GOOD NEWS! The Terrorists Are Acting Like the Democrats

Lost in some of the Political news the past few weeks is the fact that the terrorists are beginning to really get nasty with each other. In fact they are beginning to act just like Clinton and Obama. The terrorists still hate the United States just like the Democrats hate the Republicans, but their verbiage is much more nasty with each other than than it is with their sworn enemy. And just like the American Political situation, their infighting works against their cause and thats a good thing:

One Step on the Road to Defeating the Islamists

Douglas Farah

One of the more interesting things to me in the recent spate of statements by Ayman al-Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders is al Qaeda’s need now to constantly and viciously attack other Islamist tendencies, particularly Iran and Shities, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Brotherhood-linked Hamas.

In addition to the attacks, the recent communications show two things: a clear awareness of current events, and the ability to comment on them quickly; and a clear lack of understanding of how the world really operates.

The increasingly sharp tone of the attacks and the underlying belief in a broad conspiracy of the United States and Iran to ally against al Qaeda, indicate the organization is under some considerable stress. It may also indicate that Zawahiri’s days of trying to work out some sort of tactical if short term alliance with Tehran against the United States have ended in failure.

In this translation of a recent Zawahiri statement by the NEFA Foundation, the al Qaeda leader says:

Regarding Iran, its goals are explicit: annexing southern and eastern Iraq and continuing its effort to establish a continuum with its supporters in southern Lebanon. If their (the U.S.) understanding with Iran is on the basis of accepting some, or all of its goals in exchange for ignoring the American presence in the region, this understanding will only pour more oil onto the fire that is burning at our foundation..and will spark a massive [Sunni] Islamic revival, fed by the Iranian-American conspiracy.”

In another statement, Zawahiri accused Iran and al Qaeda of fostering the theory that Israel, not al Qaeda, was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Al-Zawahri accused Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television of starting the rumor. “The purpose of this lie is clear —
(to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history.

“Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it,” he said. “Iran’s aim here is also clear — to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in
Afghanistan and Iraq,” he added. Iran cooperated with the United States in the 2001 U.S. assault on Afghanistan that toppled al-Qaida’s allies, the Taliban.

This begs the question of what Iran has done with the senior al Qaeda commanders and other high value targets that Iran has been holding.

For some time after 9/11 Iran let those targets enjoy some level of operational capability.

Zawahiri is equally critical of Hamas’ leadership and the broader Muslim Brotherhood, accusing them (and Sheikh Qaradawi by name) of selling out to the West and betraying al Qaeda.

In his first Open Meeting where he responds to numerous questions, Zawahiri spends about one-third of his time in attacking Hamas, Qaradawi (whose writings he knows well and quotes at length in order to rebut them) and the Muslim Brotherhood.

All of this points to some growing isolation by al Qaeda and its core leadership, from others outside their group. The splintering of the Islamist groups that share the same overarching objective-our obliteration-can only be good news.

Did The Washington Post Break Anti-Terror Laws?

Last week, on the same day it ran an editorial blasting Jimmy Carter's ill-fated meeting with Hamas, the Washington Post ran a guest editorial piece by Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar, who is an active leader of the group in Gaza. Al-Zahar's article was full of the usual putrid hatred spewed by Carter's buddies. Here is the interesting part. It is common practice for the Washington Post to pay its guest writers a minimum of $200 per article. The question is did the post pay al-Zahar (they aren't saying)? If the post did pay the terrorist, they broke the law. Maybe they should be a little more careful regarding who's hatred they publish. Steven Emerson is trying to get to the bottom of who did the Washington Post pay, and how much did they pay:

Do Hamas Columnists Get Paid?
Post Won't Say by Steven Emerson
IPT News
April 24, 2008

Former President Jimmy Carter's Middle East trip has generated a fair amount of scorn because of his direct meetings and open embrace, both literal and figurative, of the terrorist group Hamas. Carter argues that peace between Israel and Palestinians cannot be reached without talking to the terrorists.

It is not a widely shared view. "The United States is not going to deal with Hamas and we had certainly told President Carter that we did not think meeting with Hamas was going to help" peace efforts, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Even the Washington Post ridiculed Carter in an editorial April 17:

Mr. Carter justifies his meetings with familiar arguments about the value of dialogue with enemies. But he misses the point. Contacts between enemies can be useful: Israel is legendary for such negotiations, and even now it is engaged in back-channel bargaining with Hamas through Egypt. But it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state.

That's an odd thing for the Post to say, considering an op-ed column by Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar, an active leader of the group in Gaza was published on the next page. The editorial acknowledges Zahar's writing "drips with hatred for Israel, and with praise for former president Jimmy Carter." But publishing the column, granting Zahar recognition and political sanction, is justified, the Post said, because it could "provide some clarity about the group he helps to lead, a group that Mr. Carter contends is worthy of being included in the Middle East peace process."

As if Hamas' agenda requires clarity. Its charter invokes Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The group "aspires to the realization of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"

Forget, for a moment, whether the Post's argument is consistent. There is a more immediate question at stake: Did the Post pay its standard fee for Zahar's column? The Post compensates guest writers with a minimum $200 fee, spokeswoman Rima Calderon said. Other factors, including whether the column was solicited or had multiple authors, could increase the amount. So, what did the Post pay Zahar?

"As I suspected, we don't make this information public," Calderon said in an e-mail.

