Tony Blair Nails It on The Head

Cross-posted by Spree, guest blogger and contributor, from Wake up America

The Guardian has a piece out where Tony Blair speaks his mind and his words, if listened to, are a good example of what is wrong with the way we are fighting "radical Extreme Islamics".

Jumping to one specific paragraph here so I can explain my statement above.

Pelosi, Reid, far left liberals LISTEN UP, this is a lesson you folks refuse to learn.

Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'

Thats it in a nutshell folks.

How many times do you see a liberal blog accuse the conservatives of lumping all Muslims in with extremists?

The opposite is the truth actually.

I have often, as well as seen other conservatives often, separate the two, because they are separate.

A few examples:
A Heartfelt Thank You to the Muslim Delegation
Moderate Muslims Take a Stand....Again
Moderate Muslim's Speak Up Again

Why do conservatives separate the two? Because they are two different species from each other, Moderate Muslims wish to live in peace and practice their religion, Extremists wish to force everyone to practice their religion or DIE.

It is the liberals playing thier political games that misrepresent how conservatives separate the two and instead of helping us fight extremists. They claim that by going after those extremists we are being "racist" or hate "all" Muslims.

This must stop because there is an enemy out there and denying it does not mean they do not want you dead.

More from Blair:

The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,' Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton, who presents the documentary.

'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'

Blair held out the example of the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan - criticised by Islamists as an example of the heavy-handed imperial West oppressing Muslims - to highlight unfounded claims of grievance. He asked how it is possible to claim that Afghanistan's Muslims are being oppressed when the Taliban 'used to execute teachers for teaching girls in schools'.

Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'

Blair, who normally chooses his language carefully when he talks about Islamists, also takes a swipe at critics who accused him of undermining civil liberties. 'When I'm trying to change the law in order to make it easier to deport people who engage in terrorism - the idea that that's an assault on hundreds of years of British civil liberties is completely absurd. Some of what is written on this is loopy-loo in its extremism.'

He could be speaking about America because there is no difference between the accusations of the left from the UK and the accusations from the left here in the U.S.

Perhaps the left should do as the right consistently does and start separating the Moderates who wish to live in peace from the radical extremists that want us dead.

Maybe then we could stop the extremists at the same time as we open our arms and welcome the moderates.

If Americans, as one, do not start taking this threat from extremists seriously and stop worrying about being "politically correct" and start worrying about protecting ourselves as a nation, then the next attack on American soil, WILL be our own fault for encouraging the extremists instead of standing up against them.

The Moderate Muslims have shown the courage to stand up against the radicals that have hijacked their religion, when is America's left going to show that same courage and backbone instead of burying their heads in the sand and claiming there is no threat?

There IS a threat. They want you dead. They want me dead. They want our children dead.

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

The horror stories are there for anyone to see:

Man Sexually Assaulted in Pakistan After Refusing to Convert to Islam

Joseph Francis, the National Director of CLAAS, explained: “When he entered the drawing room, he found it filled with unknown people. They began to beat him severely. They threatened him with dire consequences if he did not accept Islam. After his refusal, they committed sodomy with him one by one for the whole night.”

Or these words from The Ayatollah about Sex with infants:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.
However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is
harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.
This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives".
(Arabic Source)

Michael Yon's latest most chilling report from Iraq:



Caption:

Soldiers from 5th IA said al Qaeda had cut the heads off the children. Had al Qaeda murdered the children in front of their parents? Maybe it had been the other way around: maybe they had murdered the parents in front of the children. Maybe they had forced the father to dig the graves of his children.

Read his whole detailed piece in full to see the type of monsters we are dealing with all over the world.

Even Moderate Muslims are telling liberals to stop denying reality:

Radical Islam is a grim reality, despite liberal pretensions to the contrary. Today, FSM Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser continues his passionate appeal for combating global terror, pointing out the dangerous folly of ignoring the root causes of this growing ideological cancer.

This Muslim also points out that you cannot be politically correct AND fight the Global War on Terror and he makes no bones in telling President Bush this same thing.

Mr. President, as a devout Muslim, I can tell you that the only way the United States can make progress in this war is to have your administration give anti-Islamist Muslims acknowledgement for the centrality of their ideas in this war of ideologies. We can defeat political Islam only if we engage it and marginalize Islamists while positively engaging spiritual Islam. It is time for the administration to set the parameters defining the ideology we are fighting and be critical of organizations which facilitate it. The words of encouragement and admonition to Muslim organizations to lead the charge against radicalism are too vague. The reality is that the priorities, ideologies, and minority politics of the current agenda of the Islamic organizations the administration has courted and which attended last Wednesday’s press conference are far from being on the right page in this conflict.

For example, the central role of the informant has become a cornerstone of our security. The primary informant in the arrest related to the JFK Plot demonstrated this. The Circuit City informant demonstrated the same with his tip leading to the arrests of the Fort Dix Six just weeks ago. The informants and so many others have stepped up in connection with other foiled plots despite the pressures against them from Islamists and the MSM. MSM often feed into conspiracy theories about informants, by legitimizing the victimization of Muslims for being “coerced” as informants. The Denver Post made just such a claim as recently as May 18, 2007. Their report claimed that, “Arab-Americans and Muslims are concerned about FBI efforts to recruit them as informants and other tactics designed to prevent terrorism.” This story was, to no one’s surprise, picked up and widely distributed by the Islamist organizations, e.g. CAIR.

Nothing illustrates the insidious dangers of political Islam (Islamism) more than this type of philosophy regarding informants. Rather than being celebrated as heroes, they are ignored, or subliminally treated as ‘traitors to the tribe’. Sadly, the latest message coming from Islamists is still far from endorsing the heroism of the informant but rather issuing frightening warnings that they may become defendants in a national lawsuit. Just this week, the lawyer for the flying imams, Omar Mohammedi, tried to prevent media access to the trial in his case against US Airways and the “John Does”. This again demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Islamists using the media when they need to be victims but denying freedom of press when they want to camouflage their agenda. The reality is that the informants are our 21st century heroes. Are Muslim organizations working feverishly to create a culture in the mosques and in our organizations of weeding out the bad apples? Or is the allegiance to political Islam greater and more intimidating? These are the questions the President should be asking instead of reiterating the same tired platitudes.

He then speaks to the denial based crowd, yes that means YOU, LIBERALS:

Denial and obfuscation feed the infinite time loop. Conspiracy theories feed the loop. Tribalism with an arrogance masking a collective inferiority complex feeds the loop. Hatred feeds it even more. Put all this together, and the nutritional source must be political Islam. It has no boundaries and seeks governmental domination. Political Islam has no moral courage for it is not based in universal truths of the one God of Abraham separated from the political affairs of this world. It is an ideology which accepts no responsibility for the plight of Muslims while blaming all others. Nations based upon individual freedom and liberty over collectivism and tribalism pose existential threats to the existence of the Islamists. This conflict can no longer be ignored.

[...]

Create a pervasive conspiracy mentality. Magnify victimization of the Muslim minority. Try litigation against those who work to defeat political Islam, even if it fails since it will ultimately intimidate. Divide America across religious lines; this will exploit American guilt while allowing political Islam to thrive. Sue the John Does who report suspicious activity. Base it on a claim of racism. Ignore the terror plots broken up by heroes who are or were John Does. It’s all about the theocratic tribe and the long term goals of political Islam and an Islamic state. Use the rules of pluralistic democracy to intimidate those who counter Islamism. Never allow the debate to begin between Muslim anti-Islamists and Islamists.

Read the whole piece and if you are one of those that he speaks of, SHAME ON YOU because you are the ones fascilitating the horrible killings in the name of Allah.

Would you dare call HIM a Muslim hater? A racist?

As long as people like John Edwards denies that there is a Global War on Terror going on, he and others that live in denial like him are encouraging more recruitment and more killing instead of having the courage to stand up and fight it with every breath in their bodies.

Extremism is all around us, as witnessed by honor killings in London as well as here in America.

These examples go on and on and on and yet we still see comments like the ones John Edwards made, "There is no Global War on Terror" or comments about how Jihad extremists are not as much of a threat as the "conservatives" make it out to be.

