Help Wanted: Supreme Court Justice

Cross Posted from The Lonely Conservative

Job Title: United States Supreme Court Justice

Job Description: The duties of this position are living, breathing, and evolving; often at the whim of courts around the world. Typically the position involves interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America based on political beliefs and emotion and applying said interpretation to cases before the Court.

Qualifications: Candidates should have at least 5 years experience as a jurist within the United States of America. Having an ACLU card is strongly encouraged but is not necessary. ACLU membership requirement will be waived for candidates experienced in deciding cases in favor of groups such as ACORN, unions, the Gay and Lesbian Coalition, Planned Parenthood or any state or municipality looking to take over private property via eminent domain. The ideal candidate will possess the intellectual ability to disregard common sense while at the same time sounding brilliant.

Perks: The United States Government offers a generous compensation package. Benefits include lifetime tenure - barring conviction or impeachment.

Application Process: This just got a lot easier. With a near fillibuster proof majority any qualified candidate (see above) would surely pass muster. Please submit curriculum vitae to the White House.

Morality in a Totalitarian State: A Personal Revisionist History

Opinions, in my opinion, unlike principles, are not sacred possessions to be protected, locked away and defended from all intruders. Rather, they are, or should be, living and evolving attitudes, constantly subjected to rigorous revision and adjustment — or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.-- Wrestling With Mohammed - 12/9/0

'-- or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.' The Third Reich. Hitler's Germany. World War Two and the good German volk. Mein Kampf. How many books have I read on this immense subject? How many documentaries have I watched? Too many to remember but enough to form an opinion. In thinking back over all these books, over all these years, perhaps one of the most influential books I have ever read on this subject -- after Mein Kampf -- was Daniel Goldhagen's blockbuster bestseller "Hitler's Willing Executioners". His research was so thorough, his arguments so compelling, that they proved irresistible. He had statistically proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the 'good German people' were not only cognizant of the prosecution of the Holocaust, but had either directly or indirectly participated in its ghastly mission.

The Germans voted Hitler into power and sanctioned his every move enthusiastically. They continued in their loyal support for Der Fuhrer from the heady victories of 1940 to the horrid devastation of 1945. The idea that the German people had somehow been held hostage, that Germany had in effect been hijacked by some small fanatical gang of Nazis, was therefore ludicrous and self-serving. In short, the German people got what they had asked for in WWII. Despite our own post-war government wanting to quickly change the subject, more interested in building up a strong ally in Western Germany to offset the Communist takeover of the East than in pointing fingers -- despite all of their efforts, it was, in my opinion, the German people and not just the Nazis, who were deeply complicit in their own fate. This was perfectly obvious. I have just come away from watching "Hitler's Germany: The People's Community 1933-1939", from the award-winning television classic "The World at War". I was riveted to the screen. I was especially moved by the personal interviews of Germans who lived under the Third Reich, people who had survived, who had made whatever accommodations were necessary. Their stories were compelling. They were straight-forward, apparently completely sincere. Could I have been wrong all these years? Was it possible that an entire nation could be held captive? Was it really possible that they just didn't know what Hitler had planned for them, and that by the time they did know, it was too late? The German people were propagandized daily, in every conceivable form. But did the average German really live in fear? Could they really not protest? I had come to accept the theory that 'people get what they deserve' in a government. Especially if they voted that government into power, and continually ratified that power. It made sense. They loved Hitler and they loved his bloodless conquests of 1938-1940. They loved him until the bombs started falling on Berlin. Many love him still. How easy it's been to sit here comfortably in my living room and pass judgement on a whole people, a whole generation. And how arrogant. Never having experienced all the small daily terrors of tyranny, I felt assured in the wisdom of my opinions. Assured of the veracity of the many articles I had written on this subject. The German people were guilty as hell.

But now? Just a few days ago I wrote about longing for a strong leader. A brave, manly patriot who could save this imperilled nation from the disastrous grip of the Left. Perhaps these thoughts recurred to me while watching that powerful documentary. Perhaps my previous strongly-held opinions were shaken. Perhaps all these years I had got it wrong. Not wrong about the horrors of Nazism or the inconceivable tragedy of the Holocaust. But wrong nonetheless. Wrong in that favorite maxim -- that people get the government they deserve. What I learned.

I believe that I seriously underestimated the trauma of the post WWI chaos in Germany. The Great Depression. The roaming street gangs and the violent and deadly clashes between political rivals. Chaos and anarchy. Getting worse every day. Perhaps it's just that I'm getting older, but today I seem to have a deeper appreciation of how desperately people would want peace and order restored. It's understandable. It's human. '...longing for a strong leader. A brave, manly patriot who could save this imperilled nation from the disastrous grip the Left.' Isn't that what I/we are longing for? Someone to follow? Someone to finally confront and defeat these leftists who are bound and determined to ruin this great country of ours? Am I suggesting that America would welcome a Hitler, or a dictator of any stripe? No. We've already flirted with Fascism during our own Great Depression but the Union survived. Besides, we have guns and we're too damn independent.

What I am suggesting is this. The Third Reich was a near-perfect example of a totalitarian state. Something which I think Americans have great difficulty imagining. Can we imagine a nation under the iron rule of one party? Every facet of the media tightly controlled by Goebbles' nearly impregnable propaganda juggernaut. No Internet. All newspapers tightly controlled, all radio -- to be caught listening to a foreign broadcast could mean a trip to the concentration camp -- all movies, all schools. (Aren't we dealing with some embryonic form of this oppressive propaganda right here in America today? Only this time the controllers are on the left). The infamous Gestapo, though proportionately small in number, enjoyed a vast network of spies and informers -- only to be matched by Stalin's murderous USSR. This moving documentary told the story of a German woman who had a deep interest in spirituality, who felt that she could at times predict the future. On the day that an unsuccessful attempt was made on Hitler's life, in Munich, she commented to her ten year old daughter, 'I knew that was going to happen.' Proud of her mommy, the little girl couldn't wait to tell her friends at school. One her classmate's father was in the Nazi Party. That day the Gestapo came to the mother's house. Fortunately, this particular victim was spared. But what of those who were not? What kind of fear was this? How much more real could it get? So how has my watching this classic documentary changed my opinion of WWII Germany and the Germans? I think it's humbled me a bit. I'm a little less sure of myself. How would I have managed my life under the iron grip of the Third Reich? Would I have been a brave member of some courageous but ultimately impotent Resistance? Or would I have played the game like everybody else? Would I find my right arm uncontrollably raised in that familiar 'Sieg Heil'!? Still, the German people voted Hitler into power. And when Hitler finally pushed the allies into war it wasn't just the Nazis who had to be defeated: it was Germany. But considering the deadly milieu in which they lived during the Third Reich, is it fair that so many Germans had to die for the Cause? No, of course it's not fair. It is what it is. Finally, how is all of this history relevant to our current crises, our current threats from this ever-growing Islamic jihad? We must, I believe, carry two thoughts in our hearts simultaneously. First and foremost the realization that Islam is indeed evil, as evil as Nazism, maybe more so, and it must be either conquered or destroyed. Not just 'radical Islam" or 'fanatical Islam', but the very core of this universal menace. Secondly, we must understand that 'All is fair in love and war'. Is it fair to destroy an enemy who is determined to destroy you? Absolutely. Is it fair that the soldiers or terrorists whom we destroy are often products of a system over which they have no control? If a child is propagandized from birth, whether it be in Germany's Hitler Youth or in a Pakistani madras, is it fair that he should pay the price for those deadly ideologies? No, it isn't fair. It is what it is. So how has this film changed me, changed my opinion? I think I'm a little broader now perhaps. A little more empathetic for the people of Germany, the volk who, fairly or not, ultimately paid the price for the system that they had became a part of. I hope I am a little less judgmental after today, a little more careful. That skinny ten year old boy in the Pakistani madras, incessantly bowing up and down, like some robotic toy, endlessly reciting the Arab Mein Kampf, learning all he needs to know, who his enemies are, enemies he will most likely never meet, except perhaps in violence and in blood. He is the enemy. He is the victim. Simultaneously. And he must be conquered or destroyed. There's no other way. It's either us or them. And the sooner we understand this the better. But is it fair? Of course not. It is what it is. - rg

