skinned white boy. He attended Harvard University. He grew up in Hawaii. He had priveleges, resources, and opportunities that would be the envy of most middle-class whites.

BHO is undoubtedly a smart man. It is apparent from listening to him. But smart does not mean wise. When the fate of millions of Americans is at stake, we need wisdom much more than high intelligence.

And, his abandonment issues leave me worried. Nobody could get away unscathed from those experiences.

I voted against him because I am not racist. His policies, his history, has shown him to be a knee-jerk liberal of the highest order, and a pandering, lying, slimey politician from the Chicago political environment, one of the most corrupt in the nation. I judged him by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

This is a dark time for America (and I don't mean that as a pun). All great nations have their heyday, and then decline. I fear that America will begin to decline with the Obama era. The once bright "beacon on a hill" is fading, in my opinion.

If I am wrong, that will be wonderful. Perhaps some day we will be able to dig ourselves out of the mess and severe financial burden that the Democrats will be creating. But it's not likely. How many government programs have ever been terminated, after all?



If you disagree with me, then you are obviously stupid, and WORSE THAN HITLER!

1/07/2009

Muslims and Socialists Unite to Urge Killing of Jews

We should have never let these barbaric, cruel, evil muslims into our country. I say it's time to round them all up. I blame this on the election of Barack Hussein Obama.



Protester Calls for Jews to 'Go Back to the Oven' at Anti-Israel Demonstration
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Fox News

Like many other protests of Israel's campaign in Gaza, this one ended badly — police had to cool an ugly fight between supporters of Israel and Gaza, breaking up the warring sides as their screaming and chanting threatened to turn into something worse.

But some protesters at this rally in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., took their rhetoric a step further, calling for the extermination of Israel — and of Jews.

Separated by battle lines and a stream of rush-hour traffic outside a federal courthouse last week, at least 200 pro-Palestinian demonstrators faced off against a smaller crowd of Israel supporters.

Most of the chants were run-of-the-mill; men and women waving Palestinian flags called Israel's invasion of Gaza a "crime," while the pro-Israel group carried signs calling the Hamas-run territory a "terror state."

But as the protest continued and crowds grew, one woman in a hijab began to shout curses and slurs that shocked Jewish activists in the city, which has a sizable Jewish population.

"Go back to the oven," she shouted, calling for the counter-protesters to die in the manner that the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during the Holocaust.

"You need a big oven, that's what you need," she yelled.

Millions of Jews were gassed and burned in crematoria throughout Europe during Adolf Hitler's rule of Germany. The protest organizers, asked to comment on the woman's overt call for Jewish extermination, said she was "insensitive" but refused to condemn her statement.

"She does not represent the opinions of the vast majority of people who were there," said Emmanuel Lopez, who helped plan the event, one of many sponsored nationwide on Dec. 30 by the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism ) Coalition.

Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists.

"Zionism in general is a barbaric, racist movement that really is the cause of the situation in the entire Middle East," Lopez said.

The unidentified woman, who protest organizers said was a Muslim, wasn't the only protester who raised hackles that day. Other demonstrators held signs that said "Nuke Israel," and a number made comparisons to the Holocaust, accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.

More than 670 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, have been killed in the 12 days of Israel's campaign in Gaza. At least 30 were killed Tuesday by Israeli shelling of a U.N. school that had been housing refugees. (Israel said its forces fired at militants who launched mortars from that location.)

"This is absolutely inhumane," said Ahmed Suid, who attended the demonstration, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "This is a modern-day Holocaust."

The comparisons of the Israelis to the Nazis has Jewish organizations concerned about a "growing trend" at protests in America, where they say hatred of Israel and Jews is being increasingly preached.

"We're worried about hate speech. We're worried because hate speech eventually leads to pain and suffering and death," said Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, which has been tracking Gaza protests.

"Comparisons of Israel to the Nazis are a deeply cynical perversion of history, an attempt to turn the tragedy that befell the Jewish people into a bludgeon against Israel," he said.

