Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Sanctioning Ahmadinejad
By James Lewis
UN Ambassador John Bolton leaves his position with a parting cannon shot: Formally charging Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
"with inciting genocide because of his speeches advocating the destruction of the state of Israel." It may turn out to be a shot heard around the world. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1970930,00.html
Incitement to murder is a criminal offense. English Common Law considers it equal to "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." If you incite a mob panic that ends up trampling a child to death, you are held responsible. A Mafia boss doesn't have to personally pull the trigger to be prosecuted for murder.
The question today is whether a modern Hitler would at least be sanctioned and ostracized by civilized nations for fomenting mass-murder before he started killing. If not, we are no better off now than in 1938; and we have not applied the elementary lessons of schoolyard bullies to international behavior.
In the past year Iran's Ahmadinejad has been playing Junior Hitler to the applause of millions of brainwashed followers, and has only received feeble words of rebuke from the West. There are Iranians who are deeply ashamed of his behavior, but most of them keep quiet. In fact, Ahmadinejad's demagoguing has raised his popularity in the Muslim world.
The question therefore is whether a psychopathic throwback like Ahmadinejad can ever be publicly shamed and sanctioned in the eyes of the world. If national leaders like him could be shamed by all, regime change might be unnecessary. Social shaming can be a powerful punishment --- but only if it is rigorously enforced.
Iran is a nation with a long history of true greatness and humanity. The ancient emperors Xerxes and Darius indeed returned exiled Jews to their homeland after the first Exile of the 4th century BCE. Iranians take justified pride in their history, their poetry, philosophy, and mystical traditions. The current sleazebag who claims to lead Iran is a moral and humane embarrassment.
International law has a formal provision for declaring people persona non grata, used to expel spies with diplomatic cover from a host nation. It can also be used to symbolize moral repugnance. Can a national leader who violates basic human decency be publicly ostracized in this way?
Today, genocidal maniacs are applauded by the "international community" in the plain light of day. When Ahmadinejad came to speak to the General Assembly in New York City he was received like a respectable head of state. It took decades for the Sudanese genocide to be accurately labeled "genocide."
The pathetic failure of international elites to uphold simple standard of decency should be intolerable to civilized countries, which are still a small minority in the world. To make things worse, the United Nations itself has been hijacked by criminal regimes, or by those who are bought off or scared by them. The UN Human Rights Commission is a preposterous farce, chaired among others by the bloody-handed Sudanese genocidists. It was elected by the General Assembly against the vigorous protests of the United States. Muslim nations constantly collude with Europe and Africa to stage such perversions of simple human decency.
The same slick moral reprobates have failed for years to even agree on defining "terrorism" as the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. For civilized countries that's a no-brainer. But there are regimes that favor revenge killings of innocents. That is how they hold onto their power. They have constantly justified terrorist crimes and turned the Geneva Conventions upside down.
Such criminocrats have worked to confuse the fire and the fire brigade, as Winston Churchill put it, turning self-defense into a crime, and the murder of innocents into a virtue. All this adds up to a great atavistic throwback to a savage culture of vengeance, of daily corruption and endless moral compromise. This farce is being aided and abetted by the international media. Bottom line, no clear moral stand against genocidal incitement or mass murder can be expected from the United Nations.
The UN has failed not just once but many times, and for a specific political raison d'etat: Because many of its members actively collude with genocide. This depravity is not an accident, but a deliberate policy choice. If you doubt it, consider that Kofi Annan was a personal witness to the Rwandan genocide and did nothing - not even alerting the international media. The General Assembly rewarded him by making him Secretary General. The Times of London recently charged that France under Mitterand and de Villepin actively aided and abetted the Rwandan genocide. It would be interesting to see if France lobbied for Kofi Annan to be Secretary General.
It is up to a small number of decent nations to uphold elementary moral values when it comes to the worst crimes humans can commit. Two recent actions may offer some hope --- interestingly, one carried out by the German government of Angela Merkel, and the other by Dr. Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United States. Both offer some promise of casting international shame upon genocidal incitement and mass murder. Both governments have compelling reasons to insist on a working international taboo against genocide and its incitement.
At some point the civilized world must demonstrate simple outrage and contempt for genocidal loudmouths like Ahmadinejad. There is something profoundly wrong with just shrugging and getting on with business as usual. When Hitlerian rhetoric dominates both Arab and Iranian streams of Islamist propaganda, civilized nations must show their values as well as their teeth. As the United States begins to pay more attention to public diplomacy, we must demonstrate our morality over and over again, just as we did so skillfully toward the end of the Cold War.