61 & 100

By Findalis 61! Today is Yom Ha'atzmaut! The 61st Anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. 61 years ago David ben Gurion said in his address of independence:

ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country. This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations. Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland. In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel.

PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE "ROCK OF ISRAEL", WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY,1948). David Ben-Gurion

11 minutes later, President Harry S. Truman sent the following telegram:

This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel.

Then 5 Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) attacked the fledgling nation. 5 nations whose combined military power had a 10 to 1 advantage over the new nation. 5 nations with the best equipped militaries in the region, compared to the new nation with a spattering of guns, no tanks, few planes, and no real artillery. The new nation never stood a chance of survival fora more than a week, perhaps 10 days. But the new nation had a weapon that the others didn't have. The Hand of G-d. Today Israelis are celebrating the founding of their nation. Born in blood, yet with the promise and hope that peace will one day resound through out the land.

Israel then and now!
 

100! This month the city of Tel Aviv celebrates the 100th Anniversary of its founding. Some interesting facts about Tel Aviv:

The city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa was established in 1909. Its birth coincided with the birth of modern Zionism. It is the first Hebrew-speaking city in modern times. Tel Aviv and its outskirts consists of 2 1/2 million people, about one-third of Israel's population. Over one million people visit the city daily. Actual population within city limits is 350,000. Incorporated into a single municipality with Tel Aviv in 1950, Jaffa is older than the city of Jerusalem, and is the oldest operating port in the world

Aviv contains the largest collection of Bauhaus Architecture in the world and was named a UNESCO world heritage site. Tel Aviv-Jaffa is Israel's center of commerce and culture. Most major banks, insurance, and high tech companies, are headquartered in Tel Aviv. Fifty percent of all theater seats filled each day in Israel are in Tel Aviv. It is home to the only Opera House, the Israel Philharmonic, Habima, Cameri and Gesher Theatre companies. Israel's Diaspora Museum, the Museum of Art, Museum Ha'aretz, Nahum Gutman and Rubin Museums are all located in Tel Aviv. It is home to the Bat-Sheva Dance Troupe and the Cinematheque.

Tel Aviv in 1909

Tel Aviv today.

Quite a difference a century makes!
 

Two Anniversaries. One for the birth of a city, the other for the birth of a nation. Two reasons to shout out in joy:

Am Yisrael Chai!

The Republican Party is NOT too Conservative and Democrats are NOT Moderate

Cross Posted from The Lonely Conservative If I hear one more time that the Republican Party’s problems stem from being too conservative and that the Democrat Party is the moderate party I might scream, or throw up, or throw something. Who are these people trying to fool? Do they remember the tea parties that occurred two weeks ago? Imagine the turnout if conservatives didn’t have jobs? Good God! They’ve all lost their minds. Harry Reid, Shepard Smith, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, Meghan McCain - They are all living in some other universe. Or at least another continent. Let’s see….hmmm….how about Europe?! If republicans are going to act like democrats - guess what? - we won’t need them. They won’t matter and unless a third party gains enough momentum - which I don’t see happening in the near term - our republic will be completely destroyed. Yet here we all are, arguing over whether the Republican Party threw Arlen Specter under the bus. How dare conservatives have the audacity to win primaries against republicans? I’ll tell them, we’ve had enough of the RINO’s who have destroyed the Republican Party. It’s time to weed them out. They haven’t stopped the democrats from ramming their agenda down our throats. Quite the contrary. Specter, Snowe and Collins stabbed their party in the back and voted for Porkulus. John McCain is partly responsible for his own loss in the presidential election thanks to McCain-Feingold. George Bush faced backlash from not only his base, but the majority of Americans, over amnesty. So tell me, please, how on earth is the republican party too conservative? Are they too adherent to the Constitution? Nope! Have they been fiscally responsible? Nope! Oh yeah, some of them actually gave a hoot about keeping us safe. Don’t worry, though, Barack Obama and his party will be sure to undo any strides they made in that arena. Were they against expanding the federal government? Hell no! They just expanded it less than democrats. The republicans took a drubbing in the last two elections because they are too liberal. Was President Bush exalted for his bipartisanship when he worked with Teddy Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind? Nope. Did he receive praise from AARP for providing seniors with prescription coverage? Nope. He was treated like a leper by democrats and republicans alike. For those who say the Democrat Party is the party of moderates, I say you are uninformed. Nationalizing health care is not moderate. Robbing workers of the right to a secret ballot is not moderate. Publishing national security secrets for all of our enemies to see is not moderate. Taking over banks and auto companies is not moderate. Using taxpayer money to fund overseas abortions is not moderate. Taking away the right to have an attorney present during interrogations is not moderate. Calling those of us who oppose them “radical right wing extremists” is not moderate. Burdening American families and businesses with cap and trade taxes is not moderate. Yet, Barack Obama ran as a moderate! He still uses “conservative” language when he reads his little speeches off of TOTUS. News flash: Some people believe what they hear. And for some people, that’s all they need to hear and it won’t be until they begin to actually feel the effects of Obama’s disastrous policies until they begin to see the writing on the wall. The republicans need to oppose him and his party whenever possible. They need to speak up for what’s right. They need to point out, over and over again, that his actions do not match his rhetoric. It is not fiscally responsible to spend us into oblivion. It is criminal to rob our children of their future prosperity. Until members of the Republican Party can find a way to communicate a true conservative message to counter the fake conservative messages delivered by Barack Obama it doesn’t matter how many Arlen Specters desert the party to save their own political skin.