Even though police had to intercede and break up a potentially violent confrontation between the two factions at the Fort Lauderdale protest, organizers called it a success, saying it drew crowds of new activists.

"It was not just an academic exercise . . . not just a protest," Lopez told FOXNews.com. "It's a material force."

1/06/2009

Eurabian Muslims Plan New Holocaust

Didn't someone say, long ago, "Never Again"?



Here's the story:

European Jews Attacked in Response to Gaza Conflict
Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Associated Press

PARIS - Signs are mounting that the conflict in Gaza is starting to spill over into violence in Europe's towns and cities, with assaults against Jews and arson attacks on Jewish congregations in France, Sweden and Britain.

Assailants rammed a burning car into the gates of a synagogue in Toulouse, in southwest France, on Monday night. A Jewish congregation in Helsingborg, in southern Sweden, also was attacked Monday night by someone who "broke a window and threw in something that was burning," said police spokesman Leif Nilsson. Neighbors alerted rescue services before the fire took hold.

Someone also started a blaze outside the premises last week. And on Sunday slogans including "murderers ... You broke the cease-fire" and "don't subject Palestine to ethnic cleansing" were daubed on Israel's embassy in Stockholm.

In Denmark, a 27-year-old Dane born in Lebanon of Palestinian parents is alleged to have injured two young Israelis last week, opening fire with a handgun in a shooting that police suspect could be linked to the Gaza crisis.

France has Western Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities and a history of anti-Semitic violence flaring when tensions in the Middle East are high. In 2002, some 2,300 Jews left France for Israel because they felt unsafe.

President Nicolas Sarkozy warned in a statement Tuesday that France would not tolerate violence linked to the Gaza crisis. A day earlier, his interior minister said she was concerned about the prospect of contagion and met with the heads of the two main Muslim and Jewish groups and police officials to stress the need to "preserve national unity."

Damage to the synagogue in Toulouse was limited to a blackened gate, and there were no injuries even though a rabbi was giving a course to adults inside, authorities said. They said unlighted gasoline bombs were also found in a car nearby and in the synagogue's yard. A local Jewish leader, Armand Partouche, said he believed the assailants had planned to torch the synagogue, but fled when the building's alarm went off.

"It could have been very, very serious," Partouche said in a telephone interview. "There were people inside; there could have been deaths."

He said Jewish leaders are asking Toulouse authorities for reinforced security for the city's synagogues.

"We really fear that anti-Semitism will spring up again and that the current conflict will be transposed to our beautiful French republic," he said.

In Britain, the Community Security Trust, a Jewish defense group, said it had seen a rise in anti-Semitic incidents since the start of Israel's offensive against Gaza. The group said it had recorded 20-25 incidents across the country in the past week that it believed were connected with Gaza, including an arson attempt on a synagogue in north London on Sunday.

London police are investigating the attack, in which suspects splashed flammable liquid on the door and set it on fire.

Community Security Trust spokesman Mark Gardner said that in another incident last week a gang of 15-20 youths walked along the main street in Golders Green, a largely Jewish neighborhood in north London, shouting "Jew" and "Free Palestine" at passers-by.

"It could get worse," Gardner said. "We tend to see these things happen in waves."

The government in Belgium on Tuesday ordered police in Antwerp and Brussels to be on increased alert after recent pro-Palestinian protests ended in violence and dozens of arrests. Police said burning rags were shoved through the mailbox of a Jewish home in Antwerp last weekend. Damage was limited and no arrests were made.

In the Danish shooting, one Israeli man was shot in the arm and another in the leg as they were selling hair care products in a shopping mall. Eli Ruvio, who owns the company that operated the stands, said his employees have been harassed by Muslim youths since they set up three kiosks in the shopping center in August.

"They kept cursing and shouting at us," Ruvio told The Associated Press. He added that the Muslim youths also threw mud and firecrackers at the employees and spat at them.

Ruvio recalled an episode Dec. 27 when some of the youths shouted "slaughter all the Jews."

"I told my employees not to speak in Hebrew and lie about where they come from, they should say there were from Spain or somewhere else. If people ask you where you are from, never say you're from Israel," he said.