Payment of any amount could violate U.S. law banning material support or other transactions with the designated terrorist group Hamas, said Jeffrey Breinholt, senior fellow and national security law director at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. Breinholt knows the law well. Before taking leave last summer, he was the deputy chief of the Department of Justice's counterterrorism section.

The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was passed in direct response to terrorist acts by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad aimed at thwarting U.S. peace efforts. It created a list of specially designated terrorist groups and individuals and outlawed providing any support to them. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives the President the power to prohibit transactions with people or entities deemed enemies of the United States.

"They could say payments to individual Hamas leaders do not qualify as support to Hamas, but that's fairly laughable," Breinholt said.

No one is suggesting the papers are in legal jeopardy. But it may be time to rethink the editorial approach. This is the latest in a series of examples in which major American newspapers yield space for Hamas propaganda. Last July, the Los Angeles Times published "Hamas' Stand," by the group's deputy political director Mousa Abu Marzook. Before that, the Post and New York Times published columns by Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef on the same day.

As the IPT's Brian Hecht reported in July:

The Post's Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, shed some light on the process of how op-eds penned by high-ranking Hamas operatives end up on the editorial pages of major American newspapers. Commenting on the confusion between the Post and the Times over the publishing of two competing Yousef pieces, Howell reported:

(Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred) Hiatt said, "Our piece came to us through a representative of Mr. Yousef [in the United States] with whom we'd dealt before. He assured us afterward that he did not realize a separate piece was in the works." (New York Times op-ed Editor David) Shipley's source was in London and assured him of the same thing. (emphasis added)

Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, the dean and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, responded to the Marzook column by questioning the rationale editorial editors offered then:

But such people do not deserve the status of a sagely byline, because that destroys the distinction between honorable men and women bound by basic principles of humanity and the despots and terrorists eager to destroy those values.

If the criteria is simply because "it is an important story," then would the editors have welcomed articles by Auschwitz's Dr. Josef Mengele justifying his gruesome medical experiments, or by the Virginia Tech killer explaining why he committed mass murder? Of course, newspapers have the right and responsibility to inform their readers about dictators and purveyors of terror. But they don't have the right to bestow editorial credibility on those bent on genocide.

The same point applies to the Post's Hamas column last week. Newspapers exist to bring information to the world and bring clarity to the complex. The question is whether publishing Hamas columns aids that call or muddies the waters further by granting legitimacy to an agenda that "drips with hatred."

Antarctic Sea Water is Getting COLDER

In another blow to the meal ticket of the inventor of the internet, and former Vice President Al Gore, Scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research have reported that the Antarctic deep sea is getting COLDER. At the same time satellite images show that there is a record amount of Antarctic ice. Incredibly all this is happening in what the Nobel Prize winner claims is a period of "global warming." Science Daily has the cold hard facts:

Antarctic Deep Sea Gets Colder
ScienceDaily (Apr. 23, 2008) — The Antarctic deep sea is getting colder, which might stimulate the circulation of the oceanic water masses. This is the first result of the Polarstern expedition of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association that has just ended in Punta Arenas/Chile. At the same time satellite images from the Antarctic summer have shown the largest sea-ice extent on record. In the coming years autonomous measuring buoys will be used to find out whether the cold Antarctic summer induces a new trend or was only a "slip“

Under the direction of Dr. Eberhard Fahrbach, Oceanographer at the Alfred Wegener Institute, 58 scientists from ten countries were on board the research vessel Polarstern in the Southern Ocean from 6 February until 16 April, 2008. They studied ocean currents as well as the distribution of temperature, salt content and trace substances in Antarctic sea water. "We want to investigate the role of the Southern Ocean for past, present and future climate,“ chief scientist Fahrbach said. The sinking water masses in the Southern Ocean are part of the overturning in this region and thus play a major role in global climate. "While the last Arctic summer was the warmest on record, we had a cold summer with a sea-ice maximum in the Antarctic. The expedition shall form the basis for understanding the opposing developments in the Arctic and in the Antarctic,“ Fahrbach said.

In the frame of the GEOTRACES project the scientists found the smallest iron concentrations ever measured in the ocean. As iron is an essential trace element for algal growth, and algae assimilate CO₂ from the air, the concentration of iron is an important parameter against the background of the discussion to what extent the oceans may act as a carbon sink.

As the oceanic changes only become visible after several years and also differ spatially, the data achieved during the Polarstern expeditions are not sufficient to discern long-term developments. The data gap can only be closed with the aid of autonomous observing systems, moored at the seafloor or drifting freely, that provide oceanic data for several years. "As a contribution to the Southern Ocean Observation System we deployed, in international cooperation, 18 moored observing stations, and we recovered 20. With a total of 65 floating systems that can also collect data under the sea ice and are active for up to five years we constructed a unique and extensive measuring network,“ Fahrbach said.

In order to get the public, and especially the young generation, interested in science and research and to sensitise them for environmental processes, two teachers were on board Polarstern. Both took an active part in research work and communicated their experiences to pupils, colleagues and the media via internet and telephone. "We will bring home many impressions from this expedition, and we will be able to provide a lively picture of the polar regions and their impact on the whole earth to the pupils,“ Charlotte Lohse, teacher at the Heisenberg-Gymnasium in Hamburg, and Stefan Theisen from the Free Waldorf School in Kiel said.

