Texsanity

Saturday, January 25, 2003


ABORTION RIGHTS

Rob, at Gut Rumbles, has stirred up a hornet's nest with his post on abortion. He's right.

There is no "right" to abortion in the Constitution. The framers would have been aghast at the suggestion. The kind of pretzel logic that it took to fashion Roe v. Wade is staggering.

The only cases in which abortion should be legal are rape (incest included) and the potential death of the mother. All other cases are simply lifestyle choices (I can't bring this child up alone, I'm too young, I have a career, etc.). Since we all disagree on when life starts, I think the safe bet is not to go about vacuuming fetuses out of women just because they couldn't keep their legs closed to Don Juan ding-dong.

Don't tell me that I can't comment because I am a man - that's bullshit. It is equivalent to saying that I can't have an opinion about the war because I've never been in the military.

Women have a choice. They can choose not to have sex with men they don't want to father children with. This eliminates any possibility whatsoever of pregnancy. They can choose to be responsible and use birth control - this almost eliminates any unwanted pregancies.

Abortion as birth control is a terrible idea and should be stopped. It won't be but it should.


Why is it bad to call a communist a "communist"?

If somebody calls me a "capitalist" I hardly take offense. I AM a capitalist. I support CAPITALISM. Even if it is intended to be derogatory it is still accurate.

If we call an organization like A.N.S.W.E.R. a "communist" front because it is supported by the World Worker's Party why should that be characterized as McCarthyism? I mean, if you are a communist or a socialist and I identify you as such, is that mean? Yes, I think (as F.A. Hayek demonstrated) that communism and socialism cannot be implemented without totalitarian dictators and thus inevitably destroy freedom. Then it follows, again in my mind, that if you are a communist you are an opponent to freedom and a proponent of totalitarianism. But, obviously, a self-professed communist would disagree. So why do people who are communists abohor being identified as such? Or maybe the better question is: why does the media find identifying people according to their admitted political leanings worthy of censure?

It seems that the media gets a lot more offended when people are identified as communists that when George Bush or Republicans are called Nazis or racists. The only logical explanation is that the national media is sympathetic to socialism and understands how unpopular that is with the typical American.

All of the hoo-ha from Tom Daschle about Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media machine is just so much bullshit. The major media outlets are all controlled by extreme left wingers except Fox. The liberal slant is put on almost every story. Did you see any of the major networks condemning the peace marchers for being backed by a communist organization and depicting Bush as a Nazi? No.


IDIOTS ON PARADE

Howard Dean and John Kerry embarrass themselvse at an Yahoo! "abortion rights dinner" :

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Drawing repeated bursts of applause, Dean used his experience as a physician to illustrate why ''the practice of medicine is none of the government's business.'' He said there are pregnant teenagers who are telling the truth when they say, ''My father will kill me,'' and he treated a 12-year-old who was impregnated by her father: ''You explain that to the people in America who think parental notification is a good idea.''

How about this for a suggestion Howie, notify the fucking police and have the father arrested for incest. And another thing, the abortion issue is not about the "practice of medicine". In the vast majority of cases, abortions are NOT performed for any medical reason. To suggest that society does not have an interest the issue or that parents should not be notified by a physician that their minor child has become pregnant and is deciding to terminate the pregancy is stupid.

Dean's medical background gave him an aura of credibility...

But that disintegrated once he opened his pie-hole.

Criticizing the Bush administration for steps to curb abortion, he said that if they continued on that path, soon U.S. women wouldn't be able to go to school. The implicit comparison was to the repressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan

So incredibly stupid that I don't know where to start fisking. I'll just let the comment sit there like a pile fresh dung on a hot summer day.

Sen. John Kerry. Kerry said he called abortion a fundamental right in his first Senate speech 18 years ago. If women lose that right, he said Tuesday, ''then literally more than 50% of Americans will not be free.''

Of course not. The government is FORCING them to get pregnant! They don't have any choice in the matter do they?

FOREIGN IDIOTS

Kumi Naidoo, secretary general of the South Africa-based Civicus-World Alliance for Citizen Participation criticized "the severe crtailment of civil liberties in ...the United States...He cited the "invasion of privacy rights," bans on meetings by certain groups, and travel restrictions for Arabs (Associated Press)

Kumi was attending the World Economic Forum whose memebers took the opportunity to harangue John Ashcroft for "racial profiling".