Denial is a dangerous thing and the Liberals cannot see past their Bush Hatred to see what is right in front of their face.

I quoted Dr. Sanity's blog yesterday which speaks to this denial:

Dr Sanity manages to nail it right on the head and declares those that live in complete denial, INSANE.

I wish I could tell you that the political left in this country was out of its friggin' mind...but I can't, because it is increasingly clear that if you could put all the combined synapses of all the the above bloggers together you would not get a single logical or coherent thought about the war that is being waged against the West by the religion of peace.

These bloggers and many of their readers are on a mission to go where no human has gone before. They are beyond mere denial and delusion; beyond psychosis even. I regularly treat schizophrenics who have more respect for reality.

Then for the best part:

Sadly, they suffer from a totally debilitating disorder: Severe Acquired Leftist Anencephalic Dementia (SALAD). Their minds are simply not there any more! The cognitive dissonance of believing so many bizarre and contradictory fantasies; the mental contortions and fits necessary for them to retain their ideological myths has caused their minds to softly and silently vanish away (that's what happens when the snark is a boojum, you see).

Why do the liberal left of our country keep defending and encouraging these murderers?

More importantly, how can they deny what is right in front of their face?


Stop in at Right Truth, today is her series of Sunday Reading List and there is always something for everyone there.

Wizbang has a must read piece aptly named, See No Teerorism, Hear No Terrorism and I predict that their predictions are correct.

Technorati Tags: War on Terror, Tony Blair, al-Qaeda, Islam, Muslim Moderates, CAIR

The EU's Carbon Trade: A Scheme and a Failure

The government's own figures show an increase in greenhouse gases
Photo courtesy of BBCNews

"The EU's carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies and failed to cut greenhouse gases, it is claimed."

How refreshing to see a major newspaper (true, it's in Britain, but still...) put a headline out there saying exactly what it means.

After 2-1/2 years, the BBCNews says the "EU's Emission Trading Scheme" is:

"...essentially a permit to pollute."

A consumer watchdog, Energywatch, claims customers are getting "a raw deal" and then, no big surprise here:

Power generators received their allowances free of charge but were allowed to reflect the value of those in increased prices to customers, as if the companies had actually had to buy the allowances.

According to this report, CO2 emissions went up by 1.25% last year:

...wiping out a slight drop of 0.01% in 2005.

0.01%!!!! and...Energywatch believes consumer electricity bills increased by about 7% in 2005.

Britain isn't the only failure:

It is also reckoned that CO2 emissions across the EU also rose by between 1 and 1.5% over the last two years.

But some have their own way of measuring the success of this "scheme:"

...the Minister for Climate Change, Ian Pearson, told File on 4 that the carbon trading scheme has been an administrative success...

"Administrative success...," spoken like a true Bureaucrat...that would be the Minister for Climate Change.

This BBCNews report used the word "scheme" at least 6 times in this short report.

Article End.
Posted by Maggie

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/1421594126902204344

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, , Jo's Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, The Uncooperative Blogger, and Conservative Cat, Leaning Straight Up, Wake Up Americathanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


Technorati Tags: CO2 emissions, BBCNews, Britain, UK, EU, Greenhouse Gases, Global Warming, environment

The EU's Plan to Consolidate Sovereignty on Terrorism

The UK is feeling the consequences of sacrificing sovereignty to join the crowd. From the BBCNews:

Britain is being "smothered" with EU laws, imposed without proper debate, say peers behind a bid to investigate the effects and cost of EU membership.

As German Chancellor Angela Merkel attempts to effect a new EU constitutional treaty, British Parliament member, Austin Mitchell says the EU is attempting:

"backdoor revival" of the European Constitution - rejected by Dutch and French voters in 2005.

From Lord Vinson:

...animosity would grow if the state kept getting "its fingers into just about everything. Inevitably people will break the law more and more and we will become a more law-breaking society,

On the issue of terrorism and the European Union, the EU argues for consolidating the nations' sovereignty to enable

...member states to be able to act more quickly by taking majority decisions.

Tony Blair's position:

The UK will keep its right to veto cross-border EU crime policies,...

The Commons Home Affairs committee says:

...any benefits from the EU's plans do not justify "a major transfer of power".

As I search around for news of a proposed EU constitution, one thing becomes clear: Brits are concerned about the lack of debate and the tendency to "rubber-stamp" whatever the EU asks. Minister accused over EU jail law,

The Home Office has been accused of railroading controversial EU laws on the movement of prison inmates between member states through Parliament.

Reid discusses EU prisoners deal

Home Secretary John Reid is speaking to EU justice ministers in Luxembourg in search of a partial solution to the current prisons crisis.

For more than a decade now, Western European nations have been transferring sovereignty to consolidate power...this often against the wishes of the people. Personal identity as a European Union National surely cannot be lightly accepted. Technorati Tags: European Union, BBCNews, Britain, UK, EU, European Union National, War on Terror, Terrorism, German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Senator Fred Thompson's Statement on the Clinton Impeachment

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/1336221014061479780

In an interview this past week with Sean Hannity, Fred Thompson explained his split vote in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial: he voted "guilty" on obstructing justice and "not guilty" on perjury.

On February 12, 1999, Thompson entered his "closed-door impeachment statement," which can be found on many sites on the web, but I've linked to AustralianPolitics.com, because the text is easier to read. This statement is long...very long. Much of it restates the charges and the history behind the charges.

As an aside from me, it seems that President Clinton's escapade with Monica Lewinsky should have been viewed as an opportunity for blackmail. Lewinsky could have been anyone, could have had sinister motives, could have put our President and this country in great danger. If reports are true, think of Yassar Arafat, biding his time in the Rose Garden as he awaited Monica's departure and Bill's summons. Had Arafat known, could he have used the information to gain support for Palestinian endeavors? Far-fetched? Maybe not.

Follows the factors Thompson considered to arrive at his "not guilty" vote on charges of perjury. All inset text is taken directly from Thompson's statement as printed in AustralianPolitics.com, where you can read the entire statement.

He took issue with:

Several crimes or categories of crimes (the exact number cannot be determined from reading the article) are charged in this one article. The perjurious statements are not described, nor are their dates. In
large part, this article charges that the President committed perjury because he denied prior perjury.

The reason for rules against charging several offenses in one article is clear. A group of senators as few as seventeen could conclude that the President was guilty of one offense in the article, and a group of other senators could conclude that the President was guilty of another offense in the article and so on. This could result in the President being found guilty on one article without two-thirds of the senators ever agreeing upon a single offense that the President committed.

Never has the Senate considered articles that are simultaneously omnibus, vague, and based upon `one or more' of the charges being proved.

Compounding this problem, the individual items alleged in the article are vague

The articles pending against President Clinton are unique. Never has the Senate considered articles that are simultaneously omnibus, vague, and based upon `one or more' of the charges being proved.

Articles of impeachment henceforth should not permit conviction based upon `one or more' findings of guilt. They should list specific conduct, preferably in separate articles. Removal of elected or appointed government officials, especially a president, should occur only when the public can be sure that the process has been appropriate. Articles such as those before the Senate in this case do not further that goal. The Senate should amend Rule XXIII to permit impeachment articles to be divided, so as to eliminate any incentive for the House to adopt duplicitous articles of impeachment.

In prior impeachments charging false statements, the House has always delineated the date and substance of the false statement. Indeed, in every impeachment proceeding since Judge Pickering in 1803, articles of impeachment exhibited by the House have included allegations of specific misconduct.

Never has the Senate voted for conviction on an article that charged an individual with `one or more' improper actions.

Unfortunately, instead of following precedent, the House in the case before us deviated from previous practice.

The Senate also has never been asked to convict someone for conduct that formed the basis for an article of impeachment that was rejected by the House. Although in a literal sense, no such article is before the Senate, in a practical sense that is the situation. The House failed to pass an article of impeachment against President Clinton that accused him of, on January 17, 1998, `willfully provid[ing] perjurious, false, and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge...