The Polarstern expedition ANT-XXIV/3 was dedicated to examining the oceanic circulation and the oceanic cycles of materials that depend on it. Core themes were the projects CASO (Climate of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean) and GEOTRACES, two of the main projects in the Antarctic in the International Polar Year 2007/08.

Adapted from materials provided by Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres

.

Is the Truth Finally Catching UP to JACK MURTHA?

Congressman Jack Murtha has been running from the truth for years. He wrongly convicted some of our military heroes in the court of public opinion for a "massacre" that they were later cleared . He hasn't fessed up to his mistake and apologized. Neither has he apologized for being named by the Citizens Against Government Waste for being the biggest government waste Porker in Congress getting almost two thirds of the vote. Then there was Murtha's little $2,000 shopping spree at a recent NRA convention. The Second amendment gives him the right to buy guns at an NRA convention...but he is supposed to do it WITH HIS OWN MONEY:

Murtha tried to run away from the truth with a legal challenge to the candidacy of Lt. Col. William Russell who served in both Iraq wars protecting Murtha's Fat butt. Russel was knocked off the ballot by a judge and could only get back on with a write-in campaign during this past week's primary. Not only did Russell get almost 5x the write ins necessary but all the ballots have not yet been counted. It looks like there is going to be a contested election in Murtha's district, maybe the truth will finally catch up to the old Porker:

The Corner-In Murtha's District [David Freddoso]

Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) will have an opponent this year after all. A judge had kicked retired Lt. Col. William Russell (R), a veteran of both Iraq Wars, off the ballot earlier this year for lack of valid petition signatures. A legal challenge had winnowed him down to just 993, whereas he needed 1,000 signatures. This gave Murtha a shot at an unopposed victory in the fall, as there were no other Republican challengers.

Russell did not give up, though. To qualify for the November ballot, he had to get at least 1,000 write-in votes in the district yesterday to qualify for the ballot. His consultants saw this as doable, but still a challenge in a primary where there was really nothing happening on the Republican side — not even a decent local race to attract voters to the polls. Considering that Republican turnout was already going to be low, and only a small percentage of voters ever think to write in a name, you might think they'd be lucky to get just enough to qualify.

Well, think again. I'm told that the count now stands at 4,700 write-in votes for Russell, and the largest county in the 12th District hasn't even reported yet — nor have any absentees been counted.

America NEEDS Some Fear-Mongering

Most of America has gotten complacent. We see the horrors of terrorism abroad and we think that it will never again happen here. We read about Israel bombing a nuclear facility in the Syrian desert and we don' t realize how close the terrorists are to having nuclear capabilities of their own. What America needs right now is some good old fashioned demagoguery, we need someone to scare the hell out of the American Public before its to late. With every passing second the Islamic terrorists are getting closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. And once they get one they WILL use it:

Thinking the Unthinkable

By Clifford D. May
April 24, 2008

The next time Islamist terrorists attack us it could be with a nuclear weapon. By saying that, am I “fear mongering”? If so, I’m in good company. Graham Allison is a Harvard professor who served with distinction in the Defense Department under both Reagan and Clinton. He wrote a book in 2004 arguing that “on the current course, nuclear terrorism is inevitable.”

There has been no change of course since – on the contrary. Ashton B. Carter, co-director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard, said recently that the threat of nuclear terrorism has been increasing due to Iranian and North Korean proliferation and the failure to secure Russia's nuclear arsenal following the Cold War. The probability of a nuclear attack on an American city, he believes, is now “almost surely larger than it was five years ago.”

Gary Anthony Ackerman, Research Director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, also recently told Congress that “the prospect of terrorists detonating a nuclear device on American soil sometime within the next quarter-century is real and growing.”

And Cham D. Dallas, who directs the Institute for Health Management and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia, says flatly: “It’s inevitable.” Testifying before a Senate hearing this month, he added: “I think it's wistful to think that it won't happen by 20 years."

Should a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb explode near the White House, Dallas estimates that 100,000 people would be killed. A radioactive plume would lethally contaminate thousands more. In a densely populated city such as New York or Chicago, a similar blast would result in a death toll perhaps eight times that high.

Charles Allen, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis for the Department of Homeland Security, has said there is no question that Islamist terrorist groups are seeking nuclear materials. But the intelligence community, he added, is “less certain about terrorists' capability to acquire or develop a nuclear device.”

Could the intelligence community be more certain? Yes, our spies could do more to increase our chances of detecting - -- and preventing – terrorist attacks of all varieties. But they are being denied the tools. The most notable example: The law that gave America’s intelligence agencies the authority to freely monitor the communications of foreign terrorists abroad expired in February.

A bill to restore that authority passed the Senate by a solidly bipartisan 68-to-29 majority. A bipartisan majority in the House would almost certainly vote in favor of the same measure but Speaker Nancy Pelosi – for more than two months – has used the power of her office to stop members from casting their votes yea or nay.

Why would she do something so irresponsible? Groups on the left, important to the Democrats in this election season, demand that foreign terrorists abroad be given the same privacy protections enjoyed by American citizens here at home.

This policy may already have cost American lives. In at least one instance, officials labored for nearly 10 hours to get legal approval necessary to conduct wiretaps to help them locate three American soldiers kidnapped by al-Qaeda combatants in U.S.Iraq. The soldiers were not successfully rescued.