I don't know about you, but I'm getting really tired of being lectured about freedom from people who don't practice what they preach. And in case Kumi and his buddies didn't notice, the 19 mass murderers of 9/11 were all Muslim Arabs, the executioners of Daniel Pearl were Muslim Arabs, the people arrested for the possession of ricin in Britain and Spain were Muslim Arabs.

We are at war and we know who the enemy is. Putting travel restrictions on foreign nationals from the countries where we know our enemies come from is a GOOD thing.


"TO BE...THE CENTER OF THE U-NI-VERSE...LEARN NOT TO ORBIT THINGS"

The Loud Family rules...but other than that, this post has nothing to do with the header.

During the flights back and forth, I was thinking about the nature of our struggle. We face an enemy indoctrinated to view the US as the embodiment of evil. It is acceptable to slaughter Americans because....well we are not Muslims and we are friends of the J-E-W-S.

We have almost every advantage on our side in this fight - the best equipped military , the most powerful economy and the most free people in human history. The Muslim fanatics should be reduced to an historical footnote in short order....except.....for ......ambivalence. We have all of the power, but we must demonstrate the willingness to use it.

There are a lot of people in this country (and a lot more in Europe) who are no longer convinced that the ideals of American constitutional democracy are worth fighting for. Or, to put it another way, they feel that their lives are so precious that they would rather lose their freedom than put themselves at mortal risk.

If you are not willing to sacrifice your life for the continued existence of a free America then what WOULD move you to that ultimate sacrifice? The International Criminal Court? What justice resides in a world where women can be sentenced to gang rape for any reason? Kyoto? What good is clean air if the people who are breathing it are slaves?

Look around you....it's getting later than you think.


Tuesday, January 21, 2003


A BRIEF RESPITE

The Texsanity Bile Machine and Fisking Company will be closed for business until Friday. Gotta go do some bidness out on the Left Coast. Watch out Lee, they'll be one more Conservative Texan Oppressor in Frisco for the next few days!


ANGRY WHITE MEN?

I got home late last night and, hoping to catch Hardball or the News, got smacked in the eye with Donahue instead. My blood pressure vaulted into the stratosphere as I read the subtext "Reparations for Slavery: Angry White Men?"

Now I expect a mush-headed sop like Donahue to cover stories like reparations (I wonder if Marlo ever lets him take his balls with him to work?). But why are "reparations" and "angry WHITE men" connected?

In the small portion of the show that I could stomach, one of the guests was making the point that even people who immigrated to the US after the end of slavery benefited from the wealth created by it and should rightfully be forced to pay reparations (I wonder if, in his mind, this includes BLACKS who immigrated after 1865?). This idiot also argued that the deaths of 600,000 Americans in the Civil war didn't mean anything because the war was fought to preserve the Union and not to end slavery.

There was another moron (on another talking head show) going on about affirmative action who suggested that, since only 38% of the population are white males, the system is slanted toward a "minority" already and therefore the government taking action to favor other minorities should be OK.

I know this is hopeless but I'm going to keep trying to persuade someone out there. Blacks in this country will not succeed economically until they stop teaching their youth that they are "victims" who are owed a "debt" by the EVIL WHITE MALE. As long as they look to the government to equalize outcomes instead of just opportunity, they will not advance as far as they should. Asians, as a group, don't have this problem (and before you say they were never slaves - what about Chinese railroad labor?).

Quit having so many illigetimate children. Quit leaving children behind in one parent families. Quit glorifying violence, drugs and gangs instead of education. Quit trying to extort money out of corporations and taxpayers for things that happened 150 years ago. Quit thinking of everyone as a memeber of a "group" with "interests". Quit hating America.

Open your eyes. That would be a good start.


MORE BIG LIES FROM CITIZEN CHARLIE

Rangle gets it wrong again, what a suprise:

When Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called recently for the return of a military draft, he evoked images of inequality raised during the early years of the Vietnam War, when black soldiers died at rates much greater than their share of the U.S. population.

Though Rangel is right that blacks and lower-income Americans still serve in disproportionate numbers, that fact misses another significant trend. While blacks are 20% of the military -- compared with 12% of the U.S. population -- they make up a far smaller percentage of troops in combat jobs on the front line.

In a host of high-risk slots -- from Army commandos to Navy and Air Force fighter pilots -- blacks constitute less than 5% of the force, statistics show.


How many times was Rangle's misinformation parroted by the cretins at the Saddamfest rallies this weekend? Don't these guys ever fact-check?