The House claims that the President's statement in his grand jury testimony that he intended to be unhelpful but truthful in his deposition, and that he did not violate the law in his deposition, amount to perjury in the grand jury if a single statement in his deposition was perjurious. However, the President did not broadly reaffirm the truth of all his deposition testimony. Indeed, before the grand jury, the President revised many statements he had made in the Jones deposition.

On the three specific counts of Grand Jury Perjury:

...The first is his testimony concerning `the details and nature of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee.' The President admitted in the grand jury that he had an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

To be sure, President Clinton contended that the relationship began in 1996, rather than 1995. The House managers note that this is significant because Ms. Lewinsky was an intern in 1995. The House also points out that the President admitted inappropriate conduct `on certain occasions,' when, in reality, there were eleven such occasions, and that he had `occasional' telephone encounters with Ms. Lewinsky when there were at least seventeen that contained sexual banter. I do think that these statements constitute perjury. They were false, were made willfully, and were material. Something that happens seventeen times in a year does not occur `occasionally.' Given the sensitivity of Ms. Lewinsky's status as an intern, I believe that the President deliberately told the grand jury that his relationship with her began in 1996, when she no longer had that status. Finally, the statement is material because it concerns a matter that the grand jury was investigating as part of its work: the nature of the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. For these reasons, the statement was perjurious.

The President's statement to the grand jury that he regretted that what began as a friendship changed into an inappropriate sexual relationship was also knowingly false, since the two engaged in sexual relations twice on the same day that they first spoke. Thus, the statement was made to deceive, and given that it related to a subject of the grand jury's inquiry, it was material. Therefore, I agree that this statement also constitutes perjury, so that the first item of Article I has been proved. The second item charged in Article I addresses statements the President made in the grand jury regarding the truth of his deposition testimony. For the reasons above stated, I consider finding perjury based on an article of impeachment that the House rejected to be questionable.

The third item charged in Article I concerns grand jury testimony involving `false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action.' Before the grand jury, President Clinton testified that he was `not even sure I paid attention to what he [Mr. Bennett] was saying' when his attorney represented to the court that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit stated that there was no sex of any kind between her and the President. As a factual matter, given the videotape that shows the President concentrating very carefully on his attorney's words and the great importance that he placed on that affidavit and its filing in time, this statement's characterization of the President's attention was certainly false. However, the President said that he `was not even sure" that he was paying attention. It is possible, although unlikely, that he was not sure in August that he was paying attention to that specific statement in January. That would make the statement literally true and thus, by definition, not perjurious. And in any event, I cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that his statement was perjurious. Indeed, the real issue is whether President Clinton used the affidavit to obstruct justice: whether he actually was paying attention to his unsuspecting attorney when the affidavit was actually used to obstruct justice is of questionable materiality.

The fourth item of the perjury allegations in Article I concerns `his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.' The first set of facts under this category evidently concerns President Clinton's statements to Ms. Currie on January 18, 1998, which he described as having been made to refresh his recollection. The President's stated reason for making these statements to Ms. Currie was false. He knew that they were not true, and the President knew that Ms. Currie could not testify to their truthfulness. Thus, his statement of purported purpose for making them, as communicated to the grand jury, was made willfully, with the intent to deceive the grand jury. They were material as well, since they went to the issue of whether he had committed a federal crime. They thus constitute perjury.

The second set of facts at issue in item four of Article I apparently concerns whether the President truthfully told the grand jury that when the subject of the subpoenaed gifts arose at his December 28, 1997 meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, he told her `if they asked her for the gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had, that that's what the law was.' Although Ms. Lewinsky never testified that the President said this to her, she once indicated that it sounded familiar. Thus, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the President lied when he testified that he made this statement.

The third set of facts in item four of Article I addresses alleged lies that he made to the grand jury concerning the truth of statements that he made to White House aides. Before the grand jury, the President stated that he had told his aides that he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky as he defined it, and that he told them `things that were true about this relationship.' In reality, the President told them false statements, such as a broader denial of sexual activity than that defined as even he had defined it, and that Ms. Lewinsky was a stalker who came on to him, but whom he rebuffed. The President's statements to the grand jury in this regard were false, and were intended to deceive the grand jury about a federal crime of obstruction of justice through the telling of false statements to persons he knew might become witnesses before that grand jury, and therefore committed perjury.

So, some statements were perjurious and some were not:

I conclude that the statements concerning Betty Currie, and the statements concerning what he told his aides do constitute perjury. I also find that the President committed perjury with respect to item one of Article I with respect to his statements that he and Ms. Lewinsky's relationship began as a friendship, that it started in 1996, and that he had `occasional' encounters with her. These are the only examples of grand jury perjury that I believe have been proved in the entirety of Article I. The question then is whether these examples of perjury warrant removal of the President for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Fred's conclusion and reasons for voting to acquit President Clinton:

Is removal appropriate when the President lied to the grand jury that he denied to his aides that he had engaged in sex only as he had defined it, when in fact he had denied engaging in oral sex? Is removal warranted because the President stated that his relationship began as a friendship in the wrong year and actually encompassed more telephone encounters than could truthfully be described as `occasional'? To ask the question is to answer it. In my opinion, these statements, while wrong and perhaps indictable after the President leaves office, do not justify removal of the President from office.

And Thompson's comment on his decision:

In no way does my conclusion ratify the White House lawyers' view that private conduct never rises to impeachable offenses...It simply recognizes how the principles the Founding Fathers established apply to these facts.

Culling-down Thompson thoughts on the matter of "High Crimes and Misdeameanors," and specifically the charges against President Clinton, Thompson says:

I believe that the founders did not intend to make our job easy. They provided no list of offenses.

Today we are faced with an unprecedented situation. The President engaged in inappropriate personal conduct. It had nothing to do with his official duties, but it did involve a federal employee under his supervision, government time and government facilities. In an attempt to conceal and cover up that activity, he lied, misled and helped conceal evidence both physical and testimonial in a court proceeding. In doing so he elicited the help of other government employees. Therefore, the subject matter was essentially private, but the forum, a United States court, became public. One side says that he `only lied about sex,' and it had nothing to do with his official duties, therefore, it `clearly does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.' The other side says that any perjury and any obstruction of justice `clearly does rise to the level of an impeachable offense.' I do not think that either position is consistent with history or proper analysis.

It is extremely important that we refrain from latching onto a definition of `high crimes and misdemeanors' simply because it leads us inexorably to a conclusion which we may desire. Clearly, a President's offense or offenses must be serious and/or have serious consequences. Also, while they do not have to be crimes, my own opinion is that in most cases they will be crimes. They must be crimes against the state, but we cannot adopt an unreasonable restriction of that term. The President does not have to order tanks to move on the J. Edgar Hoover building. Offenses against the state can include activity which will undermine our governmental institutions. How can we say that bribing a judge to effect an outcome in a law suit involving a President's purely personal conduct constitutes an impeachable offense, but say that insinuating perjury into that same law suit to effect the same outcome is clearly not impeachable? And while it is true that the founders meant to cover `public' behavior, I believe they also meant to cover behavior that has a negative effect on the public if it is of sufficient gravity. Furthermore, if the President's conduct poses a threat and danger to a country, that certainly is a legitimate (though not exclusive) consideration. If that same conduct serves to undermine the President's credibility and moral authority, that could also pose a danger to the country and is similarly a legitimate consideration. And, again his conduct does not necessarily have to deal with his office. In the Constitution, a named offense is bribery (treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors), and bribery itself does not necessarily have to do with the President's official capacity, if the President is making the bribe.

Article End
Posted by Maggie

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, Azamatterofact, Allie Is Wired, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, President Bill Clinton, Clinton Impeachment, Fred Thompson Statement on Clinton Impeachment, Grand Jury Perjury

Russians Mourn the Loss of Free Press

Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/1514266793645659671


Putin enjoys a "cuppa," while this flattering photo of him is taken by the free press privileges of the BBC. Photo courtesy of the BBC.