Waterboarding in the "West Coast Plot"

While Liberals salivate over taking Bush Department of Justice officials to court and trying them for unsanctioned torture in the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and others, Marc Theissen at National Review Online lays down a road map to what the results of "enhanced interrogations" did for Americans. Remember the disrupted plot to fly a airplane into L.A.'s Library Tower, now known as the U.S. Bank Tower? Now that the Obama administration has released the so-called "torture" memos, and will possibly open a door to 9/11-type inquiries, the Left is rewriting history again. Read Theissen's exhaustive report of what happened and didn't happen in the interrogations, and what Khalid Sheik Mohammad and others had in the works. Thanks to Pundit and Pundette for this story. Read thier short pithy post on the swine flu: Infectious disease: Another reason why our borders need to be secure.

Britain's Tax Hike: Andrew Lloyd Webber Predicts Exodus

Andrew Lloyd Webber, the famed British native and composer of some of the greatest works on Broadway, predicts the "wealth creators" will exodus Britain once a new tax code is implemented. See two great videos below.

Andrew Lloyd Webber
 

Webber fears an exodus of wealth and of talent: "The last thing this country needs is a pirate raid on the wealth creators who still dare navigate our stormy waters...." "Here's the truth," he says:

The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That's not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country.
I write this article because I fear the inevitable exodus of the talent that can dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in. It is inevitable, given that other countries are bidding for entrepreneurs. The Government must modify its proposals.

Sounds familiar doesn't it. Here's more:

I give you this example. I have altered the details of the family I write about for obvious reasons. But the essentials are true.

Last Thursday I met with a thirtysomething guy. I absolutely depend on him in a highly technical area of theatrical production. For legal reasons he has to employ himself through his own company. Under the new tax regime, he will have to pay 13.3 per cent to employ himself before he pays himself anything. And then he will have to pay 51.5 per cent on what's left.

This is a guy at the cutting edge of his profession who works all over the world. He is in demand in every major territory where entertainment is produced. He has a young wife and two children. Last Thursday he told me that he and his wife had decided that the UK was no longer where they wanted to live.

His wife thinks the State education system is inadequate. And she fears that a bankrupt Britain will increasingly be a worse place in which to live as the horror of our present financial mess hits us all in the solar plexus.

He says that he is young enough to set up shop somewhere else. The new tax rates were the final straw. These talented young people know they will make it impossible for them to educate their kids privately in the UK.

So Britain plc loses not just the 40 per cent he would have paid in personal taxes under the old regime - plus NI and everything else - but... Come on, I don't need to explain the knock-on effect. It's obviously huge and immensely damaging - that's why I am writing this article quickly and probably with too much passion.

The following is an explanation from Forbes of President Obama's tax plan for those considered "high-earners. You might want to bookmark this Forbes piece. It is an easy to understand assessment of the tax code for all income levels.

But for high-earners, the biggest change will come from the tax increases the president proposed as part of his budget. (See "Who Will Pay for Obama's Plans?") Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. If Obama gets Congress to cooperate, then beginning in 2011 single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 (more than $250,000 for couples) would see the top ordinary income tax rate rise to 39.6% from 35%.

Another tax code tweak unveiled in Obama's budget is a change to itemized deductions. Families earning more than $250,000 would take deductions against a 28% tax rate, instead of the tax rate they're actually paying. For many upper-income tax payers, this not only increases their tax burden but reduces their incentive to give to charities (see "Short-Changing Charities").

Lord Webber sees "pirate raids" on the homeland as well as on the high seas. It's an apt equivalent. Okay, nothing to do with taxes: take a few minutes to listen to two favorites from Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Andrew Lloyd Webber, Cats - "Memory"

Andrew Lloyd Webber - David Cook, American Idol 2008 interview with Webber singing Phantom's "The Music of the Night"

Hillary Pushes the Liberal Addiction to Abortion

Hillary Clinton and other pro-choice liberals carefully use the words 'family planning' to describe what they view as a right to have an abortion. More often it seems they prefer to call abortion by the words, women's reproductive rights. The report from AFP states Hillary 'defended the right to abortion worldwide' and the Obama Administration's approval to pay for it with taxpayer money.

"We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal and rare," Clinton added.

You will notice that Clinton carefully words her response like most other pro-choice advocates who apparently feel the need to make killing babies sound better. Funny how the same liberals who have spat on returning US troops and called them baby killers have no such problem with those who really do kill babies.

First Clinton uses the phrase, 'family planning' and then the word women's and reproductive both having the word health added to each phrase. Gee, family, planning, health, reproductive, all such natural sounding words when it comes to childbirth. But make sure you never speak about ending someone's life or killing them by using abortion. No, no, no that would make it sound bad. Well it is bad. It is wrong and it is bad. It is not the way to solve any problem Clinton or those who agree with her on this topic can present. It is not about planning and it is not about planning reproduction. If it were sincerely about health then a proactive couple would have avoided the pregnancy.

Certainly when a woman becomes pregnant against her will such as in rape you can make the case she could do little or nothing about it. But even then there are other options. Stats indicate pregnancies from rape represent a tiny number of abortion requests compared to other reasons. The leading statistic for most women having an abortion in any given year indicates it is not their first one. Abortion is primarily used as contraception for dummies. Choices have consequences which the pro-choice crowd prefers to ignore.

Abortion solves nothing since the desire for them by some continues. It is the death penalty for babies who had no say in any of it. How many liberals are opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of a capital crime? Do those same liberals oppose abortion?

And the current President of the United States said he doesn't want his daughters to be burdened with a baby for making a mistake. What does this say about his other statements suggesting people have to take responsibility for their actions? It is just another lie from Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton.

This was just a little warm up post for the coming week. The rather impractical key performance measure for Presidents will likely dominate political discussions for some time. President Obama's first 100 days in office ends mid-week. The relative merits of this analysis are subject to debate. But it has become something of a ritual fair or not.

In advance of what will probably bring as much criticism of the President as praise and not serve any useful purpose it is what there is. So, kindly refrain from regarding those who oppose the current President's agenda and actions as racists. Many describe Mr Obama as the first African-American President. Are you forgetting his mother was white? Simple math would suggest Mr Obama is as much black as he is white and the reverse is true. So if there is some discrimination going on it is forgetting his whiteness and focusing on his blackness. Perhaps as he said when asked if race was an issue after taking office that it only lasted about an hour and a half and we are fast approaching 100 days.