FUN WITH IDIOTARIAN Q & A

Q: Well, we can't take action now. The French and the Germans are opposing us. World opinion is against invasion.

A: You mean the French and Germans who violated UN imposed sanctions against Iraq, selling them centrifuges, etc., are trying to use the UN to block American action? The French who sold the Iraqis nuclear reactors that they KNEW were going to be use to develop weapons instead of electricity?

Q: Well, it's not just the Germans and the French - what about the rest of the world?

A: The rest of the UN that appointed the mass murdering Libyans to head its Human Rights Commission? The same countries that murder Jews and Christians, hand out sentences of gang rape to women, and still practice slavery - we should worry about what THEY think? Why should we assume that the members of the UN are acting in the best interests of the United States...or the Iraqi people for that matter?

Q: The French will veto any resolution to take military action against Iraq...they've said so.

A: They can't veto it because it won't come up for a vote. Powell's job this week was to make sure that he had smoked out all opposition on the council. The French didn't make him work too hard.

Q: How can we ignore the protests of our European allies? What gives us the right to act unilaterally?

A: How can our allies ignore the war in which we are engaged? How can they ignore the loss that we've suffered? How can they ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people? Are Kurds not "world citizens" too? What gives them the right to dictate American foreign policy?

Q: Why do we hold Iraq to a different standard than North Korea?

A: What is wrong with you? We deal with problems on an individual basis.

Q: George Clooney says that...

A: Stop bothering me!


GEORGE CLOONEY, PROUD IDIOTARIAN

Why does George Clooney hate Charlton Heston so much? I mean all Heston has done is supported the right of US citizens to bear arms as guaranteed in the constitution. I'm sure he laments gun deaths as much or more than Clooney. But Gorgeous George thinks Heston deserves to have Alzheimer's because they disagree on public policy...and he wants to keep talking to Saddam. What an ass.

George asks "Are we going to try and talk [to Saddam Hussein] ... without jumping in and killing people first?". Poor George, hard to follow world events with your head up your ass. What do you think we've been doing for the past 12 years? How long do we have to listen to him lie before we call him on it?

Uh-oh, looks like Chirac is gonna get whacked!

"The government itself is running exactly like the Sopranos," he tells Charlie Rose tonight in a full-bore assault on Dubya's foreign policy.

The "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" director says Bush has cut deals with France and Russia so the UN Security Council won't complain when "we go into a war [with Iraq] and kill a lot of innocent people."

Quips Clooney: "[Bush says,] 'France, you're getting the pipelines.'


Guess somebody over in Paris didn't get the message. How can they get the pipelines if they veto the resolution to go to war? They must have figured out that Cheney was secretly planning to double cross the Frogs and give all the goodies to his buddies at HALLIBURTON! Send out the goon squads we gotta get these people back in line!

Or maybe the French just don't want us wrecking the sweet deal they have selling Iraq contraband items in violation of the sanctions? They sure as hell don't want the whole world knowing about it, now do they?

Speaking of "Three Kings," his sardonic 1999 movie about Operation Desert Storm, Clooney tells Rose, "you couldn't get [that] made now."

Jeez, would you Hollywood types quit with the persecution bullshit already? Pleeeeeeeze?

I'll spell it out for you....nobody gives enough of a shit about what comes out of George Clooney or Robert Redford's mouths to worry about suppressing what they say. They can shovel that crap out all they want...they aren't dangerous, they're just stupid. We just have to make sure we keep them away from illegal drugs, sharp objects and deep thought...wouldn't want them hurting themselves.


Monday, January 20, 2003


HOORAY FOR THE UN, HOORAY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

If there was any doubt (and there wasn't at this blog) that the United Nations could be saved this proves otherwise:

Libya, long accused by human rights activists of major abuses, has been elected to chair the United Nations' top rights body.

The decision on Monday comes despite objections from the United States and other Western nations about the country's poor record on civil liberties and its alleged role in sponsoring terrorism.


Now you understand why the United States has to act without UN approval. The deck is stacked. The inmates are running the asylum.

My opinion is that the asylum ought to be run without my tax dollars funding it.


CAN ANY WAR BE JUSTIFIED?

The Saddamfests featured all of the usual suspects: the old hippies, marxists, anti-globalists, race hustlers, envirofanatics, pro-Palestinian groups, etc. These guys haven't formulated a new argument in years. Bush = Hitler, No Blood for OIL, U.S. Capitalism = White Male Oppression, Free Mumia, etc.