Simply declaring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be persona non grata among civilized nations would set an important precedent. It would for the first time declare a regime leader to be a moral pariah. It would encourage Iranians who want to push the mullahcracy toward sanity.
Public shaming can be powerful: The Soviet Union crumbled through a combination of economic pressure, military containment, and significantly, moral suasion. The Helsinki Accords were an instrument for applying constant public pressure on the Soviets, and gradually Soviet elites began to agree with the moral arguments. They allowed dissidents to leave, and loosened punitive domestic controls to a degree. In Poland the Solidarity movement made common cause with the Pope and Ronald Reagan. When the Soviet Empire finally crumbled, it was because the children of the apparatchiks had stopped believing their parents' propaganda. An unambiguous moral stance by the civilized world had huge impact.
That may be an unusual action in a world where a corrupt and cynical "international community" can publicly witness Rwanda and Sudan, the Khmer Rouge, Stalin and Hitler, and simply close its eyes. The UN and other morally dubious actors should simply be cut out of the picture, as the United States did in the Helsinki Accords. The UN and the international Left constantly try to equate the defensive actions of democratically elected (and often guilt-ridden) governments with the murderous Saddam and Ahmadinejad regimes. But that is just a scam, and the United States should say so as often as possible to get the point across. Jeane Kirkpatrick did so when she was US Representative to the United Nations; so did Daniel Patrick Moynihan, John Bolton, and Adlai Stevenson. Against mendacious propaganda, plain talk is good.
If simple moral decency doesn't move civilized nations to do the right thing, then perhaps self-interest might. Because no nation will be safe if Ahmadinejad attacks Tel Aviv. Israel would be bound to respond with equal or greater force, or to preempt an impending attack. The taboo against nuclear warfare would be broken. The city of Tehran would exist no more. The United States would inevitably be drawn in as the guarantor of oil supplies moving through the Gulf. Arab countries would go into a mass panic, because the Sunni Arabs are the historic enemies of Persian Shiites. T
he Saudis are already fearful about the advent of an Iranian bomb. If they are not target number one, they will be number two. As for Taiwan and South Korea, right under the guns of totalitarian regimes, if the United States is seen to fail to protect its allies in the Middle East, our Asian allies will be up for grabs as well. A WMD exchange between Israel and Iran cannot be neatly sealed off from the rest of the world.
IxCimi..."What we have here is failure to communicate."
I was going to say the very same thing about you in my last post but thought I'd give it another try. I think you are reading me entirely wrong. I am not an emoticon. I am seeking an intellectual back and forth; a simple with no emotion attached debate in order to gain clarity of you opinions and thought processes. I thought I phrased my posts in this manner. Obviously not if you think I'm trying to put words in your mouth.
I have no preconceived notion of whom or what you are. I am taking you, by what your words say to me. I'm trying to understand the total meaning behind them. I understand this is more attention and a greater attempt to understand than you usually receive on this board, but unlike most here I have more than a two sentence attention span and more depth than a milk saucer.
Does this make things clear to you? Yes? No? (This signifies I'm actually asking you a question and not making a rhetorical remark improperly posed as some sort of fact.)
Paule Walnuts
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --"
"Do you suppose the people of other cultures react just as strongly when we try to impose our cultural will on them?"
When brought to their homeland absolutely! When in a new country assimilation should be required and readily accepted. Do we not require immigrants to learn American history of the United States and pass a test before they can immigrate legally? And in the past did not that test include language as well...
You sound as if you expect the many to change so the few do not have to. How many other countries, other than ATM machines; provide for the language barrier as we do here in the USA? From my experience the countries in which I have traveled to do not.
"Sounds to me like they are just trying to stop a culture war in their own small way... having kids beat up other kids for just being Muslim might incite a bad scene."
But this isn't happening nor is it fair to those of other faiths is it not? Is this not a blatant violation of Church and state to teach any religion? A gross mistreatment to the majority and white glove treatment to the minority?
"The inconsistency in logic and emotion begin IN the home and meet the world head on."
So you would legislate emotion, as well as behavior at the expense of our own identity? Yes? No?
Paule Walnuts
*** A Special One-Time Tax Credit For 2006
A SPECIAL ONE TIME TAX CREDIT ON YOUR 2006 TAX RETURN
When it comes time to prepare and file your 2006 tax return, make sure you don't overlook the "federal excise tax refund credit." You claim the crediton line 71 of your form 1040. A similar line will be available if you file the short form 1040A. If you have family or friends who no longer file a tax return AND they have their own land phone in their home and have been paying a phone bill for years, make sure they know about this form 1040EZ-T.