Stanford Matthews MoreWhat.com

Pirate Hostage Captain Shane Murphy is Rush Limbaugh Accuser

Captain Shane Murphy, the second in command on the Somali pirated Maersk Alabama, is accusing Rush Limbaugh of "evil hate speech."

Rush Limbaugh

Captain Murphy was second in command to Captain Richard Phillips until Phillips offered himself up for ransom. Phillips convinced the pirates to exit the Maersk Alabama to a lifeboat with him, in an attempt to save his crew. With Phillips gone, Captain Murphy was in charge. After the U.S.S. Bainbridge arrived on scene, Murphy piloted the Maersk Alabama to Kenya and waited-out the rescue of his superior, Captain Phillips. Now that both Captains and crew are safely back in the U.S., the young Captain Murphy is accusing Rush Limbaugh of "trying to make this into a race issue." Rush called the pirates "black Muslim teenagers." Murphy is feeling a bit self-righteous. He said Limbaugh's words were "disgusting."

You gotta get with us or against us here, Rush,” Murphy said. “The president did the right thing…It’s a war…. It’s about good versus evil. And what you said is evil. It’s hate speech. I won’t tolerate it.

Now, I will give this young man the benefit of the doubt. I assume he lives on the East Coast and is Liberal - and then again, he is young. He doesn't know that the Obama administration certainly does not think Somali pirates are waging war against us. Obama doesn't even believe Iraq was a war. Here's the thing Captain Murphy, the pirates were black, they were teenagers, and you must face the fact that they were probably Muslim. It's just the way things were out there when your ship was taken. Now the Rev. Al Sharpton says the pirates "call themselves voluntary Coast Guard in Somalia, which may be more apt." Think about that Captain Murphy. Are you buying that? Sharpton is trying to sell it to the American people. Rush Limbaugh was supportive of you, your Captain and the crew in every way. He made several points, not the least of which was that the three black Muslim pirates shot to death, supposedly on the orders of Barack Obama, was okay by the Left, but "let George Bush's Navy gun down three black teenagers out there in the open seas, and I guarantee there would be hell to pay and war crimes trials." Here's the thing Captain Murphy - it's all true. The terrorists were teenagers, they were not voluntary coast guard, they were black and, again, it's a very good bet they are Muslim. You need to grow up politically and see what's happening in the world of terrorism. This was a terrible event for you and your men, for your families, for your co-workers and friends - and it was a terrible event for Americans as we tuned in almost 24/7 hoping to learn that our country had rescued Captain Phillips. You say you "won't tolerate" Rush Limbaugh's "hate speech." That's quite a statement. I doubt you listen to him with any regularity. That job you have - you know how dangerous it to tread those specific waters. You probably received extra pay for the high-risk-nature of the voyage. I don't like others putting themselves, knowingly in harm's way for the sake of a profit, especially when your country must come to your aid. I wish I didn't have to tolerate such recklessness...but guess what? I do not have a choice. I suggest the Maersk line and all others who routinely sail this part of the world - stay out of there. Leave the emergency relief supplies in the U.S. or take them to a part of the world that does not support terrorism. Let the pirates sit on their shoreline wondering where the American riches have gone. Let the people receiving the supplies, now no longer available to them, get themselves down to the shore and beat the hell out of those who ruined the influx of American benevolence.

Those Angry Young Men

The laws of primogeniture and the First Crusade

What in the world, you might well ask, could the First Crusade and some rather obscure Medieval "laws of primogeniture" have to do with our current civilizational crises? Perhaps quite a bit. First, what exactly is "primogeniture"? Primogeniture is the common law right of the firstborn son to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings. It is the tradition brought by the Normans to England in 1066. According to the Norman tradition, the firstborn son inherited the entirety of a parent's wealth, estate, title or office. In the absence of children, inheritance passed to the collateral relatives, in order of seniority of the collateral line. The effects of these laws on the noble warrior class -- and on the poor commoners as well -- were enormous. Those sons born second in line were often highly trained and well-equipped combatants instilled with a strong warrior ethos -- but with no appreciable income. A dangerous situation, highly trained warriors with nothing to do. All too often these disenfranchised, less-than-glorious knights resorted to internecine fighting or common brigandage. But what could be done about them? In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins. There has long been conjecture among medieval scholars that a major part of Pope Urban II's calling for the Crusades (just thirty years after the introduction of the primogeniture laws) was that it presented a perfect opportunity to gainfully employ these troublesome errant knights and give Europe a well-deserved respite from the wanton violence. Perhaps it shouldn't come as too great a shock to realize that this poor old wounded world of ours has all too often been ruled by men just out of their adolescence. More than one teenager ascended to the Imperial Roman throne (among them the notorious Caligula). Here's some interesting statistics. The world Population: 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.) Age structure: 0-14 years: 27.4% (male 931,551,498/female 875,646,416) 15-64 years: 65.1% (male 2,174,605,518/female 2,124,494,703) 65 years and over: 7.5% (male 217,451,123/female 278,474,917) (2007 est.) Median age: total: 28 years male: 27.4 years female: 28.7 years (2007 est.) Life expectancy in Imperial Rome: Tombstones show that the life expectancy of women was 34 years as contrasted with 46 years for men because women often died in childbirth. Resource: Encarta Or as low as this: [Roman] life expectancy at birth [was]in the range of 20–25 or less (Macchiarelli et al., 1998) CIA World Fact Book So, somewhere between 20 and 46 years life expectancy. Angry young men. To see them in action just watch a world cup soccer match in South America or Brussels. Or more to the point, take a closer look at those inflamed Arab streets. What do you see? Angry young men with nothing to do. Angry young men, overflowing with testosterone, just itching for a fight. And of course a notable absence of women. Here's some more interesting statistics. Gaza Strip Population: 1,551,859 (July 2009 est.) Age structure: 0-14 years: 44.4% (male 353,489/female 334,770) 15-64 years: 53% (male 420,618/female 402,297) 65 years and over: 2.6% (male 16,483/female 24,202) (2009 est.) Median age: total: 17.4 years male: 17.2 yearsfemale: 17.5 years (2008 est.) Resource: CIA World Fact Book And this -- The median age of the Israeli Arab is 14 and just entering his reproductive years... anxious to make BOTH Love and War! Another way of looking at this is that half of all Israeli-Arabs are under the age of 14! Resource: Masada 2000 So the angry young men are still with us, and they are still angry. Our world is replete with them. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Arab world. That volatile hyper-masculine, often adolescent, world of generational revenge, brutality and violence, that self-destructive warrior culture which the good pope tried, somewhat successfully, to ameliorate. But this time it's the angry young Muslim men who are on a Crusade, a worldwide jihad against the West. Perhaps we can learn from the lessons of history. Perhaps we can better recognize our foes, and realize that they are predominantly angry adolescents. Unfortunately, the cynical, hate-filled mullahs have, it appears, successfully harnessed all that testosterone. It is aflame on the Arab street. Can we somehow find a way to extinguish this terrible flame before it engulfs our world?

