Wednesday, October 31, 2007


The viral frenzy surrounding the leaking of the unedited, "rough cut" trailer for the documentary "Hillary Uncensored" continues. The trailer has been Google's top-ranked video since October 8, with 1,552,736 views as of October 29, and another 415,364 YouTube views since October 20.

The First Cut of the one hour documentary will debut on Youperview.Com on November 5, 2007, at $6.99 per view, and the public will be given the opportunity to offer suggestions for the final edit.

UFO's invade Democratic debate last night

Seriously, Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, called on the government to declassify all Roswell documents. He brought it up himself when Chris Matthews was joking about Kucinich's UFO answer. He said the government hasn't "come clean" on the issue. His campaign will surely say he was joking, he has a sense of humor. But even though he was laughing in some parts of that answer, he wasn't joking about THAT.

Matthews looked on in disbelief and joked that this is shaping up to be a contest between the de-evolution party and the pro-UFO party.

Gov. Richardson called on government to declassify Roswell docs!

In the weird last minutes of the debate (the period, by the way, when The Fix made it onto the basketball court in high school) Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) gave us a highlight.

Asked about the statement by actress Shirley MacLaine that Kucinich had seen a UFO at her house, Kucinich said that he had. He quickly sought to clarify -- an "unidentified flying object" he said holding up his hand -- but man oh man.

The big news tonight: DENNIS KUCINICH HAS SEEN A UFO!

Monday, October 29, 2007

National healthcare failing in England (signs of things to come with Hillarycare)

Record numbers go abroad for health
By Laura Donnelly and Patrick Sawer
Last Updated: 1:06am GMT 29/10/2007

Record numbers of Britons are flying abroad for medical treatment to escape NHS waiting lists and the rising threat of hospital superbugs.
Thousands of "health tourists" are going as far as India, Malaysia and South Africa for major operations – such is their despair over the quality of health services.

The first survey of Britons opting for treatment overseas shows that fears of hospital infections and frustration with NHS waiting lists are fuelling the increasing trend.

More than 70,000 Britons will have treatment abroad this year – a figure that is forecast to rise to almost 200,000 by the end of the decade. Patients needing major heart surgery, hip operations and cataracts are using the internet to book operations to be carried out thousands of miles away.

Read the whole thing

Living art

Bill Gillon
Engine 58/A
Fire Department

Friday, October 26, 2007

Pete Seeger repents of Stalinism

In a letter to his former banjo student and writer Ron Radosh, he confesses: "I think you're right – I should have asked to see the gulags when I was in USSR."
Pete Seeger testifying before House Un-American Activities Committee in 1955

Seeger has even written a song denouncing Josef Stalin, a song inspired by what he thought his mentor, Woody Guthrie, might have written about the fall of the Soviet Union had he been around.

It's called "The Big Joe Blues" – a song Radosh says "makes the point that Joe Stalin was far more dangerous and a threat than Joe McCarthy."

Read the whole thing

Here's what you've been longing to hear from a national leader

Why Rudy? Part 1

I'm not going to turn this blog into an endless commercial for my candidate, but when the guy does something outstandingly good, he does something outstandingly good. See this link in today's NYT transcribing Rudy Giuliani's answer to a question on interrogation techniques.

Asked whether attorney general designate had "fudged" on torture, Giuliani answered:

I don’t believe the attorney general designate in any way was unclear on torture. I think Democrats said that; I don’t think he was.

When the questioner added that Mr. Mukasey had said he "didn't know" whether waterboarding counted as torture, Giuliani continued:

Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately.”


If I can’t figure out that there’s been a significant media bias against this war, then I shouldn’t be running for president of the United States.


Sometimes they describe it accurately. Sometimes they exaggerate it. So I’d have to see what they really are doing, not the way some of these liberal newspapers have exaggerated it

Now, on the question of torture. We should not torture. America should not stand for torture, America should not allow torture. But America should engage in aggressive questioning of Islamic terrorists who are arrested or who are apprehended. Because if we don’t we leave ourselves open to significant attack.

And the line between the two is very delicate and very difficult. But we can’t abandon aggressive questioning of people who are intent on coming here to kill us. Or killing us overseas. I think that that’s the point that the attorney general designate was trying to make.

And the powers of the president are pretty significant in protecting the national security of the United States. They always have been. So I think what he was also trying to do was protect the powers of the United States to deal with unforeseen circumstances like the hypothetical we were asked during one debate – I’ve forgotten which one: If there was a terrorist attack on an American city, and it was clear that there were all going to be additional attacks, some of them were going to be nuclear, and they were planned for the next couple of days and one of the people involved in it was arrested, and the head of the C.I.A. came to you and said we have to do certain things to get the information from him, would you authorize it? And I think most of us answered it, yes we would, we would authorize doing whatever we thought was the most effective to get that information.

The president has to have that kind of leeway. We’ve got to trust our president well enough to allow that. If we surround this so much with procedure, we’re going to have some unforeseen circumstance in which a president’s not going to feel comfortable making the right decision, particularly if you have the wrong person there.

So I think America should never be for torture. America should be against torture. It violates the Geneva Convention. Certainly when we’re dealing with armed combatants, we shouldn’t get near anything like that. There is a distinction, sometimes, when you’re dealing with terrorists. You may have to use means that are a little tougher.

And I see, when the Democrats are talking about torture, they’re not just talking about even this definition of waterboarding, which again, if you look at the liberal media and you look at the way they describe it, you could say it was torture and you shouldn’t do it. But they talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly. That’s silly.