"We are extending Fourth Amendment (constitutional) rights to a terrorist foreigner ... who's captured a U.S. soldier," Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell complained to a congressional committee during a legislative battle over this same issue last year.

Also in the mix: Trial lawyers are suing telecommunications companies that cooperated with intelligence officials immediately after 9/11/01, allowing them to “mine” data for patterns of terrorist activity. If the trial lawyers – the biggest donors to Democrats – succeed, they will reap billions of dollars. They also will teach the private sector never again to assist government efforts to identify terrorists. The Senate bill would protect the telecoms from these laws suits.

Almost two dozen moderate Democratic House members sent Pelosi a letter saying that until this measure is passed, America’s national security will be “at undue risk.” But that was months ago. Since then, with few exceptions, Democrats have been keeping their mouths shut.

Is worrying about nuclear terrorism fear mongering? After the suicide-bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and again after the truck-bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, most politicians exhibited not fear but complacency. They did nothing serious to anticipate or avert the next terrorist attacks. The consequence was the atrocity of 9/11/01.

Nancy Pelosi and those following her lead appear to have learned nothing over the years since.

Canadian Thought Police are Feeling the Heat From Mark Steyn

The Case of the Canadian thought police vs. Columnist/Author Mark Steyn has been well documented. Spurred on by the Islamofacists in the Canadian equivalent of CAIR the Human Rights Commission of Canada went after the columnist and the Magazine MacLeans the crime...directly and accurately quoting hate speech of Islamofacists. It seems that many of us in 'free world" have complained to the Human Rights Commission, complained enough for the chief Inquisitor to wright a letter to the editor defending herself and her staff. In the article below, Mark Steyn masterfully blasts through her poor attempt at logic:

Please send more complaints

Otherwise how will our taxpayer-funded hate police manage to keep their cozy sinecure?

MARK STEYN | April 23, 2008 |

Last week's letters page included a missive from Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., chief commissioner of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, defending her employees from the accusation of "improper investigative techniques" by yours truly. Steyn, she writes, "provides no substantiation for these claims," and then concludes:

"Why is this all important? Because words are important. Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred."

Hmm. "History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes." Commissar Lynch provides, as she would say, "no substantiation for these claims." But then she's a "hate speech" prosecutor and, as we know, Canada's "human rights" procedures aren't subject to tiresome requirements like evidence. So she's made an argument from authority: the great Queen's Counsel has risen from her throne in the Star Chamber and pronounced, and let that suffice. Those of us who occupy less exalted positions in the realm might wish to ponder the evidence for her assertions.

It's true that "hurtful actions that undermine freedom" and lead to "unspeakable crimes" usually have some fig leaf of intellectual justification. For example, the ideology first articulated by Karl Marx has led to the deaths of millions of people around the planet on an unprecedented scale. Yet oddly enough, no matter how many folks are murdered in the name of Marxism-Leninism, you're still free to propound its principles at every college in Canada.

Ah, but that's the Good Totalitarianism. What about the Bad Totalitarianism? You know, the one everybody disapproves of: Nazism. Isn't it obvious that in the case of Adolf Hitler, "hateful words" led to "unspeakable crimes"? This argument is offered routinely: if only there'd been "reasonable limits on the expression of hatred" 70 years ago, the Holocaust might have been prevented.

There's just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such "reasonable limits." Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading civil libertarian, put it:

"Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

Inevitably, the Nazi party exploited the restrictions on "free speech" in order to boost its appeal. In 1925, the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Adolf Hitler from making any public speeches. The Nazis responded by distributing a drawing of their leader with his mouth gagged and the caption, "Of 2,000 million people in the world, one alone is forbidden to speak in Germany."

The idea that "hate speech" led to the Holocaust is seductive because it's easy: if only we ban hateful speech, then there will be no hateful acts. But, as professor Anuj C. Desai of the University of Wisconsin Law School points out, "Biased speech has been around since history began. As a logical matter, then, it is no more helpful to say that anti-Semitic speech caused the Holocaust than to say organized government caused it, or, for that matter, to say that oxygen caused it. All were necessary ingredients, but all have been present in every historical epoch in every country in the world."

Just so. Indeed, the principal ingredient unique to the pre-Hitler era was the introduction of Jennifer Lynch-type hate-speech laws that supposedly protect vulnerable minorities from "unspeakable acts." You might as well argue that Weimar's "reasonable limits" on free speech led to the Holocaust: after all, while anti-Semitism is "the oldest hatred," it didn't turn genocidal until the "reasonable limits" proponents of the day introduced group-defamation laws to Germany. 'Tween-wars Europe was awash in prototype hate-crimes legislation. For example, the Versailles Conference required the new postwar states to sign on to the 1919 Minorities Protection Treaty, with its solemn guarantees of non-discrimination. I'm sure Canada's many Jews of Mitteleuropean origin will be happy to testify to what a splendid job that far-sighted legislation did.