What is this all about? Well the federal excise tax has been charge to you on your phone bill for years. It is an old tax that was assessed on your toll calls based on how far the call was being made and how much time you talked on that call. When phone companies began to offer flat fee phone service, challenges to the excise tax ended up in federal courts in several districts of the country. The challenges pointed out that flat fee/rate phone service had nothing to do with the distance and the length of the phone call. Therefore, the excise tax should/could not be assessed.
The IRS has now conceded this argument. Phone companies have been given notice to stop assessing the federal excise tax as of Aug 30, 2006. You will most likely see the tax on your September cutoff statement, but it should NOT be on your October bill.
But the challengers of the old law also demanded restitution.
So the IRS has announced that a one time credit will be available when you and I file our 2006 tax return as I explained above. However, the IRS also established limits on how BIG a credit you can get.
Here's how it works.
If you file your return as a single person with just you as a dependent, you get to claim a $30 credit on line 71 of your 1040.
If you file with a child or a parent as your dependent, you claim $40.
If you file your return as a married couple with no children, you claim $40.
If you file as married with children, you claim $50 if one child, $60 if two children.
In all cases, the most you get to claim is $60 - UNLESS you have all your phone bills starting AFTER Feb 28, 2003 through July 31, 2006 (do not use any bills starting Aug 1, 2006.), then you can add up the ACTUAL TAX AS IT APPEARS ON YOUR BILLS AND CLAIM THAT FOR A CREDIT.
Now if you have your actual phone bills and come up with an ACTUAL TAX AMOUNT, you cannot use line 71 on your tax return. You have to complete a special form number 8913 and attach it to your tax return.
Individuals using the special from 1040EZ-T will have to attach this form 8913 also.
One final point - this credit is a refundable credit. That means you get this money, no matter how your tax return works out. If you would end up owing the IRS a balance, the refund will reduce that balance you owe. If you end up getting a refund, the credit will be added and you get a bigger refund by that $30 to $60, depending on how many dependents are on your return.
Feel free to pass this on or make copies for family and friends who don't have computers.
I have held this information for several days waiting to be able to find confirmation or denial on the net. The following link says it is true: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/exisetax.htm
Note: Verified On Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/excise.asp
Scholar Resigns From Ga. Center
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 7, 2006
A veteran Middle East scholar affiliated with the Carter Center in Atlanta resigned his position there Monday in an escalating controversy over former president Jimmy Carter's bestselling book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," traces the ups and downs of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process beginning with Carter's 1977-1980 presidency and the historic peace accord he negotiated between Israel and Egypt and continuing to the present. Although it apportions blame to Israel, the Palestinians and outside parties -- including the United States -- for the failure of decades of peace efforts, it is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land."
Kenneth W. Stein, a professor at Emory University, accused Carter of factual errors, omissions and plagiarism in the book. "Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information," Stein wrote in a harshly worded e-mail to friends and colleagues explaining his resignation as the center's Middle East fellow.
Stein offered no specifics in his e-mail to back up the charges, writing only that "in due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins."
A statement issued by the center yesterday in Carter's name said he regretted Stein's resignation "from the titular position as a Fellow" and noted that he had not been "actively involved" there for the past 12 years. Carter thanked Stein for his advice and assistance "during the early years of our Center" and wished him well.
While acknowledging that the word "apartheid" refers to the system of legal racial separation once used in South Africa, Carter says in his book that it is an appropriate term for Israeli policies devoted to "the acquisition of land" in Palestinian territories through Jewish settlements and Israel's incorporation of Palestinian land on its side of a separating wall it is erecting.
He criticizes suicide bombers and those who "consider the killing of Israelis as victories" but also notes that "some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians."
Accusing the Bush administration of abandoning the effort to promote a lasting peace, he calls for renewed negotiations on the basis of security guarantees for Israel and Israel's recognition of U.N.-established borders.
Formally published three weeks ago, the book quickly became a bestseller. Carter has been prominently interviewed in the media and has been mobbed at book appearances around the country.
Speaking Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said he was glad the book had raised controversy. "If it provokes debate and assessment and disputes and arguments and maybe some action in the Middle East to get the peace process, which is now completely absent or dormant, rejuvenated, and brings peace ultimately to Israel, that's what I want," he said.
Criticism of the book, primarily from Jewish groups and leaders, began even before it was published, and it became an issue in the midterm elections last month. The New York-based Jewish Daily Forward noted in October that Democrats were trying to distance themselves from its reported contents as Republicans were seeking to widely disseminate Carter's views in an effort to win Jewish votes.