"Moral Muslims": A Continuation of the Discussion

Below are three comments from Findalis' recent thought-provoking Radarsite article. Roger W. Gardner said... Fine, thoughtful article. The subject of reforming Islam remains problematic for me. To abrogate the existential threat of Islam to the non-Islamic world, one would have to expunge so much material from the Koran that it would become utterly unrecognizable -- conquerable to taking Christ out of Christianity. Islam is aggressive political movement founded on religious doctrine. Islam was founded by a criminal and murderer, and this fact cannot be altered by changing or deleting a few violent phrases. I'm afraid I still find it difficult to recognize "moral Muslims" or "moderate Muslims". Unless they are prepared to completely renounce the teachings of their "prophet" and start afresh, they are, in my view, guilty of perpetuating this ghastly cult. Islam is the enemy. Not just the radicals, but the bloodthirsty cult itself. Islam -- regular, "non-radical" Islam is the sworn enemy of freedom and liberty, There can be no other interpretation of its message. It truly is "them or us". April 23, 2009 4:14 AM Findalis said... Actually Roger there is a small minority of Muslims who do reject the violent passages of the Koran as false prophesies. They accept only the early non-violent ones. Nor do they consider Mo the most perfect man but place him as imperfect as many of the other prophets of the bible.It is too bad that the majority of Muslims don't follow this sect. For if they did, none of us would have a problem with Islam.Islam today is where Christianity was in the 15th Century. The violence over the Reformation lasted centuries. Unfortunately, the world cannot afford 200 years of war. Not in an age of WMDs. So either Islam must reform to a gentler form or it will be destroyed. The world cannot accept any other choice! April 24, 2009 12:43 AM Ben said... I dissected the article here:http://snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/flight93-terrorist-memorial/I took issue with seven critical points, which I denoted with superscripts linked to an enumerated list following the article. Roger is right: Islam can not survive the excision of its evil core. Findalis is out of luck, because Islam is irreformable. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved; see 5:3. 6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower. 18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur'ân) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him. You can't change the Qur'an!!! Umdat as-Salik, Book O, Chapter 8, paragraph 7 lists 20 acts entailing apostasy, punishable by execution. This is one member of that list:-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;A Muslim who denies 2:216, 8:12, 8:39, 8:60,8:67, 9:29 or 9:123 is an apostate and may be killed with impunity. I believe that Zehudi Jasser and Khalim Massoud are sincere, sufferers of cognitive dissonance. Islam is what it is, not what they wish it were; it will never become what they want it to be. -------------------------------------- A note from Radarsite: At the very heart of our prosecution of the GWOT lies the persisting quandry of the "moderate" - or as our friend Findalis offered - "moral" Muslim. Isn't it astonishing that, nine years after being viciously attacked by Islamic jihadis, we are still finding it difficult -- if not impossible - to satisfactorily identify our enemy? Who is our enemy and who is not? The more we learn about Islam the more muddled we become. Despite the overwhelming and undeniable evidence -- which we are all well aware of -- that in the last half century the vast majority of attacks against the West and the US were perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Allah, we still look for ways to minimize the extent of the Islamic threat and make ourselves more comfortable. Not all Muslims are bad people, we tell ourselves. Many Muslims are decent law-abiding citizens. We have Muslim friends and acquaintances who are beyond reproach. And, perhaps the biggest objection of all: if Islam itself is our enemy, then will we find ourselves at war with the entire Muslim world? Are we fated to have to fight all x-billion of them? As you can see from the comments posted above, even the most informed and intelligent among us, such as our good friends and compatriots Findalis and Ben, find themselves at odds over this thorny issue. To Findalis, the existence of these moral Muslims gives reason for hope. To Ben, it is Islam itself, in whatever form, that is our sworn enemy -- and this includes all Muslims who follow the Koran. For Ben, hope is to be replaced by clarity and resolve. Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify Radarsite's position on this seemingly intractable problem. Below are links to a sampling of the many articles I have written for Radarsite on this subject. There are many, many more. In a nutshell, I am a 'maximalist', I believe that Islam itself is the source of the evil which confronts us. I believe that Islam truly is a manifestation of utter evil. I further accept the premise that Islam, by its very nature, is, has been, and always will be the mortal enemy of the West, and that the two ideologies are inherently incompatible. It is the avowed mission of Islam to conquer the world for Allah, to make the world into a universal caliphate. This has been its unalterable goal since it inception. To ignore or misread this fundamental truth is to make a deadly mistake. And in our courts and universities, and in the hallowed halls of Congress, we are making these deadly mistakes daily. The bottom line. If I truly believed that what this country needed at this time in our history was more compassion, more tolerance and more understanding, then I would be calling for that. However, given the irrefutable evidence of the facts of our world, given that the common denominator of all of our Middle Eastern enemies, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, et al is Islam, given that this is -- whether we deem to acknowledge it or not -- a global war of Islam against everybody else. Whether it be in Africa or Malaysia or Dearborn, the enemy is openly and unequivocally Islam. I believe that given the great changes that have occurred in this nation over the last half century, and given the perilous conditions we now find ourselves in, the last thing, the very last thing, we need is to continue trying to find more ways to humanize our Islamic foe. Our good-hearted tolerance of the intolerant has placed us in this untenable position, and if we are to survive we must abandon our present foreign-policy-by-wishful-thinking and confront the enemy head on. Now is the time. Tomorrow will be too late. We must stop trying to find common ground with Islam and, once and for all, recognize it for what it truly is: an aggressive bloodthirsty political movement based on "religious" teachings. If we are to win this virtual Clash of Civilizations we had better cease trying to understand the enemy and concentrate on defeating them. And, yes, I truly do believe that it is Us versus Them. - rg ------------------------------------ For further reading: http://bestofradarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/rethinking-gwot-maximalists-versus.html http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/11/golden-key-those-illusive-moderate.html http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/blinded-by-hope-abandoned-by-reason.html http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/wrestling-with-mohammed-revisited.html