The problem the Jews found themselves up against in Germany and elsewhere was not the lack of hate-speech laws but the lack of protection of the common or garden laws — against vandalism and property appropriation and suchlike. One notes, by the way, that property rights are absent from Canada's modish Charter of Rights. The reductio ad Hitlerum is the laziest form of argument, so it's no surprise to find the defenders of the ever-more-intrusive "human rights" enforcers taking refuge in it. But it stands history on its head. Most of us have a vague understanding that Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag in February 1933 as a pretext to "seize" dictatorial powers. But, in fact, he didn't "seize" anything because he didn't need to. He merely invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Republic's constitution, allowing the state, in the interests of the greater good, to set — what's the phrase? — "reasonable limits" on freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom from unlawful search and seizure and surveillance of postal and electronic communications. The Nazis didn't invent a dictatorship out of whole cloth. They merely took advantage of the illiberal provisions of a supposedly liberal constitution.

Oh, and by the way, almost all those powers the Nazis "seized" the morning after the Reichstag fire, the "human rights" commissions already have. In the name of cracking down on "hate," Canada's "human rights" apparatchiks can enter your premises without a warrant and remove any relevant "document or thing" (as the relevant Ontario legislation puts it) for as long as they want it. And without anybody burning the House of Commons or even the Senate.

As for "freedom of the press," in her now celebrated decision to dismiss the Canadian Islamic Congress complaint against Maclean's, Barbara Hall of the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission acknowledged that she did not have jurisdiction over magazines. So she ruled that, while she didn't have the power to toss us in the clink, she'd certainly like to and we certainly deserve it. Commissar Hall suggested that if my words had appeared on a sign rather than in a magazine article, she would be free to haul my hatemongerin' ass into the dock. Makes sense to me. So I've now put the offending excerpt from my book on a placard and I'll be in Toronto in the first week of May to drop it off at her office. I look forward to the prosecution. Given that we've already been found guilty, I don't think I've got much to fear from the trial.

Happily, beginning on July 1, under Ontario's "human rights" reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, " 'hate incident' means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members." "Act or omission"? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental. I quote from "Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy" as published on the OHRC website:

"The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered 'other.' "

Got that? Your denial of racism merely confirms your racism — because simply by being a "White hegemon" (like Barbara Hall or Jennifer Lynch) you wield racist power. The author, Frances Henry, cites the thinking of "modern neo-Marxist theorists" as if these are serious views that persons of influence in Canada's "human rights" establishment ought to be taking into account, rather than just the latest variant of an ideology that's led to the deaths of millions in Russia, China and everywhere else it's been put into practice. Yet, underneath the blather about "omissions" and "denial" of racism is the bleak acknowledgement that, alas, Canadians just aren't hateful enough to justify the cozy sinecure of taxpayer-funded hate police. "I would say that for a province as large and as diverse as Ontario, to have 2,500 formal complaints a year, that that's a very low level," Commissar Hall said. C'mon, you Ontario deadbeats, can't you hate a little more? Or complain a little more? To modify Brecht, we need to elect a new people, if only to file more "human rights" complaints.

Oh, and again, isn't that kind of a Nazi thing to do? Exaggerate the threat in order to justify government powers to deal with it?

Well, look, the defenders of the present "human rights" regime started this whole free-speech-leads-to-the-Holocaust line. I'm not saying that Canada's thought-crime enforcers are planning to murder millions of people, only that (as Jennifer Lynch might put it) history has shown us that extraordinary government powers in the name of "reasonable limits" often lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. Whether or not I'm the new Führer and Maclean's is Mein Kampf, Commissars Lynch and Hall are either intentionally inverting the historical record or, to be charitable, simply ignorant. But, if it's the latter, why should they have extraordinary powers to regulate public discourse?

I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits.

It's not a left/right thing. It's not a gay/straight thing. It's not a Jew/Muslim thing. It's not a hateful Steyn/nice fluffy caring compassionate Canadian thing.

It's a free/unfree thing. And the commissars are on the wrong side.

NY Times Continues its Campaign Against Veterans

The NY Times is against the war in Iraq, no secret here, it matches their leftest political agenda and makes Punch Sulzberger feel like an important person. The problem is Punch and his leftist editors feel that if you support your nation in a time of war, you are doing the Pentagon’s dirty work, and if you served your country and support your nation you are beyond contempt. Our heros deserve more respect for their years of committed service. And the Punch Sulzberger's readers deserve better than this anti-veteran libel falsely cloaked as investigative journalism.

The Times' War Against the Vets

By Dan Rabkin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/24/2008

The New York Times must really have something against U.S. military veterans. In addition to diminishing almost every success and embellishing every set-back relating to the war in Iraq, the Times has now run two front-page articles smearing American war heroes.

The first piece, titled “For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk,” was published on February 21st. The article, heavy on drama and light on sources, attempted to brand Sen. John McCain a philandering, lobbyist-bedding, crook. Some might say that as the Republican Party’s presidential nominee McCain is fair game for such liberal-media hit jobs. Be that as it may, the fact that the paper was willing to publish such a low-grade attack on a decorated veteran was a revealing demonstration of its deep-seated contempt for the military.

Yet, the attack on McCain seems almost reasonable next to the paper’s latest offensive against the armed forces. This weekend, the Times published a long and tendentious piece, titled “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” which took the paper’s anti-war bias to a whole new level. In the article, Times reporter David Barstow suggests that dozens of “decorated war heroes” are simply a “media Trojan horse” – puppets of the Defense Department who only support the war because they are profiting from it.

What misdeeds did these men, with their hundreds of combined years of proud and honorable service to their country, commit? Apparently, they attended “hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders.” (Presumably, the Times reporters who likewise attended meetings with senior military leaders are immune from charges that they are subservient mouthpieces of the Pentagon.) They were also “taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence.”

