WSJ - THE AMERICAS By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY July 7, 2008
FARC's 'Human Rights' Friends
As we learn more about the Colombian military's daring hostage rescue last week, one detail stands out: In tricking FARC rebels into putting the hostages aboard a helicopter, undercover special forces simply told the comandantes that the aircraft was being loaned to them by a fictitious nongovernmental organization sympathetic to their cause called the International Humanitarian Mission.
It may have taken years for army intelligence to infiltrate the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and it may have been tough to convincingly impersonate rebels. But what seems to have been a walk in the park was getting the FARC to believe that an NGO was providing resources to help it in the dirty work of ferrying captives to a new location.
I am reminded of President Álvaro Uribe's 2003 statement that some "human rights" organizations in his country were fronts for terrorists. Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd got his back up over Mr. Uribe's statement, and piously lectured the Colombian president about "the importance of democratic values."
But as the helicopter story suggests, Mr. Uribe seems to have been right. How else to explain the fact that the FARC swallowed the line without batting an eye?
This warrants attention because it adds to the already robust evidence that left-wing NGOs and other so-called human rights defenders, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Colombian Sen. Piedad Cordoba, are nothing more than propagandists for terrorists.
When passions over kidnap victim Ingrid Betancourt and the other hostages were running high, these actors pressed Mr. Uribe to grant FARC demands. Now it is clear that the pressure was geared more toward strengthening the rebels' hand than freeing the captives.
Left-wing NGOs have made undermining the Colombian government's credibility a priority for many years. A 2003 internal report from the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá titled "A Closer Look at Human Rights Statistics" confirmed as much. It found that NGO analyses for example by the Jesuit-founded Center for Popular Research and Education known as Cinep of the human-rights environment contained a heavy bias against the government while granting a wide berth to guerrillas.
Since the late 1990s, the NGO practice of dragging the military into court on allegations of human rights violations has destroyed the careers of some of the country's finest officers, even though most of these men were found innocent after years of proceedings. "Judicial warfare" turned out to be especially effective because under legislation pushed by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, "credible" charges against officers put at risk U.S. military aid unless the accused was removed. The NGOs knew that they only had to point fingers to get rid of an effective leader and demoralize the ranks. Given this history, it's not surprising that the FARC thought a helicopter from an NGO was perfectly natural.
As to Mr. Chávez, documents captured during a Colombian raid of a guerrilla camp in Ecuador show that, in his role as "mediator" in hostage negotiations since last year, he was advising the rebels as to how to best use their hostages as leverage to advance their revolution.
Last fall, Mr. Chávez and the FARC hatched an audacious plan whereby the Venezuelan would take "proof of life" of Ms. Betancourt to French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, where the plight of Ms. Betancourt was a cause célèbre. The rebels wrote that Mr. Chávez was sure French pressure for negotiations would cause President Bush to "order Uribe to allow the meeting" between Mr. Chávez and the rebels on Colombian soil, something Mr. Uribe had refused to do. The rebels reported that Mr. Chávez was "super-motivated," because he viewed the rendezvous as a public-relations coup that would give him and the FARC "continental and world renown."
That plan flopped, but Mr. Chavez had other cards up his sleeve. One involved Ms. Cordoba, who is currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC. She figures prominently in the captured rebel documents, and is notoriously close to Mr. Chávez.
She met at the Venezuelan presidential palace with FARC leaders last fall. From that meeting the rebels reported that "Piedad says that Chávez has Uribe going crazy. He doesn't know what to do. That Nancy Pelosi helps and is ready to help in the swap [hostages in exchange for captured guerrillas]. That she has designated [U.S. Congressman Jim] McGovern for this."
If the speaker of the House was working with Ms. Cordoba in this scheme, her judgment was more than a little misguided. The rebels write that on a trip to Argentina Ms. Cordoba told them, "It doesn't matter to me the proposal that Sarkozy has made to free Ingrid. Above all, do not liberate Ingrid." In short, why give up such a useful pawn?