That comes from people who have never investigated a real criminal case, never investigated organized crime. You know how I put hundreds of Mafia people in jail? And I helped to put thousands in Italy in jail? You know how I did it? I did it by electronic surveillance and aggressive questioning. None of them wanted to give me the information. They didn’t walk into my office and say, ‘I want to tell you about all of those Mafia murders…'

“They got ‘em because we arrested them, we got very significant charges on them, and we questioned them for long, long periods of time. With very aggressive techniques. Never ever tortured anybody. I can tell you that. Would never allow it. Don’t know of any situation in which the F.B.I. did it.

And then, please have a better view of the men and women who serve you in law enforcement and in the intelligence services.


I know the liberal media paints them like, you know – These are the good guys, not the bad guys. They really are. I mean these are the people who put their lives at risk to protect you and me. These are people of scruples, honor, decency. They don’t want to torture anybody. They have no desire to harm anybody. What they are dealing with sometimes are these enormously difficult life and death situations, in which there is a possibility of getting information about a group of troops that are going to be killed, and they’re going to have to go tell their mothers and fathers that they were killed and there’s a chance maybe of stopping it. Or there are these – I mean, suppose some of the people who were going to do Sept. 11 had been captured beforehand. We sure as heck would want some very aggressive questioning to find out what they knew.

So let’s be careful on how we define this. And, sure we should be against torture. But we should not be against aggressive questioning. And the line between the two is going to require some really difficult decisions about drawing it and kind of trusting each other with the discretion for the president to make decisions about what has to be done in the interests of the American people.’

I have known every American president since Gerald Ford. I knew Richard Nixon, but before he was president. I met him, I didn’t know him. I can’t say I knew Richard Nixon. But I’ve known every American president since Gerald Ford. Some Republicans, some Democrats. I can’t think of a one that would ever want to see somebody tortured. Also can’t think of a one that wouldn’t have the courage to make some tough decisions to protect the lives of the American people. And that’s the kind of person you have to have as president of the United States.

Isn't that the kind of eloquent answer - the kind of vigorous defense of American actions - you've been longing to hear from a national leader? People sometimes call Rudy too combative. But so many slurs have been thrown at the United States, its armed forces, and its leaders - don't those slurs need to be combated? I have to believe that everybody in that audience came away from this exchange with their resolution fortified and their courage reanimated. And that's what we're all going to need in the months and years ahead.

10/26 11:44 AM


Of course, Rudy's answer below has provoked outrage in the left blogosphere.

As Joe Conason and hundreds of other bloggers, commentators, and assorted hecklers put it, "If it's not torture, Rudy should try waterboarding himself."

Smart point!

In exactly the same way:

Anyone who thinks that a prison sentence is an appropriate punishment for armed robbery should go spend 20 years in penitentiary himself!

Anyone who thinks it okay for police to shoot a suspect who draws a gun should submit to be shot himself!

And - let's take this reasoning to its logical conclusion - anyone who thinks it permissible for the US to drop bombs on foreign enemies should logically volunteer to have the US armed forces drop bombs on his or her own house!

Fair's fair, right? What kind of appalling hypocrite would dare suggest that the US ought to treat ordinary law-abiding people in any different way from the way in which it treats its most desperate, deadly, and criminal enemies?

10/26 12:10 PM


Reader Doug Nelson, from Bettendorf, Iowa, writes about the event discussed below:

I was at the event where Rudy gave the answer you quoted. (Davenport, Iowa this past Tuesday). The quote doesn't reflect several factors that make the answer even more impressive to me. The questioner stated she was representative of an international, inter-denominational (and I think inter-religious) group against torture. Her facial expression when asking the question and the follow-up clearly showed some anger. She was there to confront Rudy. I was able to watch her face during his answer.

is respectful demeanor and careful answer was probably not what she expected. By the end of his answer there was the faintest nod of her head. He can explain and support his opinion without offending, and maybe even change some opinions.

10/26 12:29 PM

Thursday, October 25, 2007

This week

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The pernicious legend of Franklin Roosevelt

According to the conventional wisdom, Roosevelt proved that such governmental action – bold, aggressive, experimental, and sweeping – restored vigor to the economy and improved the lives of the suffering masses.

Unfortunately, such assumptions rest upon a foundation of myths, distortions, half-truths and outright lies. The truths about the New Deal, and all other notable attempts in the course of American history to use the power of the federal government to rescue the poor over the course of 230 years of American history, show the same disturbing results: higher tax burdens and a corresponding loss of liberty, with little gain (and sometimes serious damage) for the intended beneficiaries of bureaucratic largesse.

An understanding of this destructive and increasingly dangerous pattern in our politics must begin with an examination of the pernicious legend of Franklin Roosevelt as America’s savior.

Read the whole thing

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

VIDEO: The Violent Oppression of Woman in Islam



Monday, October 22, 2007


Talk given by Gary Aminoff in Los Angeles, October 2, 2007

Many people buy into the premise that the World Trade Center attack on September 11 was a result of some misguided foreign policy of the United States. Others believe that Islamist terror attacks began in the 1970’s, 1980’s or 1990’s as a result of something that we, as a country, have done to provoke such an attack.

When confronting an enemy it is helpful to know what it is that drives him. The U.S. and the West need to realistically look at the true motives of Islamic terrorists in order to properly confront them. In this talk I will present the facts that support the notion that Islamic Jihad is not motivated by any specific policies of the US or the West, but instead is principally motivated by a fanatic, obsessive hatred of Jews, and that Islamic Jihad was, and continues to be, strongly influenced by the Nazis.

The idea of using suicide pilots to fly airplanes into high-rise office buildings in Manhattan did not originate with Osama bin Laden in the 1990's - it originated with Adolf Hitler in the 1940's.