One can appreciate the paper’s frustration. The nerve of these men: instead of getting their information about the war from the New York Times, they had the audacity to speak to military leaders, to review key intelligence, and to travel to the region to see for themselves what was really going on.

The Times article provides no evidence that suggests that these servicemen-turned-military analysts are doing anything against their will. It seems the Times just cannot accept the prospect of former military men, with their decades of experience in national security, having a favorable opinion of the war without there being some sinister plan on the part of the Bush administration to coerce them.

Indeed, these military veterans’ biggest sin, in the paper’s eyes, seems to be their voicing displeasure with the liberal media establishment personified by the New York Times. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely was singled out for special criticism because he had “shared with Mr. Bush’s national security team a belief that pessimistic war coverage broke the nation’s will to win in Vietnam.” According to the Times, in a paper Vallely published in 1980, he “accused American news organizations of failing to defend the nation from ‘enemy’ propaganda during Vietnam.” He wrote that “we lost the war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped.”

Equally contemptible to the Times is that these military men have sided with their government in a time of war. “From their earliest sessions with the military analysts, Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides spoke as if they were all part of the same team,” the Times’ reporter writes – as if it were somehow inappropriate for these veterans to sympathize with the cause of their fellow soldiers and their civilian leadership. And one can’t help but wonder: Whose “team” would the Times have these men support?

In addition to the 11-page, 10,000-word article, reporter Barstow has a whole multimedia presentation about his revelations on the Times’ website. It includes documents, audio clips, and one video piece. The single uploaded video - undoubtedly added to show the degree of the propaganda the Pentagon is pushing on the population - starts with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer clearly informing his audience that these media military analysts are in close contact with the Pentagon and Sec. Rumsfeld:

Blitzer: “This is just coming into CNN right now. The Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has just wrapped up his meeting with retired US generals who now serve as military analysts for the news media. Our own military analyst, retired USAF Maj. Gen. Don Sheppard, is fresh out of that meeting. He is joining us now live from the Pentagon.”

If anyone deserves a Pulitzer for uncovering the “secret” special access retired generals have to the Pentagon, it seems it should be Blitzer, not “investigative reporter” David Barstow.

The fact that no evidence exists showing compulsion makes it difficult for the Times to place the blame for this “propaganda plan” directly on Bush and the Pentagon. So instead, Barstow provides another theory: the retired generals have – wait for it – “ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.” Of course, it would take a New York Times reporter to be shocked and appalled that retired generals would have connections to the defense industry.

In fairness, Barstow does concede that “the documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts” and that the “analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war.” Notably, however, such caveats do not deter him from portraying these men as the tools of a sinister Pentagon scheme to dupe the American public.

The message of Times' piece is clear: If you support your nation in a time of war, you are doing the Pentagon’s dirty work. American military veterans deserve more respect for their years of committed service. And the Times’ readers deserve better than anti-military smears masquerading as investigative journalism

ISLAM Does Not Allow Freedom Of Speech Says Saudi Cleric

That Religion of Peace is not a religion of freedom, Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid tells us that freedom of speech is not allow in Islam. You see, freedom of speech can lead to all other kinds of freedoms, like freedom of assembly and (God Forbid) freedom of religion. The video and transcript below (from CAMERA) details the Cleric's Teachings:

Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid Warns: Freedom of Speech Might Lead to Freedom of Belief

The following are excerpts from an interview with Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid. The interview aired on Al-Majd TV on March 30, 2008.

To view MEMRI TV's page onMuhammad Al-Munajid, visit http://www.memritv.org/subject/en/517.htm .

Muhammad Al-Munajid: "Some of these heretics say: 'Islam is not the private property of anyone.' So what do they want? They say: 'No sect has a monopoly on Islam.' So what do they want? They say: 'We want to issue rulings.' Someone who is ignorant, who does not know any Arabic, or who has no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence wants to issue rulings?! They say: 'We reinterpret the texts.' There is a very dangerous conspiracy against the religion of Islam in newspapers and in what these people say. A journalist, or one of those lowlifes, wants to... These people are a mixture of Western, local, and imported ideologies, but they want to express their views with regard to religious rulings. This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people - the prerogative of knowledgeable people, not of fools or heretics.

[...]

"The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it.

"It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want?

"They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth.

"Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

[...]

"Freedom of thought, within some constraints, is blessed. Islam calls for thinking, for interpretation, and for the use of the mind. But as for freedom of heresy, which allows anyone to criticize whatever he wants in Islam, saying, for example, that he does not like the punishment for apostasy, that he doesn't like the punishment for drinking alcohol, or that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers - this is barbarism.

"They ask: Why should a thief have his hand chopped off? Some of them say that this is 'too much.' Two-three much on you and your rotten mind. If you abolish this punishment, you will see the rise in thefts. On the other hand, people feel their property is secure because of this punishment."

MILITARY'S MUSLIM CHAPLAINS CHOSEN BY CONVICTED TERRORST

Abdurahman Alamoudi, is the founder of the American Muslim Council in the United States. He was born in Eritrea, but was raised in Yemen, and later immigrated to the USA. He founded the American Muslim Council in 1990, a group dedicated to lobbying American politicians (both Republican and Democratic) on behalf of Muslims in the US. Until 1998, he was involved with the selection of Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military (through the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, which he co-founded in 1991), and acted as a consultant to The Pentagon for over a decade. In his role of Pentagon consultant Alamoudi help the US Military Select its Muslim Chaplains most of whom are still in service.