Could the above two paragraphs be why Pelosi and Co have so relatively "low profile" in the last couple of months?
#2
Unh, lessee. Some individuals can't get elected to promote their leftist agenda directly, so they collect a bunch a money from other leftists and form a NGO to do their lefty dirty work. Whoodathunkit? NGOs should undergo a heavy duty smell test at all times. Few would pass ever...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/07/2008 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I wonder how much Hugo flushed down the FARC toilet?
#4
Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd got his back up over Mr. Uribe's statement, and piously lectured the Colombian president about 'the importance of democratic values.'
I anxiously await Sen. Dodd's 'refined position' on the matter...
#5
Not only did they believe that the "Human Rights Organization" would transport the prisoners for them, but would transport the FARC leadership as well.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/07/2008 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Anyone hear of a Congressional investigation into congresssional members subversive roles in connection with FARC? No? Pity.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/07/2008 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"I anxiously await Sen. Dodd's 'refined position' on the matter..."
AP: President Bush was right about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weaponry.
Likely to drop on Israel.
A whole lotta people have e-mailed me about this today and Lucianne.com has posted links to the story and two others.
From Brian Murphy of the AP:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of 'yellowcake' - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
There is a happy ending. This stuff is not in the hands of terrorists, thanks to President Bush's actions for which he has been hammered by the left for 5+ years. Reported AP:
The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth 'tens of millions of dollars.' A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
Maybe we can buy some of that electricity since Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow his precious Yucca Mountain to be used to store spent nuclear rods.
Then there is this:
The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.
Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.
There is a reason Bush has not fought back against critics: National security. There are secrets a president cannot divulge in his lifetime. History vindicates the Harry Trumans -- and punishes the Bill Clintons. Never equate popularity with quality.
The second story, Iraqis are purging their country of al-Qaida.
This fairy tale about no al-Qaida in Iraq is almost as bad as the fairy tale about a civil war in Iraq.
They've cleared out 90% of this scum. A division is down to maybe 2 battalions.
So much for Reid's 'The war is lost.'
Oh and that Iraqi government that Reid derides? The Times of London:
Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi'ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had 'defeated' terrorism.
This third story is on the politics Democrats bet on American defeat. Now they pay the price as Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has to eat his words to get elected. His whole Judgment Over Experience line of reasoning is unwinding as logic shows that Experience Improves Judgment.
'I am not somebody -- unlike George Bush -- who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions.'
Unlike George Bush? Obama is unfit to tie Bush's shoelaces.
I know not how November's election will go.
But I got the war right.
That's good enough for me and the other 30% of America who has stood by the Best President of the 21st Century -- George Bush.
OK, he's the only one in that category so far. But he will be a tough act to follow.
#1
I agree with Surber's reasoning, on all counts. 'Bama looks to me like a worthless POS who would be a complete unknown if not for his skin color. If, however, we as a nation are dumb enough to elect him because of that, we deserve what we get. I, though, will not be living in America during the 2008-2012 period if he gets elected.
#3
It really got my spider sense tingling when that little bit came out about John McCain visiting the Basilica in Mexico City, and bringing both Lieberman and *Jeb Bush* along.
Someday, in four, eight, or twelve years, maybe we will be lucky enough to have another Bush Presidency.
#4
Any protractive, so-called "NEW COLD WAR" in the ME vv IRAN + Radical Islamism in reality can't be timewise. THE ISLAMIST REGIONAL-GLOBAL JIHAD WAS NOT BEGUN TO FIGHT DECADES OF US-USSR-STYLE DETENTE, COEXISTENCE,+ PERENNIAL RAPPROCHEMENT WID NON-ISLAM/ISLAMISM. Radical Islam is aware that, all things equal, the odds of ISLAMIST/
JIHADIC VICTORY IS SLIM TO NON-EXISTENCE TO BEGIN WITH, GIVEN THE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL POTENCY OF THE JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN = WEST-ALIGNED, NON-ISLAMIC WORLD STATES, ESPEC THE USA + NATO.