Albert Speer, Hitler’s famous architect and chronicler, wrote in his diary, “In the latter stages of the war, I never saw Hitler so beside himself as when, as if in a delirium, he was picturing to himself and to us the downfall of the skyscrapers of New York in towers of flame. He described the skyscrapers turning into huge burning torches and falling hither and thither, and the reflection of the disintegrating city in the dark sky.”

Hitler’s fantasy, and his plan of action foreshadowed September 11: He envisioned having suicide pilots fly light aircraft packed with explosives into Manhattan skyscrapers.

The drawings for the Daimler-Benz Amerikabomber from the spring of 1944 show giant four-engine planes with raised under-carriages for transporting small bombers. The bombers would be released shortly before the planes reached the East Coast, after which the mother plane would return to Europe.

Hitler’s rapture at the thought of Manhattan in flames reflects his underlying motive: not merely to fight a military adversary - the United States - but to kill Jews everywhere. Hitler thought of the US as a Jewish state, and New York as the center of world Jewry.

From 1941 on, Hitler pushed to get the bombers into production, wrote Speer, “in order to be able to teach the Jews a lesson in the form of terror attacks on American metropolises,”

It was no coincidence that sixty years later the assault on the World Trade Center by suicide pilots was coordinated from Germany.

Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian who piloted the plane that struck the North Tower, Marwan Al-Shehhi, from the United Arab Emirates, who steered the plane into the South Tower, Ziad Jarrah, from Lebanon, who crashed United 93 in Shanksville, PA, Ramzi Benalshibh, a Yemini, and the Moroccan student Mounir al-Motassedeq were all members of an Al Queda cell in Hamburg, Germany where they held regular “Quran Circle” meetings with sympathizers.

Where did Mohammed Atta get the ideas that caused him to decide to fly airplanes into New York high-rises?

Witnesses provided part of the answer at the worlds first 9/11-related trial, the prosecution of al-Motassedeq, which took place in Hamburg between October 2002 and February 2003.

One participant in the “Quran Circle” meetings that the cell regularly held, testified that Atta was a diligent student of the National Socialist way of thinking and was a strong admirer of Nazi philosophy and of Adolf Hitler. Atta also was convinced that the Jews were striving for world domination, and he considered New York City the center of World Jewry, just as Hitler did some sixty years earlier.

Amazingly, neither the American media, nor the international press took notice of this astounding testimony - refusing to report anything about Atta’s and Motassedeq’s explicit Jew-hatred.

The trial information was available and much of it reported in Der Spiegel, and there were ample notes of the testimony taken by journalist Michael Eggers who attended every session of the trial and covered it for Reuters. No mention of the Jew-hatred or interest in Hitler on the part of Atta and Motassedeq.

If it had been someone from the political right, and they had expressed Nazi-like views of exterminating Jews, that surely would have received world-wide headlines. But in this case, since the attackers were of Arab background, journalists amazingly found this information irrelevant.

It is highly relevant, as you will see.

Even the 9/11 Commission Report falls short.

Osama Bin Laden has publicly declared that, “The enmity between us and the Jews goes back far in time and is deep rooted. The hour of resurrection shall not come before Muslims kill the Jews.”

Even though there are many such examples of Bin Laden’s declaring his hatred of Jews, the 9/11 Commission, in its chapter on Bin Laden’s world view, makes no mention of his hatred for Jews or how this might possibly have been the motivation for an attack on New York.

The 9/11 Commission Report also falls short when it discusses the history of Islamic Jihad. It accords the entire pre-1945 period just five lines. is precisely this period of time that fostered the personal contacts and ideological affinities between early Islamic radicals and late Naziism - the direct linkage between Jew hatred and Islamic Jihad.

Despite common misconceptions, modern Islamic Fascism was not born during the 1960's, but during the 1930's. Its rise was not inspired by the failure of Nasserism in Egypt, but by the rise of Naziism in Germany, and prior to 1951 all of its campaigns were directed, not against Western colonialism, but against the Jews.

It was the Organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Cairo in 1928, that established Islamic Jihad as a mass movement. The significance of the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic Fascism is comparable to the significance of the Bolshevik Party to Communism: It was, and it remains to this day, the ideological reference point and the organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including Al Queda and Hamas.

While British colonial policy contributed to the rise of Islamic radicalism, the Brotherhood’s jihad was not directed toward the British, but focused almost exclusively on Zionism and the Jews.

Membership in the Brotherhood rose from 800 members in 1936 to 200,000 in 1938. In those two years the Brotherhood conducted a major campaign in Egypt, and it was against the Jews, not against the British occupiers. This campaign against the Jews, in the late 1930's, which established the Brotherhood as a mass movement of Islamic Jihadists, was set off by a rebellion in Palestine directed against Jewish immigration from Europe and Russia. That campaign was initiated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini.

Let me tell you a little bit about the Grand Mufti. Grand Mufti is a term not much used anymore, but it meant the senior Muslim cleric in an area. The Gran Mufti of Jerusalem, Al-Husseini, was very impressed with Adolf Hitler and his anti-Jewish rhetoric. In 1941 he visited Hitler in Berlin. He was so impressed with Hitler and the Nazis, and their plans to exterminate the Jews, that he decided to stay in Berlin. He lived there from 1941 to 1945 and recruited Muslims in Europe for the Waffen-SS. He was very close to Hitler. His best friends were Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

He convinced Hitler that he would be able to have his Muslim brothers in the Arab world carry out extermination of the Jews in the Middle-East, just as the Nazis were doing in Europe.

In November, 1943, In appreciation of the work that al-Husseini was doing in exterminating Jews, Himmler wrote the following telegram to him:

"To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory. Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"

In his memoirs after the war, Al-Husseini noted that "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews.” The answer I got from the Fuehrer was: ‘The Jews are yours.'”