In Russia, the people silently mourn the murder of their democracy at the hands of President Vladimir Putin. After the killing of beloved Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya in 2006, the International Herald Tribune put it this way:

I am convinced that her killer was, first and foremost, the paucity of freedoms in Russia. The lack of freedom killed freedom - this is where the sad logic of her killing comes from, no matter who is behind it.

Lack of freedom spawns lawlessness: Russia has fostered numerous vindictive, unpunished people indignant that someone dares to point a finger at them and to say that their actions are criminal. At the same time, authoritarian power always fragments into clans, and the accusations of an independent journalist can be a priceless weapon in the battle of clans or for the liquidation of political rivals.

And then this:

Hundreds of people who came to say farewell to Anna looked not only crushed, but also helpless. The mourners were shown their real place, as people without rights, who will be told only what the authorities want them to know.

And this::

...at least twelve journalists have been killed in contract-style slayings. No one has been brought to justice in eleven of the twelve cases.

And another important piece on how unattended freedom is killing freedom in Russia.

For thoughts on Venezuelans fighting in their streets for free press, read: how Danny Glover and Hugo Chavez give a "nose-thumb" to freedom.

This a day to remember just how precious are our freedoms and to fiercely battle back against those who would hastily feed the gators, hoping they will eat him last.

A closing thought on how we make freedom ours:

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free. Clarence Darrow

Technorati Tags:Russia, Vladimir Putin, Russian Journalists, Danny Glover, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela,
Free Press, Free Speech, Fidel Castro, Cuba, Memorial Day, Dictators

Israel-The British-Boycott-NOT!

Woman Honor Thyself is reporting a British call for boycott and sanctions against Israel. All the details are there, along with excellent analysis. Woman's important piece has offered an opportune time to put up a subject-related video by the very talented Kalisto89. Kalisto89's "Israel You Didn't Know" Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/04/israel-british-boycott-not.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/7091068821120919049 Tracked to: Iz-lamic RepubliC of GreaT Britain by Woman Honor Thyself. Excerpt from her important piece: Britain’s National Union of Journalists denounced Israel on Friday for its “military adventures” in Gaza and Le-banon, called on the government to impose sanctions and urged a boycott of Israeli goods. Tracked back by: Hot Seat from The Florida Masochist. Excerpt: Some news from Japan. Burning cutomers' buns would not do INAX's market share the least bit of good. MOre Guns - not fewer is the Answer to West Virgin from planck's constant. Excerpt: "Many more people have died in Hollywood Westerns than ever died on the real Frontier…[i]n the real Dodge City, for example, there were just five killings in 1878, the most homicidal year in the little town's Frontier history: scarcely enough to sust.. Cosmic Justice from third world county. Excerpt: Karma can be a bitch. Oh, you probably know what I’m talking about: NJ Governor Jon Corzine’s little boo-boo on the Garden State Parkway. No, I’m not gloating that a politician *spit* was seriously injured. But I am pointing out that what happen... Shameless Self-Promotion from 123beta. Excerpt: I'm proud to announce that I am now a contributor at both Dhimmi News Network and Reject the U.N. blogs! Global warming prevents hurricanes? from Perri Nelson's Website. Excerpt: Last year we were told, based on computer models, that global warming would increase the severity and frequency of hurricanes. This year we're told, based on computer models, that global warming might actually prevent hurricanes. No One at Virginia Tech Knew or Recognized Cho Seu from Blue Star Chronicles. Excerpt: No one knew Cho Seung-hi prior to his horrific murderous rampage yesterday. When interviewed after the killings, students described him as an Asian male that none of them recognized. Guess How Much John Edwards Pays for a Haircut … from Blue Star Chronicles. Excerpt: I bet you can’t guess….. Partaay! from Woman Honor Thyself. Excerpt: Hooray kids ..it’s…………. “Pal–eostinian Prisoners Day!” Gitcher ski masks, chains, lighter fluid, old Alice Cooper T-shirts Forgiveness and Healing?..Not just YeT from Woman Honor Thyself. Excerpt: I believe that this early healing talk is both foolish and immoral. It is foolish because one does not speak about healing the same day (or week or perhaps even month) that one is traumatized — especially by evil. One must be allowed time for anger and grief. To speak of healing and “closure” before one goes through those other emotions is to speak not of healing but of suppression. Podcast: Reaction to the Partial Birth Abortion from Adam's Blog Tonight on the Truth and Hope Report: -Reaction to The Partial Birth Abortion from Adam's Blog. Excerpt: Ban Ruling -Idiotic Congressional legislation on corporations -Obama on VA Tech, outsourcing, and Don Imus -Richardson rising. Imus: The Pigeon's Response from Diary of the Mad Pigeon. Excerpt: Al Charlatan and his minions vilify whiteboy after whiteboy, yet doesn't bat an eye at Bratz dolls or young black Rap artists glorifying male excess and female subjugation as sex objects. Network Says It Debated for Hours Whether to Air Shooter’s Images, Was It A Ratings Grab? from The Left/Right Debate. Excerpt: I am curious how all of you feel about this and this Confused Americans for Truth - Please Stop the Dark Music and the Sepuchral Pronouncements from The Conservative Cat. Excerpt: WLS-AM, which is the local radio station that carries Rush Limbaugh, just completed broadcasting a special ABC News Report on Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech killer. Listening to experts dissect Cho's motives and interpret his ravings was the last straw for me. Keeping Racism Alive by Eradicating White Privilege from Faultline USA. Excerpt: “Our goal is neither to defy or denigrate Whiteness, but to diffuse its destructive power.” (White Privilege Conference, April 18-21, 2007) “A yearly opportunity to examine and explore difficult issues related to white privilege, white supremacy and oppression.” A Closer Look at One Battlefield: A Journal Essay from A Few Shiny Pebbles. Excerpt: In order to fight for what we believe in, we must be clear about (1) what it is that we are defending, and (2) what our Leftist enemies are trying to do to us to bring about their own utopian system, which also means, (3) analyzing what they say for what they might really mean. I want to try to translate this citation from a Scientific American article into terms that I can use to see what lies behind the words. VA TECH ATTACKED AGAIN………IT’S THE GHOULS………… from StikNStein Has No Mercy. Excerpt: A second sinister attack has descended on the brave students at Virginia Tech today. Technorati Tags: Kalisto89 Israel Britain boycott Boycott Israel Video YouTube

Sunni al-Qaeda Split in Iraq?

Various sources are reporting Iraqi-Sunni factions, with fealty to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda in Iraq, are unhappy with the alliance, and are breaking ties. After a plea to bin Laden to:

"...assume religious and organizational responsibility for al-Qaeda..."

but, still, continuing to see Iraqi civilian deaths a the hands of al-Qaeda, Sunnis are outraged. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is believed to be comprised of mostly foreign fighters and be heavily financed by foreign sources. Al-Qaeda claims credit for a chlorine gas bombing, kidnappings, bodies found in ditches, trash bins and rivers, and destruction of city infrastructure and houses of worship. An Iraqi Parliament member is quoted:

They [Sunni fighters] have realized that those people [al-Qaeda] are not working for Iraq's interests,..."

It's a big dilemma, and not one with an easy-out. Sunnis are fighting Sunnis, and being a Sunni is a complicated progeniture. A leader of the Jamiat insurgency says that were it not for al-Qaeda's 9/ll assault on America,

"...neither Iraq or Afghanistan would be occupied..."