Over and over, they talked about the "immoral" war. Nothing, they said, could justify this war.

This begs the question: Is war immoral under any circumstance? Which is really to ask: Is KILLING another man immoral under all circumstances?

It would be easy to to point out that the organizers of the rallies, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), along with some of the featured speakers (e.g., Palestinian groups) think that killing is acceptable as long as Marxist regimes are doing the killing (the Chinese at Tienamen Square, Kim Jong-Il, etc.). But to be fair, I'd venture that most of the people that attended the pro-Iraq rallies would have opposed the views of ANSWER if they'd known them.

It is not moral to sit idle while fellow humans are being raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered if you have the means to stop it. It was immoral for the US and Europe to do nothing while the Kurds were massacred at Halabja in 1988. Just as it would have been immoral to do nothing in Serbia to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars and it would have been immoral not to attempt to relieve the suffering of the Somalis.

In order to stop power-crazed despots who, lacking any conscience whatever, will stop at nothing to remain in power it is usually necessary to use force. I suppose we could send wave after wave of human sacrifices at Saddam in the hope that the bloody brutality of all of the murder would eventually convince him to change his ways (or drive him insane) - but why? So that we wouldn't take the chance that an errant bomb would kill an innocent person unintentionally? We could continue the embargo against Iraq hoping to bring Saddam to his knees. But this assumes that he cares about the suffering of his people - an assumption that he has proven time and again is wrong. Is a person dead from malnutrition or the lack of proper medical care any less dead than one ripped apart by a bomb?

If we forswear the use of force under any circumstances, how long do you think that freedom will be maintained? The only thing that kept the Soviets from destroying America during the Cold War was their certainty that American leaders would indeed "push the button" if they attacked us. Peace activists would howl that to do so would have been insanity; that if the destruction of American society was a foregone conclusion it would be sensless to kill millions of Russians in "revenge". But if our enemies had been certain that we WOULDN'T retaliate, because of the "immorality" of using nuclear weapons, what would have stopped them from using theirs?

Would it be "moral" to let American society, the most free and just society the world has ever seen, die because we refused to battle the ruthless tyrants of the world? Should we really refuse to do battle against evil because we fear "collateral damage"?

Hundreds of thousands of American lives were saved by Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against two Japanese cities at the end of the war. But neither of those attacks killed as many people as the firebombing of Tokyo. Would the world have been a better place if we had let the Japanese surrender conditionally instead of forcing them to their knees? And what about the Germans? They weren't too worried about civilian casualties while ceaselessly bombing London. Would it have been "moral" to allow the war to continue when the application of increased force would (and in retrospect did) bring it to a swift end?

War should be a last resort. But how many times do you give a leader his "last chance" to honor a cease fire agreement before you take action?

How many lives will be saved by taking action against Saddam now instead of waiting until he or his hell-spawn, offspring obtain new stockpiles of chemical weapons and succeed in manufacturing nuclear weapons? How many Iraqi lives? Israeli lives? Iranian lives? Kuwaiti lives? Jordanian lives? Saudi lives? How many people will have to die indescribably horrible deaths before it becomes "moral" in the protester's mind to remove the source of the atrocities? How many people does Hussein have to torture, murder and enslave before it is worth the chance of the deaths of non-combatants to eliminate him?

If you maintain that the use of force is never justified then the ultimate result of your efforts, if your proselytizing prevails in converting your fellow citizens to your view, will be the end of freedom. Your destiny is to be a slave. Passive resistance will not prevail in a world populated by Saddam Husseins, Kim Jong-Ils, Muhamar Kadaffis and Robert Mugabes.

The American Revolution was fought against the lack of representation. Passions were inflamed by the levy of taxes on the colonists. Would the protesters characterise the Revolutionary War as "immoral"? That it was fought because the greedy rich wanted to keep more of their money? If they had just paid their taxes and accepted no representation no one would have been killed.

Some things cannot be tolerated. Some things are important enough to stop even at the cost of human life. If the world is ever going to become a place where freedom is the rule rather than the exception, we must stand up to the evil among us, against those who torture and enslave their fellow man. Only the United States has the power and the will to shift the momentum of world history toward freedom and democracy. To do otherwise would be immoral; it will doom us to the fate of any once great nation who loses its sense of purpose and its will to act - destruction.


PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATS

I knew that the CSPAN Saddamfest looked suspiciously like the Reparations March but not being able to stomach watching more than a few minutes at a time, I couldn't put my finger on why. David Horowitz knows:

Another striking fact about this march in support of global terrorism was the presence of prominent Democrat officials on the platform. In San Francisco, the most powerful Democrat legislator in the state John Burton screamed, "the President is full of shit" and that the President was "fucking with us," while encouraging the?general sentiment that America rather than Iraq was the outlaw state. In Washington, Democratic hopeful Al Sharpton attended and DC ex-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney read a speech with the following claim: "In no other country on the planet do so many people have so little as they do in this country." This from a person who notoriously commandeered a taxpayer-funded limousine to take her from her townhouse one block to her congressional offices every morning.

More disturbing by far was the presence of two of the most powerful Democrats in Congress, the potential head of the Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel and the potential head of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers, who is of course the author of the Reparations Bill and the icon of the Communist organizers of both marches. Rangel's appearance was especially troubling because he has been a nightly face on TV news shows presenting himself as a patriot and a veteran (he served fifty years ago in Korea) who wanted a military draft so that all America would be invovled in the nation's defense. His critics thought he had other agendas, like using conscription to sabotage the war effort. Apparently his critics were correct.


Do Charles Rangle and John Conyers get off the hook for not knowing the background of ANSWER? Would George Bush get off the hook for speaking at a rally hosted by a group who supported neo-nazis? or the Klan? No. These guys know full well what ANSWER stands for.


ANSWER THIS

T a c i t u s hits one out of the park - a must read:

SCENE ONE. You're a young student living under an oppressive regime that denies you freedom of conscience, religion, and speech. You and thousands of your compatriots rally peacefully in the capital city for democracy and liberty -- the birthrights of all men. The government dithers for several days, then decides how to deal with you: they send in armor and infantry in the dead of night. Automatic weapons blazing, they kill at least a thousand of your friends, companions, and loved ones. The death toll will never be known. Those responsible will never be punished. It is a crime carried out in full view of the world -- and yet, it is among the most minor of the regime's decades of atrocities.

Would you stand together with the apologists for this horror? If you marched yesterday, you did.


ANSWER is a vile organization and must be denounced loud and long by the anti-war movement or they will lose all credibility.

I'm waiting.


Sunday, January 19, 2003


IRAQ VS. NORTH KOREA

I saw Colin Powell on CNN today with Wolf Blitzer and Condi Rice on MSNBC with Tim Russert. Powell continued to indicate his frustration with the Iraqis. It appears that the administration is unified in its decision to follow through with military action if required.

Both interviews covered the situation with North Korea. It occurs to me that, given the information available to President Bush, it wasn't very difficult to identify the potential dangers facing the US from Iraq, Iran and North Korea. What required more of Bush was to put the spotlight on it in such a direct and dramatic way.

This illustrates the important qualities that Bush brings to the presidency. First, he has common sense. Big deal, you say. Well I see a lot of politicians today who get so involved in "root causes" and polling data that they can't look at an issue, make a decision about it and formulate a logical and consistent position based on their evaluation. Second, he has a strong idea about what the mission of the United States should be in world affairs. Finally, he has a strong moral compass. The great failure of Clinton and Nixon, as brilliant as they may have been, was that they saw everything as relative. A great leader has to provide moral clarity and unite the country behind his vision. Bush united the country after the great tragedy of 9/11 and I'd bet he will have it united again before the conflict begins in Iraq.

I am tiring of the "North Korea is developing nuclear weapons so why aren't we taking care of them first" argument. Ask yourself this - how much of a threat is NK to the US? They don't have missles capable of hitting the US and they may have, at best, one or two nukes. Now, they are a great threat to South Korea and Japan but only at the expense of their total and complete distruction. And, from a completely cynical standpoint, if Seoul were devastated or Tokyo destroyed (while horrible to contemplate) how much would it affect America? Probably not as much as the WTC destruction.

Contrast the threat from North Korea with that posed by Iraq. The Iraqis don't have nuclear weapons (yet) but we know that they have chemical and biological weapons. They fund terrorist groups who are pursuing military actions against the US and Israel. It stains credibility to assume that, if allowed to remain in power, Hussein would not supply the groups that he currently finances with WMD. Iraq controls or is in a position to control, if left unchecked, two-thirds of the world's known oil reserves.