The Muslim Brotherhood organized mass demonstrations in Egyptian cities during the late 1930's under the slogans, “Down with the Jews”, “Jews get out of Egypt and Palestine”, and the like. Leaflets called for a boycott of Jewish goods and Jewish shops, and the Brotherhood’s newspaper, Al-Nadhir, carried a regular column on “The Danger of the Jews of Egypt.”

The Brotherhood’s campaign against the Jews in the 1936-1938 period used not only Nazi tactics, but also Nazi funding. As the respected Norwegian historian Brynjar Lia recounted in his monograph on the Muslim Brotherhood, “Documents siezed in the flat of Willhelm Stellbogen, the Director of the German News Agency in Cairo show that prior to 1939 the Muslim Brotherhood received financial subsidies from the German Legation in Cairo. Stellbogen was instrumental in transferring these funds from the Nazi regime to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

From August 1938 through the end of the Second World War, Amin al-Husseini received financial and military assistance and supplies from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy which he sent to Egypt and Palestine. From Berlin, al-Husseini would play a significant role in inter-Arab politics.

At the same time as the Brotherhood was receiving funding from the Nazis, it became the first organization to propagate, in modern times, the archaic idea of a belligerent and violent jihad and the culture of longing for death. In 1938, Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood’s charismatic founder, published his concept of Jihad in an article entitled “The Industry of Death.” He wrote: “To a nation that perfects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, Allah gives proud life in this world, and eternal grace in the world to come.”

This slogan was enthusiastically taken up by the “Troops of God”, as the Brothers had begun to call themselves.

As they held demonstrations in the late 1930's in Cairo, marching in fascistic formation they would sing: “We are not afraid of death, we desire it. Let us die to redeem Islam”

The death cult that became a hallmark of modern Islamic Fascism was laced with Jew-hatred from the very beginning. This attitude sprung not only from Nazi influences but it also drew directly on Islamic sources.

First, Islamic Jihadists considered, and still to this day consider, Palestine (that includes present-day Israel) an Islamic territory (Dar al-Islam), where, according to the Quran, Jews must not run a single village, let alone a state. At best, in their view, this land should be Jew-free (Judenrein); at the very least Jews there should be relegated to subservient status and should live under Sharia law. The existence of a Jewish State in Dar al-Islam contradicts the word of the Quran, which is why they are so intent on destroying Israel. There are a lot of passages in the Quran and in the history of Muhammed and his conquests that justify to Muslims the killing of Jews.

In 1946, the Brotherhood made sure that The Grand Mufti, Amin Al-Husseini, who was then being sought as a war criminal by both Britain and the U.S. was granted asylum, and a new lease on his political life, in Egypt.

Al-Husseini had been a close ally of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazis. In addition to directing the Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans during the Second World War he had been personally responsible for blocking negotiations late in the war that might have saved thousands of Jewish children from being exterminated in the gas chambers.

All of this was known in 1946 by both Britain and the U.S. Nonetheless both Britain and the US chose to forego criminal prosecution of al-Husseini in order to avoid hurting their relations with the Arab world after WWII. France, which was holding Al-Husseini, deliberately let him go at the request of the Arab League.

For many in the Arab world, what amounted to amnesty for this prominent Islamist who had spent years broadcasting Nazi propaganda to the Arabs in the Middle East from Berlin was seen as a vindication of his actions.

The Arabs started to view Al-Husseini’s past with pride rather than with shame. Escaped and wanted Nazi criminals now flooded into the Arab world where they knew they would have sanctuary.

Both the Muslim Brotherhood’s unconditional solidarity with Al-Husseini and with his Nazi compatriots now in the Middle East led to anti-Jewish riots throughout Egypt and the Middle East just months after the the liberation of Auschwitz.

In 1946,Yugoslavia requested extradition from Egypt of Amin Al-Husseini for War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. The Egyptian government refused to release him.

Al-Husseini used recently acquired Nazi methodology to implement his vision of an Arab World free of Jews.

The attitude of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy had migrated from Nazi Germany to the Middle East after the Second World War where it survived and flourished. In particular, Nazi-like Jewish conspiracy thinking persisted and grew in Egypt and Palestine.

An especially striking example of its continuing influence is the charter adopted in 1988 by the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, which is now known as Hamas. In this Charter, the following language appears: Hamas defines itself as the “spearhead and the avant-garde of the struggle against World Zionism.” “The Jews,” the charter explains, “were behind the French Revolution, and the Communist Revolution. They were behind World War I and World War II. There is no war anywhere without the Jews having their hand in it.”

That is the language of the charter establishing Hamas.

In 1930's and 1940's Europe, the sheer absurdity of the claims made against the Jews by the Nazis made it difficult for educated Europeans to take them seriously. In the Arab world, when the Islamists make the same absurd claims, they are taken seriously.

The 9/11 Commission fails when, instead of discussing the fact that Jew-hatred in the Middle East had reached epidemic proportions well before September 11, and that New York was considered the center of World Jewry by Islamic Jihadists, its report gives the impression that Islamism originally arose in response to recent American and Western policies.

When the 9/11 Commission report states that Bin Laden’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific US policies, the report also gets history wrong.

Understanding the real motive for Islamic Jihad, and the 9/11 attack on New York, is important if we are going to confront Islamic Fascism.

Bin Laden was first politicized, not by specific US policies, but by the writings of Sayyid Qutb and the Jihadist lectures of Abdullah Azzam of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Let me tell you a little bit about Qutb and Azzam.