Sderot: Remembering the Holocaust. and Durban II

by Findalis From the Sderot Media Center

Holocaust Remembrance Day: The Tragedy of Silence

by Anav Silverman Today Israel marked Holocaust Remembrance Day. Standing on a street in Sderot, I listened quietly to the siren sound, remembering the tragedy of 6 million Jews killed in Nazi Europe, my great grandparents, uncles and aunts from Poland among them. I’ve become used to sirens sounding in Sderot during my past two years here-the click of the intercom, followed by a female voice that calmly repeats Tzeva Adom, Tzeva Adom, or Color Red. The scenes that unfold usually entail people dashing into shelters-racing for 15 seconds that may mean the difference between life and death. But now at this moment, the Holocaust siren gives me a moment to reflect. I watch passerby’s stop, Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbekistanis, Moroccans, Persians and the like; Israeli Jews from countries around the world who make up Sderot’s colorful cultural tapestry. We stand together to remember the tragedy of silence that cost the lives of so many innocent people in our nation. It is this tragedy of silence which probably strikes hardest here in Sderot. Eight years of Qassam attacks have wounded over 1,000 Israelis, destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes, and have left thousands of children psychologically traumatized. Today close to one million Israelis in southern Israel live under the threat of Palestinian rocket attack thanks to the financial aid and embedment from Iran. Who will speak up for these Israelis who continue to be the targets of radical Islam in the form of Hamas rocket terror? Sderot is targeted not because it is a city outside the 1967 green lines, nor because of an army base located in the city. Sderot is part of the UN Partition Plan of 1948 with a civilian population of 19,000, where over 5,000 residents have been forced to flee since Palestinian rocket fire began on the city in 2001. Sderot is targeted simply because it is a Jewish city on the frontlines of Israel-an easy target for Palestinian terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction. THE greatest testimony that the world is once again returning to its apathetic state of silence that defined the era of Nazi Germany was revealed no less ironically today at the Durban II conference when Iranian President Ahmadinejad was invited as a guest speaker. Moreover, Hans-Rudolf Merz, the president of Switzerland, a country that declared its “neutrality” during the Holocaust, agreed to meet with Ahmadinejad, who is a fervent Holocaust denier and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. According to an Associated Press report, the Swiss president defended his meeting with Ahmadinejad and said that the criticism of the meeting was unjustified, stating that “Switzerland is neutral and not part of any alliance.” Ahmadinejad’s presence at Durban II is symbolic in that there has been no overwhelming international outcry against his views or the fact that he was invited to speak at the UN conference on racism. Iran is considered the greatest threat to Israel’s survival. Although Iran, an oil-rich country, continues to claim that its nuclear program is meant to produce electricity, it remains clear to Israel that Tehran is intent on building nuclear weapons that could potentially cause massive destruction to the state. SDEROT residents have been the silent targets of Islamic terror for too long. Last year on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, 13 rockets fell upon Sderot. Although rocket fire has significantly decreased since Operation Cast Lead, close to 200 rockets have still been fired at the western Negev region. If Israel does not effectively stand up for her citizens at home, who will stand up for Israel in the world? As countries across the world show alarming acceptance of a blatantly anti-Semitic figure like Ahmadinejad, demonstrated in Durban II, the state of Israel and the Jewish people cannot allow silence to become a national policy in the face of anti-Semitic terror, be it rockets or rhetoric, at home or abroad.

In 1938 the world did nothing, said nothing while Hitler and his thugs accelerated Germany's slide into the madness that was the 'Final Solution'. We witnessed on Monday 100 nation rise and applaud Ahmadinejad in Geneva. There is only one nation that speaks for Israel and Jews around the world. It is Israel. It is a shame that the world has decided to turn its back and closed its ears to the cries of pain and anguish from Israelis. It is only Palestinian tears that matter to the world. But I pray not to you, truth seeker. I once again ask you to remember the people of Sderot, and Israel in your prayers. To sign up for Code Red Alerts. To contact you Congress Representatives, Senators and President Obama. Contact your newspapers, radio, and other media outlits. And if you are able to, donate a few coins to the Sderot Media Center. Just click on the logo at the top or bottom of this post and follow the directions from there. It is time that the people of Sderot and Israel start having a loud voice screaming out their story too.

FDR and the Case of the Captured Enemy Combatants

From World Net Daily Opinion by Ellis Washington.

FDR and the Nazi saboteur case "I only wish President Bush and now President Obama would have taken the approach FDR took in the Nazi saboteur case, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), where in the midst of World War II eight Nazi terrorists were captured on the coasts of New York and Florida. After a summary trial in July 1942, six were summarily executed one month later after the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal. FDR, though a liberal socialist, was decisive in quickly and summarily punishing Nazi spies. Hitler did not try that stunt again".

------------------------------------------------------------- Here, courtesy of The History Channel are the basic facts of the case. In June 1942, eight German saboteurs were delivered to the east coast of the United States via U-boats, with the intent to attack, destroy and terrorise. But they were apprehended almost immediately, and six of the eight were executed... From their training to the aftermath of their botched mission... [these]trained saboteurs doomed themselves through mistrust, conflicting allegiances, and betrayal. The first group of four saboteurs left by submarine in May 1942 from the German base at Lorient, France, and on May 28, the next group of four departed the same base. Each was destined to land at points on the Atlantic Coast of the United States familiar to the leader of that group. Four men, led by George John Dasch, age 39, landed on a beach near Long Island, New York on 13 June, 1942. Accompanying Dasch were Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, and Richard Quirin. On 17 June, 1942, the other group landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The leader was Edward John Kerling, with Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt. Both groups landed wearing complete or partial German uniforms to ensure treatment as prisoners of war rather than as spies if they were caught. The Trial The eight were tried before a Military Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt. They were all found guilty and sentenced to death. Appeals were made to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. As a result, Dasch received a 30-year sentence, while Burger received a life sentence. The remaining six were executed by electric chair on 8 August, 1942. The eight men had been born in Germany and each had lived in the United States for substantial periods. Burger had become a naturalised American in 1933. Haupt had entered the United States as a child, gaining citizenship when his father was naturalised in 1930. Dasch had joined the Germany army at the age of 14 and served about 11 months as a clerk during the conclusion of World War I. He had enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1927, and received an honourable discharge after a little more than a year of service. Quirin and Heinck had returned to Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and the six others subsequent to September 11, 1939, and before December 7, 1941, apparently feeling their first loyalty was to the country of their birth. In April, 1948, President Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on condition of deportation. They were transported to the American Zone of Germany, where they were freed. ----------------------------------------------------- A note from Radarsite: If ours is a nation founded on laws, and if these laws are founded on precedents, I offer the above article to acknowledge an important precedent in American jurisprudence. The very first objection raised by our pacifist/liberal Dems will most likely be that this was in a different time, under different circumstances. Obviously, this took place in a different -- and some would say, more exemplary -- time in our nation's history. But were the circumstances really all that different? Or, as I suspect, is it America that is different? In both cases we were viciously attacked, without warning, on our own soil by a ruthless alien power determined to defeat us. If anything, today's enemy poses an even greater existential threat to our nation. How then do we explain the startling contrast between our ambivalent reactions to the horrors of 9/11 and the almost immediate display of visceral anger in response to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941; even though it could be argued that, though admittedly dishonorable and treacherous, the Japanese attacks were in fact a military attack against a military target, that actually resulted in less fatalities (2,403 compared to 2,986) than were incurred on 9/11—while virtually all of the 2,749 victims in New York City were innocent civilians. Where, we implore our leftist friends, is that righteous anger? What has happened to that steely resolve which we so courageously sustained throughout those terrible war years? How did we lose our way? And, most importantly, are we capable of regaining that 'steely resolve'? The travesty of the current trial of the captured Somali pirate in a NYC courtroom -- complete with ambitious defense attorneys, the impending release of enemy combatants from Gitmo, the Congressional investigations into allegations of torture of captured jihadis -- and a thousand more miserable examples answers the question, doesn't it? Like it or not, we are at war, a war that our inexperienced and morally-conflicted new president and his leftist cabinet refuse to name or acknowledge. But, today's Friday, and it's a beautiful day, and tomorrow's going to be even more beautiful. And I'm alive and breathing in the cool fresh air, and these days that's a major victory. God bless America - rg