In 2004 Alamoudi was convicted of making multiple trips to Libya to transmit money and to communicate with al-Qaeda. He is serving a 23 year sentence. But those Chaplains he picked are still working with the US Military, there is something wrong with that and Rep.Sue Myrick agrees:

Muslim chaplain probe demanded

Congresswoman points out appointments were approved by convicted al-Qaida ally

Fearing the radicalization of U.S. soldiers, the leader of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus has called for a government investigation of all Muslim chaplains serving in the U.S. military to determine whether they have ties to radical Islamic groups.

Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., says the Pentagon has failed to vet properly the Muslim chaplains ministering to U.S forces since it first set up its Muslim chaplain corps 15 years ago.

The military chaplains were approved by a convicted terrorism supporter who at the time headed the American Muslim Council. Abdurahman Alamoudi is now serving a 23-year prison sentence on federal terrorism charges.

The U.S. Department of Treasury in 2005 announced in a statement that "Alamoudi had a close relationship with al-Qaida and had raised money for al-Qaida in the United States."

According to Myrick, the chaplains he sponsored have not been re-screened since his sentencing.

"Alamoudi placed Muslim chaplains throughout the military. He is now in jail on charges of terrorism," she said. "The chaplains to my knowledge are still in their current positions."

Myrick added that "while there may be nothing wrong with the Muslim chaplains that he approved, it seems logical that our government would re-check the chaplains who were approved by a convicted terrorist."

In January 2007, Myrick founded the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus. The bipartisan group, with more than 120 members and headed by Myrick and Reps. Bud Cramer, D-Ala., and Jane Harman, D-Calif., was formed to allow members to meet with terrorism experts and become educated about the dangers radical Islamists pose to America.

The caucus meets twice a month and hears from terrorism experts, including Ken Pollack, Steve Emerson, Walid Phares, Gen. Anthony Zinni and Lawrence Wright.

Myrick, who is up for re-election this year, has been working on numerous issues related to radical Islamists, such as writing letters to the Department of Justice and FBI taking issue with their outreach to radical groups, as well as looking into similar issues at the Pentagon.

Myrick's call for a formal probe of Muslim chaplains coincides with her release of an ambitious 10-point legislative agenda, dubbed "Wake Up America." She says Washington is not doing enough to protect the nation from the threat from radical Islam, and the public as a consequence has grown complacent.

"People would rather watch 'American Idol,'" she said.

She also is calling for a government investigation of all U.S. prison chaplains who were approved by Alamoudi. At least one Muslim cleric who contracted with the Federal Bureau of Prisons in New York had supported al-Qaida and the 9/11 hijackings.

The FBI says U.S. prisons are a top recruiting ground for al-Qaida now that it is trying to lower its Arab profile and recruit American converts.

In addition, the congresswoman will ask the Government Accountability Office to investigate the selection process of Arabic translators hired by the FBI and Department of Defense.

Since 9/11, several federal translators have been charged with espionage-related crimes, according to Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington."

Myrick complains that the FBI, desperate to hire Arabic-speaking translators and agents, is currently recruiting candidates through pro-jihad publications, organizations and even mosques connected to the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

As part of her 10-point agenda, Myrick also plans to ask the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Council on American-Islamic Relations' non-profit status, which restricts lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

U.S. prosecutors say CAIR, which receives financing from Saudi and UAE sheiks, is a foreign-funded front for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. The Brotherhood has a stated objective of destroying America from within, and Hamas is an officially designated terrorist group.

U.S. prosecutors last year named the Washington-based CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and their families. CAIR's ethnic-Palestinian founder was listed as a Brotherhood leader in America.

More than a dozen CAIR officials have been caught up in counterterrorism investigations, with several landing in jail.

CAIR insists it receives most of its money from member dues and none from foreign governments. It dismissed Myrick's concerns as Islamophobic.

"It sounds like your usual laundry list of talking points you can see on anti-Muslim hate sites on the Internet," said CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who in the past has stated his desire to see America become an Islamic state.

Myrick says she will also introduce a bill making it an act of sedition or treason to preach or publish materials that call for violent jihad and the death of Americans or the destruction of American property.

She will also ask GAO to conduct an audit to verify the total amount of sovereign wealth fund investment from the Middle East in the United States.

What's more, she says she will rally Congress to cancel the scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their textbooks. Despite promises by the Saudi government to reform its texts, independent reviews show they still preach hatred and violence against Westerners.

The State Department plans to double the number of student visas issued to young Saudi men from 15,000 to 30,000 -- despite the fact that nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals who immigrated to the U.S. on visas.

"We aim to increase their numbers to 30,000 over the next five years," U.S. Ambassador Ford Fraker this month told Saudi officials at the Al-Jouf Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

In the past, a large number of Saudi students have failed to show up for classes, coast to coast, and have overstayed their visas. Many of them have been caught up in terrorism investigations.

In addition, Myrick will introduce a bill to restrict R-1 religious visas for Muslim clerics who come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries that do not allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.

Since 9/11, several foreign imams have been prosecuted or deported for soliciting jihad, including a Pakistani cleric in Lodi, Calif.