Qutb was the son of a highly-educated Egyptian nationalist. He traveled to the United States and lived for two years in Colorado while attending University. Qutb was a devout Muslim and wrote of the United States: “No one is more distant than the Americans from spirituality and piety.” American sexual permissiveness and promiscuity particularly appalled Qutb. He was incredulous at the liberties permitted American teenagers. He feared the same influences would invade Egypt.

Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were "primitive" and “shocking.” His experiences in the U.S. partly formed the impetus for his total rejection of Western values and his move towards pure Islamic traditionalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1950s and became editor-in-chief of the Brothers' weekly newspaper, and later became head of the Muslim Brotherhood propaganda section, as well as an appointed member of the the Guidance Council, the highest branch in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Qutb believed that the timeless message of the Koran included the sacred duty of faithful Muslims to wage jihad “against the corrupt new “Kingdom of Israel, its imperial American sponsor, any other Western influences, and corrupt Muslim rulers.” According to Qutb, a Muslim must wage war against any influences in opposition to traditional Islam, and especially against a “Zionist Entity” in Dar al-Islam.

For some reason, the writings of Qutb resonated with many Muslims, who were radicalized by them. He developed a huge following in Egypt and eventually throughout the Arab World. His writings contributed greatly to recruiting Egyptians and other Arabs to the cause of Islamic Jihad. Most of today’s Islamist leaders are followers of the writings of Qutb.

Abdullah Azzam was a Palestinian who went to Egypt to continue his Islamic studies at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University. During his studies he met Sheik Omar Abdel-Rachman, the man behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, now serving a life sentence in the U.S., Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and now Al-Queda’s number 2 man, and other followers of Sayyid Qutb. Azzam was a visionary. He was heavily influenced by the writings of Qutb. He envisioned a pan-Islamic trans-national movement that would transcend the political map of the Middle East. He also envisioned the restoration of the Caliphate and the removal of the “Zionist Entity” from Dar al-Islam. Azzam was one of the founders of Hamas.

In 1976 Azzam moved to Saudi Arabia and became a lecturer at the King AbdulAziz University in Jeddah where he became a mentor to a young student by the name of Osama Bin Laden. Both Azzam and Qutb planted the seeds that drove Bin Laden to his destiny.

Communists also used the Muslim world to further their own aims during the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Their contributions to Islamic Jihad are well noted, but that will be the subject of another discussion.

Keep in mind that Islamofascism is not an ideology that ignites protest in its followers as they rub up against social injustice. On the contrary, what provokes Islamic violence is any sign of modern development in the Muslim world, such as scientific inquiry, political or personal self-determination, women’s equality, the existence of religions other than Islam, especially the existence of the State of Israel, and freedom of expression. The radicalization of Islam is not the consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity. It is the result of their cause to destroy the Jews and establish Islamic rule of the world.

The failure to see this, and the failure to recognize the substance of Islamist ideology - the Death Cult, the Hatred of Jews, and their profound dislike of freedom, leads back again and again to the mistaken belief that the root cause of terrorism is U.S. policies.

This approach is appealing to the West because of the specious hope it holds out: If Islamic terrorism has its roots in American policy, then a change in that policy can lessen terrorism. These views are strongly held by the American Left.

Ultimately, the refusal on the part of the West to recognize the Islamists true motives results in a reverse of responsibility: The more deadly the terrorism the greater is American guilt - believing that it is our policies that cause it.

The Jihadists benefit from this approach since the greater and bloodier its attacks the greater anger Americans have against their own government.

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of their history and ideology weakens the West. Not to confront the real ideological roots of Islamic Jihad, especially its well-documented connection to Nazi Jew-hatred, stymies any Western push for political, economic or cultural modernization of the Muslim world.

Without challenging the ideological roots of Islamic Jihad, it is impossible to confront the Muslim world with the real choices before it.

The greatest threat to our freedom and to the future of America as we know it is the Islamist threat. It is the overriding issue of our day.

When choosing a Presidential candidate for 2008 one has to consider whether we are going to elect someone who recognizes that threat, understands what it will take to defeat it, and has the will and determination to do whatever is required to succeed in achieving that objective.

10 Reasons for Rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty


Ronald Reagan rejected this treaty – not just because of certain details associated with seabed mining, but because of the threat he rightly saw LOST represented to our sovereignty and national interests in its empowerment of supranational government. Representations that his concerns have been “fixed” by a 1994 agreement Bill Clinton’s administration negotiated are false. Key Reagan lieutenants like former National Security Advisor Bill Clark, former Counselor to the President and Attorney General Ed Meese and the late former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick have agreed that LOST remains unacceptably defective.

To learn more, click here.


LOST empowers the United Nations. LOST is also known as the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” All LOST agencies are U.N. organizations, and the U.N. Secretary General plays an important role in administering the treaty. The U.N. has a track record of corruption and hostility to American and its allies, most recently evident in its entrusting to Libya and Iran decisions about an anti-Israel conference on “racism.” The UN’s multilateral agencies and bureaucrats cannot be trusted to oversee or administer 70% of the world’s surface covered by its oceans.

To learn more, click here.


LOST threatens American sovereignty by subjecting our governmental, military and business operations to mandatory dispute resolution – to be decided by international bodies that are stacked against us. LOST’s broad jurisdiction – involving virtually anything affecting the world’s oceans – is an invitation to UN interference in our affairs on an unprecedented scale. Worse yet, decisions by LOST’s dispute resolution mechanisms are final and without appeal, obliging us to submit to the dictates of others perhaps motivated by anti-American agendas.

To learn more, click here.