U.N. Torture Czar: U.S. Obligated to Prosecute - U.N. Rape Continues

Did you know the U.N. has a torture czar? I didn't but it certainly makes sense, and it is certainly no surprise. This torture Czar, Manfred Nowak, says the U.S. is obligated to prosecute American lawyers deemed to have sanctioned "torture, as labeled "by" a United Nations convention. See photos and a video below.

U.N. Torture Czar - Manfred Nowak

Nowak's proper U.N. title is U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture. He has to be a very busy man with all the torture going on all over the world. There's Darfur, of course, and Myanmar and every Islamic country - especially Iran, but of course, nevermind those pesky annoyances, the U.N. is going after the U.S. Nowak's focus is on Justice Department officials who "wrote memos" which "narrowly defined" ways to interrogate suspected terrorists, and wrote the memos in a way so that it might seem not to be torture. Then, CIA officials implemented the memos. This Austrian says the memos were written with the intention to torture. I want to know what this man, the Rapporteur and the U.N. says about the beheadings going on around the world, the rape going on around the world. Beheadings in Mexico have been reported at least since 2006 and continue to today. Islamic beheadings in the U.S.

In Basra [Iraq] along, police acknowledge that 15 women a month are murdered for breaching Islamic dress codes. Others say the number is higher. April 20, 2008 Violence against women is rampant, rising every day with the power of the militias. Beheadings, rapes, beatings, suicides through self-immolation, genital mutilation, trafficking and child abuse masquerading as marriage of girls as young as nine are all on the increase. Du'a Khalil Aswad, 17, from Nineveh, was executed by stoning in front of mob of 2,000 men for falling in love with a boy outside her Yazidi tribe.

Brutal rape of women and children, and I'm sure young boys also. It's not just the rape, some of them die too. If they don't die then, they die earlier than they should - often after giving birth to multiple children - often after being infected with HIV/AIDS, abandoned by families, divorced by husbands who refuse to protect their women. What about the women beaten, buried alive, sometimes hanged - and none of these women were suspected of a terrorist act. Their torture just comes at the hands of men from their own culture.

Women and girls in Sudan's war torn Darfur region continually face rape and sexual assault,... Human Rights Watch calls on government to end sexual violence in Darfur, as neither the Sudanese security forces nor international peacekeepers are doing enough to protect women from attack. Sadly rape is not the end of most victims suffering, as stigma, shame and shame accompany numerous physical and physiological effects long after the rape. Fatima (pictured on the left) was only 15years old when in front of her own mother she was brutally gang-raped. She soon found her self pregnant, but that would not be the end for Fatima, as she was “arrested by Sudanese police and charged with fornication” when she was seven months pregnant (The Age). Since the dawn of the conflict pro-government militias have continually been accused of using sexually based attacks on women, as a means to terrorize, destabilize and demoralized the civilian population. The Sudanese army has recently criticized a UN report in March which accused soldiers of raping women and girls.

The U.N. Forces are rapists too.

The abuse allegedly began two years ago when the UN mission in southern Sudan (UNMIS) moved in to help rebuild the region after a 23-year civil war. The UN has up to 10,000 military personnel in the region, of all nationalities and the allegations involve peacekeepers, military police and civilian staff. It is thought that hundreds of children may have been abused.

"I was sitting by the river the first time it happened,” said Jonas, 14, one of more than 20 children who claimed they had been abused this way.

"A man in a white car drove past and asked me if I wanted to get into the car with him. I saw that the car was a UN car because it was white with the black letters on it. The man had a badge on his clothes. When he stopped the car, we got out, he put a blindfold on me and started to abuse me. It was painful and went on for a long time. When it was over we went back to the place we had been, and he pushed me out of the car and left."

In January 2007, the UK Guardian reports that these rapers have been disciplined for sex offenses, "including rape and child abuse." One hundred and eighty have been dismissed or repatriated - BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS PROSECUTED.

These numbers do not include allegations levelled at members of the U.N.'s own staff. According to an internal UN report, these total 91, including 13 alleged to have had sex with minors, 15 who gave jobs in return for sex, 17 who had sex with prostitutes, five who face allegations of rape and one person who is alleged to have committed sexual assault.

The internal report, which was published in May last year, presents data on allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse within the UN system between January and December 2006. It also says that 40 UN staff were alleged to have carried out other forms of sexual abuse.

Presenting the figures about the 319 personnel investigated, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping, Jane Holl Lute, said that the inquiries had resulted in the summary dismissal of 18 civilians, and the repatriation of 17 international police and 144 military personnel. However, she did not cite any prosecutions.

Of the U.N. staff misdeeds, the then U.N. Assistant Secretary-General of Peacekeeping, Jane Holl Lute, said some "are going to behave badly...." We can be assured that that "bad behavior" has not been perpetrated upon her or hers. The U.N. didn't just have an affinity for women and children in the Sudan. They liked the Congolese too. A report indicates that U.N. officials are "worried" because there are videos and photos of the abuses on sale in the Congo. "It would be a pretty big problem for the U.N. if these pictures come out," said a U.N. official. No "worry" for the children and the remainder of their miserable lives - only that the U.N. might have to fight off the publicity. In 2008 the United Nations finally passed a resolution that declared rape a war crime.

The resolution calls for a crackdown on "peacekeepers" who exploit women and children during times of conflict and calls for countries to punish troops that commit sex crimes (as the U.N. doesn't have the power to pursue prosecution). Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said sexual violence during war has reached "unspeakable and pandemic proportions" and that the council has "zero tolerance" for such abuse by U.N. workers.