The threat from Iraq is clearly more pressing. Besides that fact, Iraq continues to be in violation of the cease fire agreement signed with the coalition forces (re: United States) at the end of the Gulf War.

Let's put this argument to rest. It doesn't hold any water.


AND THIS TOO ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS

Since the Palestinians were well represented at the Saddamfests yesterday, I've been doing a little more reading since my posts yesterday. Not suprisingly, the more I read about the history of the conflict, the less simpathy I feel for the Arabs. Most of the following information comes from Unholy War: America, Israel and Radical Islam by Randall Price (I've indicated direct quotes).

HAVE THE PALESTINIANS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY?

The British Mandate in Palestine (1919), including all of modern Israel and Jordan, was originally intended to be the Jewish national homeland. This area had previously been under Turkish rule and was put under British management by the League of Nations after the Ottomans were defeated in World War I. After a series of violent clashes in the early 1920's, the British partitioned Palestine, giving the land east of the Jordan River (77% of the Mandate) to the Arabs and the remainder (modern Israel plus the "West Bank" and Gaza Strip) to the Jews.

The 1947 U.N. Partition Plan granted the West Bank and Gaza plus land adjacent to the Lebanese and Egyptian borders for the formation of a new Arab state, thus further reducing the Israeli share of the original Mandate well below the 23% that the British had reserved for it. Alas, the Arabs, unsatisfied with this arrangement, went to war against the Jews and lost. Jordan subsequently annexed the West Bank in 1950. Although the Jordanians lost control of the West Bank in 1967, they did not formally renounce their right to land until 1998 when King Hussein formally backed the formation of a "Palestinian" state there.

With the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, the Israeli's regained control of their holiest site - the Temple Mount. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock were both constructed by the Muslims on the Temple Mount, over sites important to both Christians and Jews, in the 600's after Islam captured Jerusalem from the Byzantine Christian empire. Inside the dome are inscribed verses from the Koran telling Muslims that Christianity is false and "God had no son".

The Jews could have destroyed the structures or limited access by Muslims to them. Instead Moshe Dayan gave control of the Mount back to Muslim clerics. Can you imaging the reverse being true? Arab nations allowing Jewish control over holy sites in Muslim controlled lands?

There were no "Palestinian" Arabs as distinct from others before the 1920's. Jordan was a part of the Palestinian mandate and is, in fact a "Palestinian" state. Even given these facts, the Jews accepted repeated land giveaways to the Arabs up until and including the U.N. Partition. The real issue is not land but the refusal of Arab Muslims to accept any Jewish presence in "Palestine" and the failure of their societies to grant equal rights under the law to people of other (or no) religions.

PALESTINIAN "LEADERSHIP"

"(Arafat's) real name is Abdul Rauf el-Chodbi el-Husseinei... He is a member of the Husseini family, who produced the grand Mufti of Palestine, Hag Amin el-Husseinei, who organized the anti-Jewish riots of 1921-22, 1929, 1936, and 1938, befriended Adolf Hitler and worked with the Nazis to plan a "final solution" for the "Jewish problem" in Palestine (1943-45). Arafat was not only related, but one of the mufti's students."

"Among Arafat's many terrorist activities was the masterminding of the 1972 murder of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, the 1974 murder of school children at Ma'alot, the murder of infirmed Jewish passengers on the Achille Lauro cruise ship, the murder of a U.S. ambassador in Sudan, and the bombing that killed 265 U.S. Marines. He is also a friend of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."


Substitute "American" for Jewish in the above quote and see how you feel about it. Hell, the murder of a US Ambassador and 265 U.S. Marines on a peacekeeping mission should be enough to have dissuaded us from EVER negotiating with that bastard. But we tried and it failed because he once again proved that he and the Palestinian cause he represents would prefer murder to one inch of compromise. This is Jesse Jackson's friend. The same Jesse Jackson that was leading the crowd in chanting "give peace a chance" yesterday. It won't happen while Arafat's around, Reverend.

I have an Iranian friend who I sometimes question about the Middle East. We had dinner one night with another Iranian friend of his who offered that, "I hate the Palestinans. Everybody there hates the Palestinians. All they ever do is cause trouble." He also told me that when he hears other Middle Eastern immigrants bitching about the U.S. he tells them, "You never had it as good as you do here. Do you want to go back? Give me your green card, I'll tear it up right now!". An interesting perspective.


Home
Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=