The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is inconsistent with American security. As a party, the United States would be obliged to uphold myriad commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests, including one reserving the oceans exclusively for “peaceful purposes.” Proponents claim that military activities are exempt, but obligations such as those barring the use of territorial waters for intelligence collection or their transit by submerged submarines clearly set the stage for disputes that may well be decided against us. The treaty also requires the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful technologies to other nations and international organizations hostile to American interests. So-called “fixes” in the 1994 agreement do not alter this reality.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by restraining our military, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by forcing the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful technologies, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by emboldening China’s aggressive claims on the oceans, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by providing a forum for ludicrous territorial claims such as Russia’s claim to the floor of the North Pole, click here.


President Clinton called LOST “the greatest environmental treaty in history.” It will be used by America’s economic competitors and strategic adversaries to interfere with our sovereign decisions concerning actions they deem to have unacceptable environmental impacts – probably with little regard to the costs to Americans and their businesses. LOST is a back-door way to impose U.S. compliance with the Kyoto accord.

To learn more, click here.


LOST would establish a precedent for international taxation. LOST empowers a multilateral International Seabed Authority (ISA) to administer deep seabed mining operations. This supranational ISA would impose fees, royalty requirements and other payments on American companies in order that they may exercise exploration and production rights they already enjoy. These forced arrangements would take money out of the American business revenue stream for an international government’s use – and would amount to a tax on Americans without representation.

To learn more about how LOST imposes international taxation on Americans, click here.

To learn more about the potential for LOST to set alarming precedents for the international control of other “international commons” such as Outer Space or the Internet, click here.


LOST imposes requirements of other treaties and international standards that the U.S. has not accepted. LOST international bodies to hear disputes related to the purposes of LOST. This means that if the U.S. joins LOST, it could be brought before a LOST tribunal for violating a totally different treaty – including a treaty that it has not even joined – as long as it relates, for example, to protecting the marine environment.

To learn more, click here.


If the U.S. is a party to LOST, it could be subjected to decisions enforced by activist American judges, importing foreign or perhaps even “international” law into the courtroom, or perhaps even a UN Navy.

To learn more about how LOST opens the door to the imposition of “international” law in American courtrooms, click here.

To learn more about how the United States is fully capable of protecting its interests on the oceans without subjecting itself to LOST litigation mechanisms, click here.


LOST creates precedents for replacing accountable, representative government under our Constitution with supranational bureaucratic arrangements that are non-transparent and wholly unaccountable.

To learn more, click here.


Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department cannot be counted on to truly represent American interests on LOST. It reflexively embraces treaties and other international agreements at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, seemingly favoring harmonious relations with other countries over U.S. national interests.

To learn more, click here.

In summary, America does not need to join LOST to protect its interests in the world’s oceans. A “seat at the table” in LOST agencies where we can be simply outvoted will not safeguard those interests. It will, however, oblige us to abide by the majority’s dictates. The U.S. already belongs to several multi-country organizations (for example, the Arctic Council) designed to solve regional oceans disputes, and can always exercise diplomacy with another country directly. In the final analysis, a navy second-to-none – the large and potent U.S. fleet we need today and for the foreseeable future – is a more certain basis for assuring freedom of the seas and our interests than a defective international treaty like LOST.

Contact Your Senators!!!

Get involved and educate your Senators about the harmful effects of the Law of the Sea Treaty. We encourage you to write a brief e-mail to your Senators highlighting several of the points in this document. While original letters are most effective, click here for language and formatting suggestions.


Tuesday, October 16, 2007

So you think the Nobel Prize confers legitimacy?

I know people desperate for Al Gore to be right will say yes...but then THEY are in the company of THIS famous scientist:


Sunday, October 14, 2007

A History Lesson

If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above


(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid! And this woman is planning on running for the position of leader of the United States of America. We had better wake up!!!

Foremost meteorologist calls Gore's "theory" ridiculous!

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Read the whole thing

Saturday, October 13, 2007


'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law banning anything perceived as negative to 'gays'

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.

Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.

"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."

Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."

"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.

Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.

It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.

Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.

Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.

Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct

"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."

The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Al Gore. Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1939 a member of Sweden’s parliament nominated Adolf Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Other nominees for this award have included Hitler’s fellow socialists Benito Mussolini and Soviet Communist dictator Joseph Stalin, who also murdered millions.

...recent decades have seen several dubious and joint prizes given to celebrate the illusion, not the reality, of peace.

Find out who they were here

Mission Accomplished!

With most Sunni factions now seeking a deal, the big questions in Iraq have been resolved positively. The country remains one, it has embraced democracy and avoided all-out civil war. What violence remains is largely local and criminal
Mission Accomplished

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 — In a number of Shiite neighborhoods across Baghdad, residents are beginning to turn away from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia they once saw as their only protector against Sunni militants. Now they resent it as a band of street thugs without ideology.
Relations Sour Between Shiites and Iraq Militia


Thursday, October 11, 2007

Google Favors Far Left

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Internet giant Google has banned advertisements critical of, the far-left advocacy group that caused a national uproar last month when it received preferential treatment from The New York Times for its “General Betray Us” message.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald Coleman, a lawyer and leading expert on online intellectual property disputes, noted that, as a private company, Google has the right to treat different advertisers differently.

But he called Google’s removal of the Collins ads “troubling.” Coleman says that there is no such requirement under trademark law and that Google appears to be selectively enforcing its policy.

“In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that there is anything like a cause of action under the Lanham Act, the statue governing trademark law in the United States, for so-called ‘trademark disparagement,’ ” Coleman said. The courts have also rejected the notion that the use of a trademark as a search term is a “legally cognizable use” as a trademark use under federal trademark law, he added. Coleman is also general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association.