There's a lot of truth in that, because any war lord worth his stash of IEDs, knows that double-digit UN Resolutions are no threat at all. We can turn this whole lament around. It's reasonable to think that some Iraqis desire to live in a civilized society, and because of al-Qaeda, Saddam is gone, but school is open on most days and teachers no longer despair over Uday Hussein's mid-day summons of a young female student. Remember Abu Ghraib, where real atrocties were committed, every day, before U.S. Troops arrived? Thank al-Qaeda that Abu Ghraib no longer imprisons Saddam's political dissidents. Saddam's exit from the everyday life of powerful Ba'athist Sunnis, no long receiving dispensation from their leader and reduced to living the life of a terrorist on the run, has provided the motive to get that power back. The problem is, there's no one Ba'athist to whom allegiance can be pledged - each splinter group has their own agenda, as does al-Qaeda - and al-Qaeda's allegiance is not to the good people of Iraq. Read this piece from Truth & Consequences (Jim Simpson) for Sunni Ba'athist background before reading the current news reports below. The question is, does the split from al-Qaeda help our troops in Iraq? Read these analyses and see if you can figure it out: Counterterrorism Blog: CBN News on the Anbar Salvation Front By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross with links to Erick Stakelbeck "Re-Taking Al-Qaeda" and Bill Roggio's "Islamic Army of Iraq splits from Al-Qaeda, Sudarsan Raghaven's intriguing story of tribal warfare at the WashingtonPost.com and this piece from the latimes.com. Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/04/sunni-al-qaeda-split-in-iraq.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/2916545998234977731 Tracked to: Iz-lamic RepubliC of GreaT Britain by Woman Honor Thyself. Excerpt from her important piece: Britain’s National Union of Journalists denounced Israel on Friday for its “military adventures” in Gaza and Le-banon, called on the government to impose sanctions and urged a boycott of Israeli goods. Islamic Army of Iraq Splits from Al-Qaeda by Bill Roggio - The Fourth Rail. Excerpt: The largest Sunni insurgent group has severed ties with al Qaeda and its Islamic State of Iraq; Sunni religious leaders oppose al Qaeda Trackposted to Pet's Garden Blog, Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, , and Faultline USAthanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags: Al-Qaeda Sunni Iraq Anbar Province Islamic Party of Iraq Al-Qaeda in Iraq Bill Roggio Erick Stakelbeck WashingtonPost.com LATimes.com Osama Bin Laden Afghanistan US Troops US Military War on Terror

Crimes Against Humanity: Deadly Denial

The Guardian's Claudia Webbe is clearly upset at Prime Minister Tony Blair's stance on, in Blair's words, the:

"...gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids...."

GuardianUnlimited reports that Blair is taking advantage of his last few days and weeks as Prime Minister. Blair admitted to:

"lurching into total frankness."

The PM directly addressed the citizenry calling:

"...on black people to lead the fight against knife crime."

Ms. Webbe characterized the citizenry as:

"...a willing audience of, mainly, white faces..."

Ms. Webbe does not affirm or deny that black children are dying at the hands of Black gangs. Instead, she refers to a report that says:

"...a significant minority of vulnerable children and young people, disproportionate numbers of whom are black, were suffering from negative outcomes and outputs and endure high levels of exclusions, and that service provision was not good enough."

So, Ms. Webbe does not deny that young, black children, as well as non-black children, are dying at the hands of gangs, or someone. Prime Minister Blair, as paraphrased by The Guardian, says that the spate of London murders

"was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture."

and...

He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped:

"by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".

The Home Office Minister, Lady Scotland, disagrees with Blair and says the:

"...disproportionate number of black youths in the criminal justice system was a function of their disproportionate poverty, and not to do with a distinctive black culture.

So, is Lady Scotland saying that the murders are not due to Black gangs murdering Black children, as well as non-Black children? Claudia Webbe says:

"The prime minister is wrong to assert or imply that this is a "black problem": the bullet does not discriminate in its effect, and neither is the black community responsible for the manufacture, supply and importation of dangerous weapons."

Ms. Webbe clearly does not deny or affirm that the gangs are comprised of those from the Black community. She blames the murders on the bullets, and not only that, she denies that Blacks work in the industries that may produce the bullets, the weapons - no one Black is to blame. She doesn't state that knives are at fault, or those working in industries which manufacturer knives. This post is not about race; it is about denial; insert Hispanic Gang, White gang, Skin-head Gang, Islamic Jihad, Pro-Life terrorist, Pro-Abortion terrorist, Green Terrorist - they are all terrorists. To deny it is foolish and self-destructive. To be fair to Ms. Webbe, she asserts that the Black Community has:

"...not been silent in its condemnation and fight against the UK's history of violence."

I have much empathy for those living in crime-ridden communities, with no way out, who have the gumption to stand-up and fight back, if only by persistently notifying authorities. It is not a desirable way of life - in fact, it is undeniably a nightmare. She points to a successful community program (apparently from 2000):

Operation Trident is a clear example of community mobilisation and our preparedness to stand up to the "men of violence".

The issue is, of course, who are the current men and/or women of violence? Are they Black gang members, White gang members, or is it Islamic terrorism? Come, come now, don't be a denier. In the here and now, around the world, it is also Islamic Jihad terrorism. In the streets of London at any given moment it may be some gang culture, of some color, Black, White or in between; and it is, assuredly, Islamic Jihad, as well. Ms. Webbe's heated characterization of Tony Blair's words, as well as the title of her article:

"A kick in the teeth"

is about one micro-enth, or less, of the intensity of my feelings, and the feelings of many others, about Islamic terrorism - as well as gang violence. It is the deniers that allow the holocaust of whatever measure. Ms. Webbe asserts in the sub-heading of her article:

"The black community carries no blame for the violent crime that afflicts it - no matter what the prime minister says."

I, of course, have no first hand knowledge of gang culture in London. I do have a keen sense of words, however, and in hers I find no denial of the gang members, of which Blair spoke, being Black. It's not about race or color, it's about crimes against humanity. Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/04/crimes-against-humanity-deadly-denial.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/1899838835239706034 Tracked to: Iz-lamic RepubliC of GreaT Britain by Woman Honor Thyself. Excerpt from her important piece: Britain’s National Union of Journalists denounced Israel on Friday for its “military adventures” in Gaza and Le-banon, called on the government to impose sanctions and urged a boycott of Israeli goods. Trackposted to Pet's Garden Blog, Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags: Prime Minister Tony Blair Britain England Gangs Gang Culture Blacks African American Black Gangs Skin-heads Hispanic Gangs White Gangs Claudia Webbe The Guardian Guardian Unlimited Racial Racist Politically Correct Racism

Joe Biden Chooses His Civil Wars

Let me get this straight: Joe Biden wants us out of Iraq because

"...we cannot sustain 150,000 Americans in Iraq without extending deployment times, sending soldiers on fourth and fifth tours, or mobilizing the National Guard. Even if we could, our large military presence -- while still the only guarantor against a total breakdown -- is increasingly counterproductive..."

and he wants our military forces in Darfur to

"...end the suffering..."

and he

would use American force [in Darfur] now"

Biden

"...and other senators expressed impatience with the lack of progress on Darfur four years after civil strife broke out between Arab and black tribes in the western Sudanese region."

According to Wikipedia:

Sudan has two distinct major cultures-- Arabic-speaking Black Africans and non-Arabic speaking Black Africans--with hundreds of ethnic and tribal divisions and language groups between them, which makes effective collaboration among them a major problem.

According to About.com:

Darfur is a region in Western Sudan, the vast majority of whom are black and Muslim. Darfur, roughly the size of France, is home to 8 million people, and dozens of different ethnic groups. The most important divisions in terms of understanding the conflict in Darfur are between the sedentary farmers and the so-called "Arab" nomadic herders.

And more from About.com on political conflict in the Darfur region:

These local rebel groups, composed primarily of African Sudanese, accuse the Sudanese government of neglecting the Darfur region and of favoring Arabs over non-Arabs. Their aim is to overthrow Bashir's regime in Khartoum.

Bashir, according to About.com:

...has a strong Arab character and derives most of its support from the north of the country, which is largely Arab.

According to MSNBC news, a proposed force of 22,000 U.N. Peacekeepers and African Unions forces have been approved to be deployed to Darfur but... U.N. Secretary Gen. Ban Ki-Moon has imposed a delay to determine whether the Sudan will ACCEPT international peacekeepers. Sudanese President Bashir is a politician. He has refused the deployment, fearing a violation of Sudanese sovereignty and fearing that he will be arrested and tried for war crimes. Then there's the issue of rape in Darfur; alleged rape by Bashir's "Arab-militia" and alleged rape by U.N. Peacekeepers. Back to Biden's call for American troops in Darfur: On April 3, 2007, The Weekly Standard reports

Biden is saying that Iraq is currently experiencing a civil war and that our troops should have no part in it.

and, Biden muses:

What if our troops become targets in the Iraqi civil war?