In addition, WORLD MILITARY HISTORY > MILPOL UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE = GUERILLA/BRUSH WARS, etc. TEND TO END ONLY WHEN ONE SIDE IS COMPLETELY SUBORNED IFF NOT DESTROYED.
In essence, there can be no so-called "NEW COLD WAR" espec PROTRACTIVE CO-EXISTENCE becuz Radical Islam, etc. itself doesn't believe there can be. EVEN THE COLD WAR SOVIETS + COMMIES BELIEVED THAT
"STRATEGIC PARITY", SHORT - OR LONG-TERM, PERENNIALLY FAVORED THE US-NATO + CAPITALISM, NOT COMMUNISM + SOCIALISM.
Lastly, as a reminder NET > NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION > gives impetus to many Old and New Nuke States to adopt and prioritize PREEMPTIVE WAR/MILPOL NATIONAL STRATEGIES includ "BOLT-FROM-THE-BLUE/SURPRISE ATTACKS", + also MISSLE-SPACE DEFENSE AMAP ASAP.
NO US-IRAN WAR 2008-2010 or 2012 + PAN-ISLAMIST NUCLEARIZATION > AFTER 2010, tts going to be politically harder for US-Allied Govts.= Politicos to engage in POST COLD WAR/9-11
"UNILATERALISM" MilAction(s) WIDOUT FEAR OF NUCLEAR RETALIATION = MAJOR NUKE-WMDS CATASTROPHIC ENEMY COUNTERRESPONSE.
The time for the US-West/Allies to support and induce PAN-ISLAMIC PRO-DEMOCRATIC LIBERTAR SECULAR REFORMS IS NOW.
#6
I look for Obama to be a path of least resistance guy if he gets elected. He doesn't have the fiber to deal with things like this, so he'll stick his head in the sand like Bill and pretend it isn't happening.
For 60 long years, Pakistan has flourished on a hollow and often dishonest rhetoric of Islam.
Pakistan has more or less reversed in practice all that the new government was talking about the way of tackling Islamic militancy: at election time they were emphasising that a purely military approach to fighting Taliban and extremists, such as the Americans insist upon, is unwise. The problem must be addressed by political means, though use of force has to be kept in reserve for sparing use.
The Army chief was entrusted with the task of fighting Islamic extremism as best as he can the other day. That apparently has gladdened the hearts of the Americans who, according to Samuel Hersh of the New Yorker, have three top US secret agencies, along with the US Special Forces and Pakistani intelligence agencies targeting the Taliban leadership inside Waziristan.
Richard Boucher arrived once again in Pakistan for three days on June 30. He will go round meeting all the bigwigs of the state and party leaders. This is apparently the start of what the Americans have wanted: a coordinated military effort by Americans, NATO and Pakistanis. In NWFPs tribal areas the US National Security Agency, the CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency along with Special Forces and Pakistani intelligence are said to be already active.
The second was the demonstrative military action in Khyber Agency, just outside Peshawar by paramilitary forces.
There was talk of possibly losing even Peshawar because the warlord Haji Mangal Bagh of Khyber Agency had started extorting money and throwing his weight about in Peshawar.
There are now two categories of Pakistani observers: Those who think that Talibanisation of Pakistan is underway and is irreversible and the others say the state has to be firm and act as the Americans advise to contain the Taliban.
The fact is that much of Frontiers tribal areas are already slipping out of Pakistani control. Prime Minister Gilani frequently asserts that the government will re-establish the writ of the state. Please mark this will.
Names of each warlord-cum-Taliban commanders of an agency are known; it is also known that they are the real governments that are realising taxes through extortion, administering rough justice and providing what security there is.
Look at the typical Taliban commander or warlord. All he has to do is to find a rich patron, probably a narcotics producer with money to help raise a Lashkar even of 70-80 armed people.