Google routinely permits the unauthorized use of company names such as Exxon, Wal-Mart, Cargill and Microsoft in advocacy ads. An anti-war ad currently running on Google asks “Keep Blackwater in Iraq?” and links to an article titled “Bastards at Blackwater — Should Blackwater Security be held accountable for the deaths of its employees?”
Read more

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film

Read the inconvenient truth here

Snuff film???

"It's about as shocking as any motion picture can ever get. It's illegal to film someone being killed..."

Read more

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Democrats Trying To Use Government To Kill Talk Radio

This is about politics, not free speech. No one has accused Democrats, lately of being supportive of free speech or the First Amendment.

Congress knows something they hope that you don't -- read about it right now!

Monday, October 08, 2007

Terrorists endorse Hillary in '08

On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders say she's best hope for victory in Iraq
WASHINGTON – With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008.

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Senakreh is one of dozens of terror leaders sounding off about American politics...
It's official: Terrorists endorse Hillary in '08

Why Democrats are like children

“Anyone who’s ever played a game with a small child should recognize the Democrat Party’s strategy on politicizing the War on Terror. When things go poorly for their opponent, they yell ‘You Lose!’ Whereas when things go well for their opponent, they yell ‘No Fair! You Cheated!’

Unfortunately for America, the Dems consider their real ‘opponent’ to be any American who wants to win the War, rather than, say, al-Qa’ida and other Islamist murder cults. Regardless of who it is used against though, the ‘if you’re not losing you must be cheating’ strategy is foolproof and works for any occasion.

Consider the first few months of the Iraq War. Anti-war (or should I say ‘Anti-Victory’) forces promised a D-Day style bloodbath, and then hysterically touted every bathroom break on the way to Baghdad as the biggest quagmire since the Somme. ‘Ha, ha—you lose!’... Using this simple two-step method, anything and everything can be criticized without the critic ever having to commit to a single idea or stance.

And it works for any situation. Iran building nukes? ‘You lose!’ Using sanctions against Iran? ‘No fair! Sanctions hurt kids!’ Well how about a military strike then? ‘No fair! No war for oil!’ Let the Europeans deal with it? ‘No fair! America must provide leadership!’ Well then, let’s go it alone? ‘No fair! That’s unilateralism!’

No matter what the result or method, you can be confident it will be declared wrong by the Dems. If you actually do anything, you’re Dem’d if you do and Dem’d if you don’t.” —Mac Johnson

Clinton appoints thief as advisor to her campaign

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

Read more

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Ladies: How to stay home, never work, and retire a millionaire--guaranteed!

Family Really Matters

by Dick McDonald

It is sad commentary that so little attention is paid to strengthening the family unit in today’s warp-speed world. The family is the basic building block of all civilizations yet today fewer and fewer women are having babies and those that do are shrinking in numbers. In Europe the problem has become genocidal as couples are not having enough babies (minimum replacement is pegged at 2.1 babies per couple) to even replace themselves. In some countries the rate of replacement has fallen to 1.2.

As the leader of the free world in so many categories, the USA is presently just keeping its head above water birthing 2.1 babies per couple. The trend, however, appears headed lower. The question is what can be done about improving these downward spiraling demographics. As this is primarily a problem of modern western societies, the USA should lead the way in restoring the family to prominence and reverse the impending demographic disaster.

The Ownership Society Institute (OSI) believes it has the answer. Were women secure financially in staying home to rear their kids and grand kids, a big family and the joys of having one would not only become more attractive but possible. Unfortunately our laws, policies and economics are presently stacked up against the creation of big families.

What if we change the laws and policies to allow women to stay home, never work a day in their entire lives and guarantee they retire a millionaire? Sound crazy? Just stick with me a moment longer.

Politicians, the media and the public focus discussions almost exclusively in economic matters on income taxes - raise taxes on the rich – lower taxes on the rich. Candidates for President are exclusively focused on income taxes, e.g. the Fair and Flat Tax proposals and the income disparity issues. OSI wants to refocus attention to the real snake in the woodpile –payroll taxes.

OSI does not want to destroy Social Security, Disability and Medicare but merely change the way those worthy projects are financed. In the process women will become financially emancipated, among many other benefits emanating from such a change, This is how it works.

Today 15.3% of the income of working Americans (up to $97,500) is taken by government as payroll taxes. The self-employed pay the entire 15.3%, employees split that cost with their employers. An average household earning $40,000 a-year pays $6,000 a year in payroll taxes. In return for that $240,000 40-year lifetime investment the government gives the taxpayer a $1,122 a-month retirement check and no nest egg to will to his kids. Under Medicare most old-age medical costs are also covered.

Under OSI’s Rise Up America plan the entire $240,000 is placed in a personal investment account owned by the taxpayer and deposited weekly over a 40-year working life to grow into a $3.2 million nest egg. This computation was made using the average rate of return experienced by the S&P 500 stock index (actually the 10% rate used in computing the $3.2 million is less than the 12.5% actual rate experienced in the last 25 40-year periods.) Just the income off that nest egg will generate a monthly retirement check of $27,000 ($3.2 million @ 10% divided by 12 months).

One can find all about the feasibility of this plan and the tables proving various nest egg accumulations at as well as ways you can assist in seeing to it that this change in funding entitlements is enacted. But let’s get back to the family and how Rise Up America benefits the family and makes the stay-at-home mom a millionaire.

Rise Up proposes that one-half of the withholding of payroll taxes (in the future that 15% deposited into personal accounts) from your spouse is credited to your personal account. In the case of the stay-at-home mom in the above mentioned case she would end up with a $165 million nest egg and a monthly retirement check of $13,500. Her husband would have the same amount in his account and an identical monthly retirement check.