Senator Biden, are you the "decider" about who is in a civil war, and a discriminator of civil wars, now? Some are okay, some are not? I believe Darfur is in a desperate state. They need serious help and the United States of America is more than capable of doing the job. But, oh my, can't you just hear it all now? We go in and not long after, the Left and the world will excoriate this great country. We don't go in, and nothing changes, the Left and the world will excoriate this great country. It's deja vu. Were it not for the wussification-factor of American Liberals, we would just quietly take care of Darfur, and we would have boldly taken care of Iraq. Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/04/joe-biden-chooses-his-civil-wars.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/5875916741021570369 Trackposted to Pet's Garden Blog, Outside the Beltway, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, The Pet Haven Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, , Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags: Senator Joe Biden U.S. Troops U.S. Military UN United Nations Darfur Sudan Civil War United States of America Iraq

Who Are We Really Fighting

By Jim Simpson Every day we hear more reports about the rising Islamist threat. Stephen Emerson reports alarmingly about the Islamists hidden among us. Al Qaeda is reportedly alive and spreading all over the world – morphing into a many headed snake. Meanwhile, Iran has moved from bluster to bully as it seizes British sailors on the open sea and blatantly ignores worldwide demands to cease its nuclear program, while continuing to arm Iraqi terrorists in direct defiance of the United States. Islamist militants in Palestinian-controlled areas and Lebanon visibly flex their muscles both militarily and diplomatically, while Muslims worldwide stridently demand absurdly special treatment in the non-Muslim societies where they have settled. As a friend once said, paraphrasing Trotsky: “You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.” Without diminishing the threat these worldwide activities pose, it is important nonetheless to recognize that they are a distraction, a deliberate provocation designed to keep our eyes focused on the wrong enemy. The true threat is and always has been the worldwide communist movement, spearheaded by the Soviet Union (oh sorry, I keep forgetting, “Russia,”) and Communist China. And given the cacophony currently being raised by their Islamist provocateurs, I fear the sucker punch is not long in coming. We are obsessed with routing out “al Qaeda” in Iraq but almost willfully ignore that the insurgency remains largely driven by the Iraqi Ba’athist party’s highly organized network, with assistance from their Ba’athist cousins in Syria. I fear that if we merely defeat al Qaeda, our misidentification of the enemy will lead us to give up the fight early, leaving the much more dangerous Ba’athist infrastructure in place. In such circumstances, we will soon be facing another Saddam. Similarly, it is easy to see a Shia-led Iraq fall into the Iranian camp if we leave. (I described this potential problem in great detail before the war started. See: Regime Change Means Eradicating the Ba’ath Party.) The Russians initially trained, funded and equipped the Ba'athists in both Syria and Iraq. They taught them the tactics being used now in Iraq against us. They continued to provide Saddam with military advice during the first Gulf war and at least the beginning of the current one, and I remain confident that they provide the Ba'athist insurgents with some manner of support to this day. They assisted in the removal of Saddam's WMD to Syria. According to defector Ion Pacepa, the former Romanian Intelligence chief, Russia long ago developed a contingency plan for all puppet states to hide WMD should Western powers appear close to exposing them. (Read all about that here.) Russia is helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. Russia’s Ba’athist puppets in Syria train and arm Iran’s Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as practically every other terrorist group operating around the globe. As for Iraq, Russia is indifferent as to whether it falls under the Iranian sphere, or returns to Ba’athist rule. In either case, it’ll be just another puppet. Russia only cares that we lose. Russia's strategy has always been to use others to do their fighting for them. It is also to make surrogate powers a threat to the US in and of themselves, both as a tactic to distract us from the true threat and to help insure that we fire first at the wrong enemy if it ever comes to that. And just as the notion of "Stateless" terrorist groups is a red herring, so is that of "rogue states." (Note: to understand why the whole idea of “Stateless” terrorists is absurd, you need only examine the funding requirements for such activities and realize that their prospects for defeating a large nation unassisted are virtually zero. You have to believe that these groups have unlimited resources and will squander them on activities that can get them killed for no ultimate purpose. And if your answer is “Bin Laden” read here to understand why this is false too.) North Korea remains attached to Russia and China at the hip and does not operate independently on the world stage. It is just one front on the offensive line, as is Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Syria and so, so many others. I foresee for example, a possible scenario where a so-called “rogue state” like Iran or North Korea, fires a nuclear weapon at us. We respond in kind, and the Russians, feigning fear that they are the target, launch a massive retaliatory strike against us. Whoops, sorry comrade, our mistake! The US needs to get clearer on who and what we are fighting. For starters, we need to eliminate the Ba'athist power base and obliterate Iran’s covert networks to win a decisive victory in Iraq. This will demonstrate both to ourselves and our enemies that we can win this kind of war and serve as an object lesson to the enemy that we are capable of making their chosen tactics very expensive. By this measure we are currently losing. However, I fear that if we give up, it will be the last time any politician musters the political courage necessary to confront this kind of warfare, and we will continue to face more and more of it until we are an island alone in the world against a sea of enemies. At that point it will start here at home, or we will merely be given an ultimatum with nuclear blackmail, and our feckless political class will fold like a reed in the wind. For the longer term, we need to significantly increase both our military size and effectiveness – more troops, effective anti-missile defenses, as well as conventional weapons, where we may not have as much of an advantage as we think – and dramatically improve intelligence gathering. I am not optimistic that any of this will get done. But if Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat is elected in 2008, we will assuredly go in the polar opposite direction. Hard times ahead. Businessman and freelance writer Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst (1987-1993). His writings have been published in the Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

Yasser Arafat: The Ugly Legacy Continues

I recently posted two entries on Palestine-Israel: one a bulleted list of Who and What are Palestinians - Post 1, and then Arabs Inside Israel Seek Change. Jim Simpson (bio below) offered his related article to Maggie's Notebook: "Who Was Yasser Arafat". Arafat's influence on Palestinians stills weighs heavily on the free world. The lack of support for Israel in the U.S. is baffling and I can only assume that many do not know the background of Israel, the holy lands and Palestine; what other excuse can there be to ignore the call for the destruction of a people? Here's the updated, and footnoted, article from Jim exposing background on Islam's never-ending quest to eliminate Israel: BIO: Freelance writer Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst (1987-1993). His writings have been published in the Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth & Consequences.