He proclaims himself a Taliban commander and, hay presto, he rules. All he has to do is to be ruthless in imposing taxes, administering simple, inexpensive and quick justice to follow the example of Arabian Peninsulas Middle Ages customs. This elicits admiration from simple, gullible Frontier Muslims indeed the Sunni Muslims of all the subcontinent.
This is now a cottage industry. Once a commander raises a Lashkar, he can extort more money and he becomes the localitys ruler. What is not prohibited by Taliban Islam is murdering opponents or kidnapping them for ransom.
Recently, Pakistans ambassador to Afghanistan was abducted from near Torkhum. He was recovered after several months on payment of a (huge) ransom. Money otherwise is floating around in the Frontier largely because of the flourishing heroin and cannabis trade.
The beneficiaries are probably no more than 500 or so rich individuals. The spread of such Islam is paradoxical for a place where civilisation goes back 6,000 years. Pakistan areas were the first where vedic culture flourished, followed by Buddhist era and later by Islam.
The real vulnerability of Pakistan lies in the proneness of gullible Muslims to admire everything associated with medieval mores of Arabian Peninsula, particularly of Mecca and Medina. What Prophet Muhammad and his companions said and did in accordance with their local traditions elicits now unlimited admiration. The notion is that everyone received just treatment then.
Taliban too impart supposedly honest and ruthless justice quickly and inexpensively. These qualities are greatly admired by the subcontinents Muslims who yearn for establishing such an Islamic state, though scholars differ what can it possibly be.
There are local reasons in Pakistan too. For 60 long years Pakistan state has flourished on a hollow and often dishonest rhetoric of Islam. Pakistanis have to pay the wages of 60 years of shallow and deceptive Islamic rhetoric and manipulations by Pakistans intelligence outfits: for over 21 years Pakistan has organised a Jihad in which hundreds of thousands of Pushtoon and Frontier people have participated: first in Afghanistan, then in Indian-controlled Kashmir and later again in Afghanistans civil war that erupted 1993 onwards.
Taliban conquered Afghanistan for Islam maybe for Pakistan also. Taliban established an Islamic state that all Deobandi Muslims regarded as authentic Islamic State that must be supported by all. Today in Pakistans tribal areas any number of warlords or Taliban commanders are establishing just such Islamic statelets. These are the wages of the 60-year long bogus rhetoric.
Pakistans real vulnerability is its peoples admiration for ruthless medieval mores adopted by charlatans today seeking power and pelf. Their game has to be exposed as a first real step to contain them. Otherwise Talibanisation will continue and the more the armies of Pakistan and others kill the ordinary Pushtoons the more militants and radicals will be produced.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/07/2008 08:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This word "flourished". I do not think it means what you think it means.
Frontpage Interviews guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. He writes from Sydney, Australia and can be reached at nirribilli@gmail.com.
FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Kasem: Thank you.
FP: We are here today to discuss how Islam views non-Muslims. What is the best way to start this discussion?
Kasem: Those who have not read the Quran in detail have very little idea about the unremitting hatred Allah has for the non-Muslims. One striking aspect of Islams unbound rage and hatred for the unbelievers is that Allah is obsessed with tagging the unbelievers with animalsvarious types, such as dogs, camels, cows, pigs, apes, goat and so on.
FP: Can you share some verses from the Quran, ahadith, and other important sources in Islam on this theme?
Kasem: Sure. Allah sees unbelievers as worse than animals. Let us start with verse 8:55 of the Quran. In essence this verse says: the unbelievers are the worst beasts (or worst animals) in the eyes of Allah.
According to ibn Abbas and Jalalyn, the most eminent exegetes of the Quran, Allah revealed this verse regarding the B. Qurayzah Jews. These Jews had unconditionally surrendered to Muhammads invading army. Earlier, Muhammad had asked these hapless Jews, comprising of women children and adult males, to convert to Islam if they wanted to be reprieved from the genocide that was pronounced on them by the judge appointed by Muhammad. But these Jews steadfastly refused to embrace Islam, preferring death instead. So, when they turned down Muhammads offer of mercy, around 700 to 900 of the adult males were beheaded right in front of Muhammad. Muhammads companions participated in this orgy of beheadings. This was similar to the scene of an abattoir where animals are driven to be slaughtered by Islamic swords and knives.