OSI believes that its plan will be a stabilizing influence on the family because it secures its most important element – the mother. She will, during her lifetime, watch her personal account grow and find comfort in the financial security it provides. It will allow she and her husband to consider the joys of having a big family and how that will not only provide them comfort in their old age but a lifetime of joy rearing them. At the same time they will be doing their patriotic duty to reverse the looming demographic disaster. As an added benefit, they can spend all their lifetime income (after taxes) on their kids and still retire millionaires.

Under the Rise Up America plan all obligations under the old entitlement programs would be honored and exempted from reduction of benefits by Congress and such monthly checks and Medicare benefits guaranteed by the government.

In addition, all unfunded entitlement liabilities would be extinguished; the national budget cut almost in half; the need for millions of pension plans eliminated; the biggest tax cut in American history enacted; the largest infusion of funds into the capital market in history ($1.2 Trillion in the first year just from personal accounts); the wealth of the country and each citizen geometrically improved even for those without the tools to make the big bucks; and many more benefits enumerated on the website at the mission statement.

Under Rise Up the cost to transition from the existing programs to personal accounts can be painless, the cost to maintain them inexpensive and the risk to invest in the American economy non-existent over the working life of the participants. All this and more is covered on the website and in the free e-book offered there.

Saturday, October 06, 2007

Wilson didn't care about naming Valerie, but about his own image!

Novak: Wilson did not forcefully object to naming of CIA wife in column

By Mike Soraghan
October 06, 2007

Columnist Robert Novak said Saturday Ambassador Joe Wilson did not forcefully object to the naming of his CIA operative wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, when Novak spoke to him prior to the publication of a column that sparked a federal investigation and sent White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby to jail. “He was not terribly exercised about it,” Novak said.

Instead, Wilson focused on not being portrayed as simply an opponent of the Iraq war. Wilson also stressed that his wife went by his last name, Wilson, rather than Plame, Novak said.

Read more

Friday, October 05, 2007

The difference between the Left and the Right: Your Choice!

George Carlin:
I don't take anything seriously. I don't care what happens to this country or the human race. I've completely divorced myself from the outcome of things. I don't care about any of this stuff...This country is breathing its last. It may last 100 years, or it may last 50, but you can see it disintegrating before your eyes. It's such a cavalcade, and it's only amusing to me. I don't care what happens. I don't have any feelings for it...Voting doesn't change anything, petitions don't mean anything, chanting in the park doesn't change things...We've infected the entire world with this poison, the homogenization of everything. --LA.COM (The Daily News, Thursday, October 4, 2007, page 7)
Laura Ingraham:
Many of the problems in our society today--our cultural breakdown, vulnerability to terror, family dissolution, declining schools--were not created overnight, nor will they be resolved overnight. During our day-to-day battles there will be inevitable setbacks and disappointments. I have to admit, there are moments when I wonder whether some of these causes are lost forever. Yet speaking as someone who has had her share of challenges over the last few years, I know we must do everything we can to replace doubt and cynicism with faith. We must have confidence that whatever the outcome in any of our own personal, political, or cultural struggles, our loving God is still there waiting for us to "come home." We run the race, hope to win, but are comforted to know that as long as we return to God's will, we cannot lose. --from her new book "Power to the People" (page 289)

Gore can't (and won't) back up his global warming claims--ducks debates

Chicago-based libertarian think-tank, the Heartland Institute, states:
What [Joseph] Bast wants is for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice president's assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S. and world economies.
However, they are not the only ones Gore refuses to face:
The Heartland case is not the first time Gore has ducked a forum. Earlier this year he canceled an interview with Denmark's largest newspaper when he learned it would include questions from Bjorn Lomborg, respected author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. "Gore's sermon is not one that will stand scrutiny," says Christopher C. Horner, another one of Heartland's debate candidates, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.
Read the whole thing

Thursday, October 04, 2007

CNN Meteorologist glad Britain may ban "An Inconvenient Truth"

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."

"There are definitely some inaccuracies," Marciano added. "The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming."

Read more

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

21 billion per year and growing: Hillary's big birthday present

“George McGovern, who parlayed his $1,000-in-every-pot proposal into a 49-state loss in 1972, should sue for copyright infringement after Sen. Clinton told the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual legislative conference that every baby born in America should be given a $5,000 ‘baby bond.’ Actually, Hillary’s $5,000 is just McGovern’s $1,000 adjusted for inflation. McGovern’s $1,000 was equivalent in 2006 to $4,808.90. By the time she is sworn in, she should be right on the mark.

Hillary argued that wealthy people ‘get to have all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people can’t afford to do that.’ So her ‘baby bond’ is designed to give the kids of people who can’t afford to save ‘a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that down payment on that first home.’ But to pay for that home they will have to go to work and pay taxes. Hillary doesn't propose cutting their taxes or those of their parents. Nor does she propose increasing the dependent deduction on their federal tax form. What Clinton proposes is another brick in the cradle-to-grave wall envisioned by liberals—paid for by ever-rising taxes...

In 2004 (the latest year for which official figures are available), there were 4,116,000 live births in the United States. That works out to a current price of $21 billion per year, every year. It is an amount that will get bigger, particularly if illegal immigration is allowed to increase unimpeded. Since we now have a budget deficit, this $21-billion-plus new entitlement will have to be funded by borrowing. So the $5,000 savings ‘gift’ in fact is a government loan to each new baby, payable in full through their taxes when they grow up. Happy Birthday!”

—Investor’s Business Daily

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Muslims vs. Christmas

(CBS) OAK LAWN, Ill. A southwest suburban school district has taken action, responding to the concerns of a Muslim parent.

Oak Lawn Schools Cancel Holiday Traditions