Who Was Yasser Arafat By Jim Simpson Update February 26, 2007 The article below remains as relevant today as it was when written. This is because it correctly analyzes the true nature of the “Palestinian Problem.” The character of which has been utterly ignored if not deliberately suppressed by our friends in the mass media. This has been borne out by actions, as well as statements, of both Hamas and Hezbollah over the past year. In short, nothing has changed. The Palestinians, no matter who is in charge, no matter the concessions in land and dollars, will continue to work toward the destruction of Israel until they succeed or are destroyed in the process. This is inevitable due to the true nature of the Palestinian movement. Read and learn. March 2, 2005 The January elections in Iraq seem to have awoken dormant aspirations for freedom all over the Middle East. From protests in Lebanon and the fall of Lebanon’s Syrian backed government, to promised elections in Egypt, a bright flame of hope has been kindled. Adding to the optimism, the recent death of Yasser Arafat paved the way for election of a new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, upon whom the world has pinned high hopes for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Since this conflict is said to be the epicenter of Middle Eastern turmoil, how realistic are hopes for its resolution? How much faith can we put in Mahmoud Abbas? To even begin to honestly evaluate these questions, we must first dispense with the myths and legends surrounding Yasser Arafat and make a full and honest disclosure of his record and the nature of the organization through whose ranks he rose. Such honesty has unfortunately been sorely lacking in public discourse over the past thirty years, but is essential if we are to accurately gauge Abbas’ prospects for success. There was an outpouring of sympathy from leaders around the globe following Arafat’s death on November 11, 2004. Typical was the remark by French President Jacques Chirac, who called him “a man of courage and conviction who for 40 years incarnated the Palestinians' fight for recognition of their national rights.”(1) Without doubt Arafat is the person most often identified with the cause of Palestinian statehood. But this characterization, made popular by mainstream Western media, and reflected in remarks by leaders such as Chirac, is so far off the mark one wonders how they could have remained so uniformly deluded for so long. So who and what was Yasser Arafat really? What Yasser Arafat was not Yasser Arafat was not a Palestinian. He was an Egyptian. He was born in Cairo Egypt, as Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, of a merchant father from Gaza who shuttled back and forth between the two cities. His mother was from Jerusalem. Now you might conclude from his parentage that this would still make him a Palestinian by heritage if not birth. But in fact—and this may shock you—there is no cultural, racial, or national “Palestinian” identity except that invented by the PLO. Palestinians are Arabs who have lived for a time in the area generally regarded as “Palestine”. The area has never in history been under autonomous “Palestinian” rule. Who could make such an audacious claim? Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir did, for one (2). Perhaps however, it would be more credible coming from the PLO itself. Every now and then, such groups dispense with the propaganda and reveal what they are really up to. PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein made one such statement to a Dutch newspaper in 1977. He said: The Palestinian people does not [sic.] exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.(3) Going even further back, the PLO’s first leader, another Egyptian named Ahmed Shukairy, said: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.”(4) The following historical summary puts it in perspective(5): The Romans first used the name Palestine in 70 A.D. as part of their effort to suppress the Jews. It was intended as an insult, being derived from “Philistines”, a people conquered by the Jews centuries before. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and by the British after World War I, but there has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Yasser Arafat was not a champion of Palestinian statehood. His purpose was the elimination of Israel as part of the larger goal of eliminating western influence in the region and creating one unified Arab nation. In Article 15, The PLO charter clearly states: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. It has been asserted that the correct translation for “elimination of Zionism” is “elimination of Israel.”(6) “Imperialist aggression” as usual, refers to the Western powers, the U.S. in particular. Nothing in the PLO charter has changed, despite the many contradictory statements from Arafat and other PLO leaders suggesting they would settle for a “Palestinian State” coexisting side-by-side with Israel. A Palestinian state is not their goal, never has been. The PLO sees Palestine and Palestinians as “an integral part of the Arab nation”, and that Palestinian “liberation” and “Arab unity” are complementary goals. In Articles 13 and 14, the charter states: 13. Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other. Thus, Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity; and work toward the realization of one objective proceeds side by side with work toward the realization of the other. 14. The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation's pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal. To see this clearly one must understand what they mean by “Arab unity”. As I have asserted in earlier essays, it is another phrase for the “single Arab nation” idea pursued by the Ba’athists of Iraq and Syria(7), which in turn is a twist on the familiar “unification” demands of communist movements all over the world as justification for aggression, including but not limited to Vietnam (“One Vietnam”), Korea (Unification), and Red China (Taiwan is a “breakaway” province which needs to be reunified with the mainland). It is not surprising therefore that Yasser Arafat’s Fatah organization, and all the other Palestinian revolutionary movements for that matter, have received much of their support from Syria and (until Operation Iraqi Freedom), Iraq. For unlike the other nations of the Middle East, who would rather maintain national autonomy thank you very much, the Ba’athists support the idea of a “Common Arab Homeland” (unified under the Ba’athist banner, of course). This is not surprising either, given the fact that both the PLO and the Ba’athist movement were originally creations of the Soviet Union–the PLO is a Soviet inspired Communist movement. This is evidenced in the Charter’s frequent use of familiar terms like “Imperialist and Imperialism” which are KGB coined invectives for the United States, and others like “Vanguard, and Progressive” which are familiar Soviet terms applied to communists and communist movements. But you need not decipher words in the charter to reach that conclusion. Former CIA Deputy Director Ray Cline provided ample proof in his book Terrorism, The Soviet Connection.(8) Ion Pacepa, acting chief of Romanian foreign intelligence, was the highest-ranking intelligence officer to ever defect from the Soviet Bloc. His group was tasked with training PLO leaders. In a recent interview with FrontPageMagazine.com, he stated: The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for ‘liberation’ organizations. In 1964 the first PLO council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter-–a document that had been drafted in Moscow.(9) Yasser Arafat was not a Moslem. He was fully indoctrinated in the culture and ideology of radical communist revolutionaries and enjoyed the support and full backing of the Soviet Bloc. He was a Communist. Pacepa flatly stated Arafat was a “devoted Marxist-Leninist.”(10) This is not really news, any movement dreamt up by the KGB would, by definition, have to be communist at its core. Arafat’s professed belief in Islam, right down to TV shots of him bowing on a prayer mat in traditional Moslem fashion, is pure political theater, nothing more. So Arafat’s al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, while professing allegiance to Allah, are simply stooges carrying out the terrorist policies of the PLO. Arafat’s goal and that of the PLO has never changed. In his FrontPage interview Pacepa describes an exchange Arafat had with late Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1978. Ceausescu had just informed him that Moscow wanted him to pretend that the PLO was willing to renounce terrorism to in hopes of becoming a Palestinian state. Breznev thought that then President Carter would buy it: “But we are a revolution,” Arafat exploded...”We were born as a revolution and we should remain an unfettered revolution.” Arafat expostulated that the Palestinians lacked the tradition, unity and discipline to become a formal state [emph. mine]...and he was not willing to put any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinian struggle to eradicate the state of Israel.(11) But Ceausescu prevailed on Arafat: Ceausescu...told [Arafat] that, if he would transform the PLO into a government-in-exile and would pretend to break with terrorism, the West would shower him with money and glory. ‘But you have to keep on pretending, over and over’...in the shadow of your government-in-exile you can keep as many terrorist groups as you want, as long as they are not publicly connected with your name.(12) Arafat was granted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 for renouncing terrorism and promising to change the PLO charter’s goal of eliminating Israel. None of these promises have been kept, despite Arafat’s solemn oaths, made “over and over” as Ceausescu suggested. On September 13, 1993, the same day Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin signed the “Declaration of Principles” embodying those ideals for which he would later get the Nobel Prize, he explained his motives on Lebanese TV: Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.(13) As I mentioned earlier, a Palestinian state is not the PLO’s goal, never has been. Once you accept this, it is easy to understand why he rebuffed former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s extremely generous offer of statehood for Palestine. What Yasser Arafat Was Yasser Arafat was the father of modern terrorism. Arafat’s PLO pioneered in the use of terror tactics and has been both an inspiration and source of support for many of the terrorist groups that came afterward. He is responsible for countless acts of terrorism not only against Israel but also the United States, including: • The murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This watershed event ushered in the age of modern terrorism. • The murder in May 1973 of American Ambassador to Sudan, Cleo A. Noel, Jr., his deputy, George Curtis, and Belgian charge d’affaires Guy Eid. The State Department by the way, has apparently tried to cover this up.