Commenting on this frenzy of slaughter of these Jews, ibn Kathir, another eminent tafsir writer, writes that the unbelievers who do not embrace Islam and break treaties are the worst moving creatures on earth; Muslims should punish them harshly and inflict heavy casualties among them.
In Quran 25:44, Allah says that unbelievers are worse than cattle and animals.
Ibn Kathir provides the reason why non-Muslims are worse than animals and grazing cattle: cattle only do what they were created to do, but these people were created to worship Allah alone without associating partners with Him, but they worship others with Him, even though evidence has been established against them and Messengers have been sent to them.
Allah hurls further insults to the Jews and Christians if they do not accept the Quran. Allah says in Quran 4:47 that the Quran confirms the books sent before it; the people of the book are cursed if they do not believe in the Quran. Because of this calumny Allah may efface their faces. According to ibn Kathir effacing means turning them blind; turn their faces backward means to put their faces on their backs and make them walk backwards, and curse them means to turn them into animals.
Allah says in Quran 6:122 that He raises the believers from the dead and provides them with light to enable them to move among the disbelievers; but the unbelievers move in total darkness.
Commenting on this verse Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, a modern exegete of the Quran writes (Tafheem ul Quran commentary number 6/88):
'Death' signifies here the state of ignorance and lack of consciousness, whereas 'life' denotes the state of knowledge and true cognition, the state of awareness of Reality. He, who cannot distinguish between right and wrong and does not know the Straight Way for human life, may be alive on the biological plane, but his essential humanity is not. He may be a living animal but is certainly not a living human being. A living human being is one who can distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, honesty from dishonesty.
Readers should note that Straight Way means Islam. The gist of Maududis comment is that a human being who does not accept Islam is a living animal.
FP: So what should happen to these lowest of animals according to Islam?
Kasem: Islam decrees that they be slaughtered Islamically, just in the manner as animals are killed, that is, by beheading.
In Sunaan ibn Majah (hadis number 4.3126) we read that the blood of animals is very dear to Allah, and therefore, one must slaughter animals to please Allah (hadis number 4.3167). Since non-Muslims are animals it is evident that Allah has a great penchant for the blood of infidels.
FP: What are some of the most disturbing verses in terms of all of this?
Kasem: Quran 7:176-177 will profoundly disturb many non-Muslims. In verse 7:176 Allah says those who reject faith are like panting dogs; preaching to them is a waste of time. Maulana Maududi writes (commentary number 7/139):
This is followed by a statement in which God likens the person in question to a dog. A dog's protruding tongue and the unceasing flow of saliva from his mouth symbolize unquenchable greed and avarice. The reason for likening the human character described above to a dog is because of his excessive worldliness This metaphor of the dog highlights the fate of the worldly man who breaks loose from his faith and knowledge, who entrusts his reins to blind lust and who ends up as one wholly devoted to gratifying his own appetite.
What Maududi is says is quite clear: those who do not accept Islam are greedy dogs.
Further, in verse 7:177 Allah says: Those who reject the Quran, wrong themselves; they are evil. According to ibn Abbas, their example is that of a dog.
FP: After killing unbelievers, what does one do with their corpses?
Kasem: Unbelievers corpses are to be fed to dogs.
Since Allah likens the non-Muslims to dogs, it is just fair that their corpses be fed to the dogs. Thus in Ash Shifa (Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad. Translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley. Madinah Press, P.O. Box 5531. Inverness, IV5 7YA, Scotland, U.K. 2004. ISBN: 1 874216262. p.411) we read:
If a Jew or a Christian reviles Muhammad he is beheaded.
In an An Nawadir (footnote 1: A book by Ibn Abi Zayd, author of the Risala) from the version of Sahnum from Malik, we find that any Jew or Christian who reviles the Prophet in any other than normal way by which the Jews and Christians reject him is beheaded unless he becomes a Muslim.