Myrick also plans as part of her anti-terror legislative action to introduce a bill to cancel U.S. contracts to train Saudi police and other security forces in U.S. counterterrorism tactics until the Saudis certify the prosecution of designated al-Qaida financiers – such as wealthy Saudi businessman Yasin al-Kadi – as well as the detention of repatriated Guantanamo terrorists whom the Saudis have released back into the general population after being "rehabilitated."

Some Gitmo detainees repatriated to Saudi Arabia have re-joined the jihad against U.S. troops overseas.

The U.S. trains Saudi security forces in counterterror techniques at both the Quantico Marine headquarters in Virginia and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Finally, Myrick says she will introduce or sponsor a bill to block the sale of sensitive military munitions – especially Joint Direct Attack Munitions – to Saudi Arabia. JDAMs include so-called smart bombs.

The TRUTH About US Military Death Rates

Anytime someone dies in the service of their country it is horrible, horrible tragedy, and I think the way the press counts-down to each thousand killed in Iraq, almost like the countdown to the ball dropping on New Year's Eve is disgusting. But here are statistics that the press will not report. FEWER US MILITARY PERSONNEL DIED IN THE WORST YEAR OF THE IRAQ WAR (2005), THAN IN JIMMY CARTER'S LAST YEAR AS PRES. In fact during the ten years from 1980-1989 because of the residue of Jimmy Carter's foreign policy screw ups and military spending cutbacks (resulting in accidents due to poor equipment) an average of 2100+ people a year died in the US Military. In the 5 years between 2002 and 2006 an average of 1600+ people a year died (figures are available from 1980-2006). Below is a more in-depth analysis of the statistics that the MSM won't publish:

U.S. military deaths below 26-year average
Annual toll in Bush years down despite 4,000 fatalities in Iraq

WASHINGTON

– Despite suffering 4,000 deaths in Iraq, annual U.S. military casualties overall during the first six years of the Bush administration are well below the average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980, a WND investigation has revealed.

Even in 2005, the deadliest year of the Iraq campaign, U.S. troop fatalities around the world, including Afghanistan, were lower than the first nine years of the study – when the Cold War was still raging in a time of relative peace.

In 2005, a total of 1,942 U.S. military personnel were killed in all causes, including accidents, hostile action, homicides, illnesses, suicides, etc. That compares to 2,392 in 1980, the last year of President Jimmy Carter's administration. In fact, twice as many U.S. military personnel were killed in accidents in that one year than were killed in hostile actions in any year of the Bush administration.

The analysis of statistics compiled by the Department of Defense also shows, despite a major increase in deaths due to hostile actions beginning in 2003 with the advent of the Iraq war, the annual toll on U.S. troops did not skyrocket above peacetime norms as many might expect. For instance, in 1993, the first year of the peacetime Clinton administration, 1,293 U.S. servicemen lost their lives – just 649 fewer than in 2005, the hottest year of the Iraq war.

As of yesterday, a total of 4,044 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.

The British military has reported 176 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.

Iraqi military deaths since the beginning of the war are estimated at between 4,900 and 6,375, while Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at between 82,856 and 90,390.

"You regret every casualty, every loss," Vice President Dick Cheney said last month while on a trip to the Middle East. "The president is the one that has to make that decision to send young men and women into harm's way. It never gets any easier."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Americans are asking how much longer their troops must sacrifice for an Iraqi government "that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future."

"Americans also understand that the cost of the war to our national security, military readiness and our reputation around the world is immense and that the threat to our economy – as the war in Iraq continues to take us deeper into debt – is unacceptable," Pelosi said.

The U.S. has about 158,000 troops in Iraq. That number is expected to drop to 140,000 by summer in drawdowns meant to erase all but about 8,000 troops from last year's increase.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, told a campaign audience in Pennsylvania she would honor the fallen by ending the war and bringing home U.S. troops "as quickly and responsibly as possible." Her rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, said "It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future."

Obama's Preacher In Context: YOU DECIDE

In the Clips from Bill Moyers' puff-ball interview with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's preacher complains about those horrible words related in those video clips were not the tenor of his entire speeches. So lets take him at his word below are transcripts of big chunks of two of the Pastor's most controversial speeches take a read..and please leave me a comment and let me know if you feel better about them now:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright 9/16/01

I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday, did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, did you see him John, a white man, and he pointed out, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammed was in fact true, America's chickens…are coming home to roost. We took this country by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arowak, the Comanche, the Arapahoe, the Navajo. Terrorism. We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Granada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers, and hardworking fathers. We bombed Qaddafi's home and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock. We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hardworking people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children from school, civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright 4/13/03

The British government failed, the Russian government failed, the Japanese government failed, the German government failed, and the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese decent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. The government put them in chains. She put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in sub-standard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law, and then wants us to sing God Bless America…no, no, no

Not God bless America, God damn America. That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent. Think about this, think about this.

For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you've got 5 million blacks who out of work. For every one Colin Powell, a millionaire, you've got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every one Condoskeeza Rice, you've got 1 million in prison. For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat, at the Masters, with his cap, blazin' hips playing on a course that discriminates against women. God has his way of bringing you up short when you get to big for your cap, blazin britches. For every one Tiger Woods, we got 10,000 black kids who will never see a golf course. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent.

Source ABC News