Despite the United Nation's "zero tolerance" the abuse continues, and what a surprise, the U.N. can't do a darn thing about it - because they do not "have the power to pursue prosecution." It begs the question, how hard did they try to get the home country of the U.N. member (not staff, evidently) to prosecute? Did they try as hard as they are trying to get DOJ officials prosecuted? Now this, my friends is something to get all bothered about:

...rape has become one of the biggest problem facing Darfur (now, that is saying a whole hell of a lot). CNN reports that rape has become "a way of life" for thousands of women and girls, some as young as 4, in the region. In a perfect illustration of how rape is, indeed, an issue of international peace and security, Refugees International called it "an integral part of the pattern of violence that the government of Sudan is inflicting upon the targeted ethnic groups in Darfur." Adding to the tragedy, many women in Darfur are giving up children conceived through rape; in one refugee camp of 22,000, as many as 20 babies are abandoned each month.

So do we get all bothered about the U.S. waterboarding Kahlid Sheik Mohammed? Yes we do and really, it is indecent that we do. Spare me the diatribe about the "image" of the U.S. because we do not torture, or the rhetoric about our "values." All of a sudden I notice the Left is talking about values and principles - those of not torturing...really, until we can stand up to what is happening to the children of the world, including in the U.S., I won't give a fig about what we do get the information we must have to keep America from falling into the hands of those who will do to America what they are doing to the unfortunate, all over the rest of the world. It is unbearable to think of what these women and girls must endure. See a video on rape and torture in the Congo here. You must see this video. This is a saddness that is unspeakable. Let the U.N. Rapporteur on Torture spend his concern here and places like this.

Torture

Rep Lowey's Ambivalent Global Warming Resolution

A resolution dated April 22, 2009 sponsored by Rep Nita Lowey (D-NY) and at the time of this writing co-sponsored by no one was presented at The Hill dot com's Congress Blog by its author. Dismissing those who do not share her view on global warming as 'deniers' Lowey injects plenty of insulting rhetoric but appears to expect anyone reading her post (which is crossposted at HuffPo) to take her claim on faith. Lowey claims the evidence for global warming caused by humans is 'conclusive'. But of course no details or links are provided to make her case. The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem (Rep. Nita Lowey) April 22nd, 2009 In the past month, the House Minority Leader called the idea that carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas and known carcinogen - is dangerous “almost comical,” and members of his party suggested that the planet is actually cooling and “carbon-starved” and invited a global warming denier as a public witness to a Congressional hearing on the topic. As anyone with experience with recovery knows, the first step in addressing a crisis is to admit that you have a problem. Unfortunately, these displays and others make it increasingly clear that, despite conclusive scientific evidence on the existence of global warming and the human role, some elected officials refuse to take Step 1. As Congress begins the process of legislating to protect humans and ecosystems from the effects of global warming, I believe we need a “temperature check.” It is interesting that Rep Nita Lowey makes the statements above with such conviction. Yet the resolution she authored and introduced in Congress April 22nd in stark contrast has no such confidence. She offers seven 'whereas' statements which list her arguments supporting that human activity causes global warming. But twice she is only mildly hinting that such is the case with two statements. 'Recognizing that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.' And 'Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) recognizes that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) recognizes legislation is needed to mitigate risks humans and ecosystems face from a warming climate system.' Seven details in an effort to support her claim that we are causing global warming followed by two statements in her conclusion that this is 'very likely' rather than something reflecting she is convinced by her own argument. Maybe she missed arguments to the contrary or in her zeal to support her political party dismissed everyone that disagrees as a 'denier'. There was an article in the Politico which offered the following last November. Scientists urge caution on global warming By: Erika Lovley November 25, 2008 04:48 AM EST Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation. There are scientists on both sides of this issue. Another excerpt from the same article points out one example. Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions. The article also stated 'most' scientific bodies support the notion of global warming and our involvement in it. Organizations may not reflect the opinion of everyone connected to their organizations. But over 30,000 scientists who signed the Petition Project since 1998 make an even stronger case than global warming or cooling. They have objected to the idea that the debate is over and the science is done. That presents an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. Science has always been about continuing the pursuit and regularly challenging theories and discoveries. Galileo risked his life for that pursuit as did others. Some people take science seriously. Here's a snapshot of what the project and the signers are 'about'. The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis. In contrast to that and published in 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists which boasts 250,000 members including scientists and ordinary citizens offered their National Call to Action on Global Warming which proposes essentially taking all sorts of steps to eliminate human causes of global warming. For an organization that gives at least some impression of being science related they have a troubling list of organizations supporting their position. That list may have a political agenda or at least be characterized as special interest. Or another way of putting it is lobbyists. Decide for yourself, here's the list. Organizations Endorsing the National Call to Action on Global Warming: 1Sky * ACORN * Alliance for Climate Protection * Audubon * Catholic Healthcare West * Center for International Environmental Law * Ceres * Clean Water Action * Climate Law and Policy Project * Climate Protection Campaign * Climate Solutions * Defenders of Wildlife * Democracia USA * Earthjustice * Eco-Equity * Ecology Center * Energize America * Energy Action Coalition * Environment America * Environment and Energy Study Institute * Environment Northeast * Environmental Law and Policy Center * Green for All * Greenpeace * Health Professionals for Clean Air * Hip Hop Caucus * ICLEI USA * Insitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy * Interfaith Power and Light * International Forum on Globalization * Kyoto USA * League of Conservation Voters * League of Women Voters * League of Young Voters * Massachusetts Climate Action Network * National Hispanic Environmental Council * National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions * National Wildlife Federation * Oceana * Oxfam * Physicians for Social Responsibility * Progressive Future * Public Citizen * Religious Witness for the Earth * Rock the Vote * SEED Coalition * Sierra Club * Southern Alliance for Clean Energy * Teleosis Institute * The Humane Society of the United States * The Student Public Interest Research Groups * The Wilderness Society * Union of Concerned Scientists This post does not suggest global warming does or does not exist. It does not even suggest whether humans are or are not responsible in whole or in part. But this is what it does suggest. Those who dismiss opposing viewpoints are ignoring scientific method. Just because you may want the argument resolved or that it would be expedient does not gurantee the science will support it or be available now. As stated earlier in this post, Lowey is not even convinced it is real. That is why pursuing legislation based on the SWAG method is ridiculous. Check your politics and special interest agendas at the door. Causing panic to rush to legislation is a very good sign the proposal is flawed. That is what the science should help you avoid. Listen to the more than 30,000 scientists telling you the answer is not here yet. Stanford Matthews Morewhat.com