If a Christian reviles Muhammad kill him and let the dog eat his corpse.
Abul Musab said, A Christian was brought to me who said, By the One who chose isa (Jesus) over Muhammad/. There was a dispute about him before me. So I beat him until I killed him, or he lived for a day and a night. I commanded someone to drag him by the feet and throw him into a dung heap and the dogs ate him. Rest at link
Posted by: ed ||
07/07/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They HATE us! We need to hate back because: we hate tyranny. We hated Hitler and Stalin. Do we dare hate a person of color, who mirrors those butchers?
The human faculty for hate cannot be abolished. We should use it to take away the humanity of the enemy. That makes it easier to kill them in large numbers.
Ironically, in the current context the above would evoke hate from the anti-haters. Tom Lehrer used to write songs about all these contradictions. WE ALL HATE!
#4
I'm with spook. Kill them like the cockroach in the kitchen. Nothing like finding a house full of a terrorist and their family where everyone is down with a bullet between the eyes and no one heard anything.
Best news of the month so far: the northbound lane of the 35W bridge now spans the river. Less than a year, and its up. Astonishing. Well, not really; we can do those things. Perhaps its astonishing that we let ourselves forget that we can do those things. Having read about 9325 AP thumbsuckers about the bad, bad mood Americans are in nowadays, what with the world ending and all, its good to recall that we are still capable of extraordinary feats. And by we I mean them the workers and engineers. The people who have the capacity for clear, direct thinking. Problem: bridge fell down. Solution: build new bridge. Well, lets get on it, then.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/07/2008 13:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
That is what I meant by asserting last February that Barack Obama hates America (Obama's women reveal his secret Asia Times Online, Feb 26, 2008) . Recently, blogger Steve Sailer called attention to a passage in Obama's book Dreams of My Father that explains the source of this hatred:
... As we walked back to the car, we passed a small clothing store full of cheap dresses and brightly colored sweaters, two aging white mannequins now painted black in the window. The store was poorly lit, but toward the back I could make out the figure of a young Korean woman sewing by hand as a child slept beside her.
The scene took me back to my childhood, back to the markets of Indonesia: the hawkers, the leather workers, the old women chewing betel nut and swatting flies off their fruit with whisk brooms ... I saw those Djakarta markets for what they were: fragile, precious things. The people who sold their goods there might have been poor, poorer even than folks out in Altgeld [the Chicago housing project where Obama engaged in community organizing]. They hauled fifty pounds of firewood on their backs every day, they ate little, they died young. And yet for all that poverty, there remained in their lives a discernible order, a tapestry of trading routes and middlemen, bribes to pay and customs to observe, the habits of a generation played out every day beneath the bargaining and the noise and the swirling dust. It was the absence of such coherence that made a place like Altgeld so desperate, I thought to myself.
The coherence of traditional society imposes a structure on life, a structure so rigid that such societies cannot adapt to change and must crumble before encroaching empire. In return for the sanctity of individual rights, Americans are freed from the constraints of traditional society and made responsible for their own actions. For an American presidential candidate to refer to traditional society as the model for the solution to American problems has no precedent. It is one thing to denounce American errors while upholding American principles. Never before has America considered electing a president who prefers the alternative, and that might just be the most dangerous thing to happen to the United States since its Civil War.
#3
"Is Obama looking for people to become his Serfs?"
Well, yeah, BP.
If for no other reason than to make up for his being Michelle's serf....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/07/2008 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I always thought that B. Hussein was probably hen-pecked by his Domme, I mean Mistress, I mean wife. ;-)
Posted by: Junter Oppressor of the Danes8356 ||
07/07/2008 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Christianity is growing because it provides for a better life for individuals who embrace it and large numbers of Christians helps create a better society. Christianity - much like the American dream - is about individuals rising up, and working to improve themselves in the image of Christ. Unlike we have been brainwashed to believe for the last 50 years, it is not a bad thing, but good.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