(14) • The 1974 killing of 26 mostly 15 year-old girls taken hostage at school in Ma’alot, Israel. • The 1985 hijacking of Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro and murder of U.S. citizen Leon Klinghofer, a wheelchair-bound tourist who was shot then pushed overboard in front of his wife. • Popularizing the hijacking of airliners.(15) • Initial recruiter of Imad Mughniyah, today one of the most notorious international terrorists. Through his membership in Hezbollah, Mughniyah helped bring Iran into the terrorism business and is believed to be responsible for the 1982-83 Beirut Embassy and Marine barracks bombings. His meeting with Osama Bin Laden in the mid 1990s paved the way for a working • relationship between Hezbollah and al Qaeda and assisted al Qaeda in improving their bomb-making capability(16). • Over 300 attacks against the Israeli population in which civilians were killed, including deliberate targeting of children. • Over 1,300 Israelis killed in attacks since the signing of the Declaration of Principles (Oslo accords) in 1993.(17) Yasser Arafat was a thief. By all accounts Arafat has stolen billions of dollars in aid money meant for the Palestinian people. While the areas under PLO control have deteriorated precipitously, Arafat stashed away most, if not all, of the monetary aid intended for them.(18) • Almost one billion dollars collected in taxes from the Palestinian people was retained in investment accounts under Arafat’s name. • Astonishingly, in the Oslo accords, Israel agreed to pay Arafat the sales taxes collected from Palestinians in Israel, about $1 billion to date. This too went into Arafat’s personal accounts.(19) • According to the PLO’s own finance minister, Salam Fayyad, Arafat gave commodity monopolies to his friends, who in turn diluted their products and jacked up prices on the Palestinians. For example, the General Petroleum Corporation took fuel purchased from Israel and watered it down with kerosene. In addition to ripping off Palestinian drivers, the poor quality fuel ruined their cars’ engines. Arafat got kickbacks.(20) • Arafat received many gifts from the KGB, Saudi Arabia and others. Saddam allegedly gave him $50 million for his support in Gulf War I.(21) Yasser Arafat was a ruthless oppressor of the Palestinian people. Arafat established a Stalinist enclave among the Palestinians, a police state with the highest number of security forces per capita of any country in the world. Per Capita income has been cut approximately in half since the Palestinian Authority took power following the Oslo accords(22). The authority rules with an iron hand. Death sentences have been issued, for example, to Palestinians who willingly sell their own land to Israelis(23). Yasser Arafat was an alleged pederast. It is widely believed that he was homosexual. Among other evidence, the Romanians claim they took surveillance videos of Arafat engaged in orgies with his male bodyguards(24). However, internationally famous Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who has interviewed many foreign leaders including Arafat, revealed with evident disgust in a 1981 Playboy interview(25), that Arafat had a marked preference for young boys. Perhaps this is the blackmail Arafat’s horrid wife, Sufa, with whom he hadn’t lived for years, has used to garner herself a multi-million dollar annual “death benefit.” The proceeds of course, flow from his billions in ill-gotten gains. Many speculate that the cause of his death was AIDS. Arafat’s symptoms included blotchy skin, dementia, a depressed immune system and massive weight loss. The only other disease indicated by these symptoms, Leukemia, was ruled out. The only ones who can release Arafat’s medical records are his family, and they aren’t talking. The official line went from the ludicrous “he was poisoned by the Israelis” to the absurd: “A poor diet and gastrointestinal complications due to his long confinement in PLO headquarters imposed by the Israelis caused his health to deteriorate.” Of course, it was the Israelis fault, one way or the other. I vote AIDS. Terrorists from Syria to Iran to the wilds of Afghanistan widely championed Arafat and his cause as another front on the fight against the decadent and immoral “Great Satan.” It is indeed ironic that one of their most celebrated champions should succumb to a disease caused by activities they claim are symbolic of the decadent West: homosexuality. Yasser Arafat was despised by Middle Eastern leaders. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak referred to him once as “a son of a dog.” A Syrian defense minister called him the “son of 60,000 whores.”(26) Even his Soviet Bloc handlers found him repulsive: “I’ve never before seen so much cleverness, blood and filth all together in one man” Romanian General Constantin Munteaunu was reputed to have said. Ion Pacepa added: “I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat or even just shaken his hand.”(27) Yasser Arafat was leader of a murderous terrorist organization whose goals have not changed. As should be obvious from this analysis, the PLO leadership has long been committed to one goal: the obliteration of Israel. The poor Palestinians have been and remain nothing more than useful dupes for this grand scheme. I don’t understand why Western leaders even talk about Palestinian statehood. It would be nice to hope that Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, may make a genuine attempt to secure a lasting peace. I doubt it. Abbas is a smooth talker and has the appearance of a kindly grandfather. In this regard he is indeed different from Arafat. But the ideological swamp from which both he and Arafat came is a toxic environment incapable of supporting sound mental health. As an early member of the PLO, Abbas has survived in this sewer a long time. You do not rise to the top by secretly harboring ambitions to betray such an organization’s goals. You get there by being the cleverest among many vile brutes. Furthermore, it’s hard to penetrate the logic of his hopeful supporters. Other terrorist organizations in PLO areas, like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah for example, which was implicated in the February 25 nightclub bombing(28), are characterized as being outside the PLO’s sphere of influence. If this is the case, how can any agreement with the PLO guarantee peace? If it is not the case, then why do the attacks continue despite Abbas’ repeated promises? Expect more of the same, except with polished excuses and apologies no doubt. The PLO was originally created as one front on a multi-front war to wrest the Middle East from Western control and turn it into a Soviet-inspired socialist paradise. This idea has been temporarily shelved due to rejection of Ba’athist/communist ideology throughout much of the Middle East and now the U.S. led war in Iraq. Whether the rise of radical Islam is yet another proxy in this war remains to be seen. There are some indications that may be the case, but it is beyond the breadth of this article to analyze such a question. In any event, dictatorial regimes have long planning horizons. As Yasser Arafat said in his interview with Oriana Fallaci: We don't want peace! We want war, victory. Peace for us means the destruction of Israel and nothing else. That which you call peace, is peace for Israel and the imperialists. For us it is injustice and shame. We will fight until we achieve victory. Decades if necessary, generations.(29) For now they are biding their time. For the long term, rest assured the PLO is every bit as determined to wipe Israel off the face of the map as they were the day eleven Israeli athletes were murdered in Munich. They don’t care about much else—never did. Footnotes: (1) BBC News, UK Edition, November 11, 2004. (2) "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969. (3) As quoted by Joseph Farah in ‘Palestinian people do not exist’, WorldNetDaily.com, July 11, 2002. (4) ‘What Led to the Founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964?’ www.palestinefacts.org. (5) Joseph Farah, ‘Myths of the Middle East’, WorldNetDaily.com, October 11, 2000. (6) dunamai.com (/dunamai.com/articles/Islam/plo-charter.htm). (7) Please see for example ‘Regime Change Means Eradicating the Ba’ath Party’, DefenseWatch, (www.sftt.org), February 19, 2003. (8) Ray Cline and Yonah Alexander, Terrorism, the Soviet Connection, New York, Crane, Russak, 1984. The entire book is devoted to elucidating the link between Moscow and the PLO and provides irrefutable proof of their working relationship. (9) Jamie Glazov, ‘From Russia With Terror’, www.FrontPageMag.com, March 1, 2004. (10) Ion Pacepa, ‘The Arafat I knew, He hasn’t Changed Since His Days as a KGB-Backed Terrorist’, Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2002. (11) Glazov, “From Russia With Terror’. (12) Ibid. (13) Farah, ‘Palestinian people do not exist’. (14) Scott W. Johnson, “Who Murdered Cleo Noel?” www.FrontPageMag.com, November 18, 2003. (15) Glazov, ‘From Russia With Terror’. (16) Aaron Mannes, ‘Terrorism’s Godfather’, National Review Online, November 11, 2004. (17) Fatal Terrorist Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles (September 1993-January 31, 2005), http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html. (18) See for example, Lesley Stahl, ‘Arafat’s Billions’, CBSNews.com, November 9, 2003. See also Andy Geller ‘Arafat Got Paid at the Pump’, New York Post, November 15, 2004, p. 8. (19) Stahl (20) Ibid. (21) Ibid. (22) Ilan Berman, ‘Gangster Governance; Arafat’s Rogue Regime’, National Review Online, May 16, 2002 (23) Alexander Saffian, ‘Can Arabs Buy Land in Israel?’, The Middle East Quarterly, December 1997, Vol. IV; Number 4. (24) Ion Pacepa, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescus’ Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption, Regnery Publishing, Reprint Edition, April 1, 1990. (25) Interview Oriana Fallaci, Playboy, November 1981. (26) Tom Gross, ‘Arafat Gets the Di Treatment’, National Review Online, November 11, 2004. (27) Pacepa, Red Horizons. (28) ‘Suicide Bombing Outside Tel Aviv Nightclub Kills up to Five’, www.7online.com, ABC News, February 25, 2005. (29) Oriana Fallaci, Interview With History, Liveright, 1st Ed., 1976. Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/03/yasser-arafat-ugly-legacy-continues.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/2021372050768586320 Technorati Tags::Israel Palestine Jihad PLO Hamas Fatah Syria Yasser Arafat PLO Charter Iran UN Resolution 242