Speaking to the Forward about Carter, Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matthew Brooks said the coalition had "not shied away from shining a light on some of his misguided and outrageous comments about Israel in the past. . . . So far, there's been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable."
Rep. Steve Israel, a Democrat from New York, told the Forward that the "book clearly does not reflect the direction of the party."
Since then, the controversy has only grown. In a widely published commentary last weekend, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote that Carter's "use of the loaded word 'apartheid,' suggesting an analogy to the hated policies of South Africa, is especially outrageous."
In a statement issued Monday, the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles contended that Carter "abandons all objectivity and unabashedly acts as a virtual spokesman for the Palestinian cause."
In a telephone interview yesterday, Stein said that Carter had "taken [material] directly" from a published work written by a third party but that legal action was being contemplated and he was not yet at liberty to make the details public. He said accounts in the book about meetings he had attended with Carter between 1980 and 1990 had left out key facts in order to "make the Israelis look like they're the only ones responsible" for the failure of peace efforts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120602171.html
IxCimi...
Not at our cultures expense. These you mention were not imposed upon me. I can choose not to participate in the festivals or eat the food.I can even choose not to celebrate Christmas if I want. I reference Christmas as many ‘cultures’ were incorporated forming what we celebrate today.
My son is not allowed to express his Christian beliefs at school in fact is punished for doing so, while the administration parades around Muslim children to teach the wonders of Ramadan. Tell me, are females wearing burka’s(sp?) an aspect of a culture you want to incorporate, tell our children to start practicing? The chopping off of heads? The suppression of women?
Where do we draw the line?
Paule Walnuts
Hi Alex, seems you're having fun today.lol
ROFLMAO...end
I do not like Carter but...Is this it?..Link at bottom
Carter's frontal attack
The ex-president knows criticizing Israel and the U.S. will bring fallout.
By Josh Getlin, Times Staff Writer
NEW YORK — As an ex-president, Jimmy Carter has intervened in some of the world's most troubled hot spots, trying to reduce tensions in North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Africa and Central America. But now he is staging a literary intervention with the publication of "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," a book that strongly criticizes Israel and the United States for blocking serious peace initiatives and exacerbating terrorism in the Middle East.
Carter's new book, which drew fierce criticism on the Internet even before it appeared in stores, pulls no punches: Although he deplores suicide bombings and other violent attacks on Israeli society, he believes the central reasons for a stalled peace settlement is Israel's continuing refusal to give back the West Bank lands it occupied after the 1967 war and America's unflinching political support for Israel. FOR THE RECORD:
Jimmy Carter: An article in Monday's Calendar section about former President Carter said he had written 21 books, the most of any president. Theodore Roosevelt wrote 40 books. —
________________________________________
In his strongest passages, he blasts Israel's construction of a security wall between itself and Palestinians, saying the controversial structure is a brazen land grab by a minority of Israelis — an "imprisonment wall" that has encircled thousands of Palestinians on the West Bank and has become a form of economic apartheid.
"I wrote the book because I wanted to stimulate a debate in this country about what is actually going on in the Middle East," Carter said during an interview at a midtown hotel on the first day of his national book tour. "This is a subject which, in my mind, has rarely if ever been honestly debated or discussed in the United States."
The topic is dear to his heart — and key to his legacy. While Carter's presidency gets mixed reviews from many historians, his high-water mark was the 1978 brokering of a peace treaty between Israel's Menachem Begin and Egypt's Anwar Sadat. Since then, plans for a wider, more permanent peace in the region have been stymied.
At 82, Carter has the same boyish smile, the luminous blue eyes and friendly demeanor that helped him win the presidency in 1976. But he seemed quieter and more subdued, more fragile, as he sank into an overstuffed chair and talked about his reasons for writing this book. He has now published 21 titles, the most by far of any U.S. president, and several have become bestsellers, including last year's "Our Endangered Values." These books have made Carter "quite wealthy," as he told the Los Angeles Times in a 1998 interview; they include poetry, nonfiction, memoirs and even a historical novel. But none has been as controversial as his latest title.
"I wanted to speak out on this issue, because it so urgently affects peace in the region and the whole world," he said. "And it would be presumptuous of me to ask to be on 'Larry King' or to talk to the L.A. Times to promote my ideas about the Middle East. If I write a book about it, however, this gives me a vast array of forums where I can express views and answer questions. The book gives me this opening."
The bottom line
At 247 pages, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is a brisk read, offering a primer on Middle Eastern history and the roots of the bloody conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. The author, who contracted to write the book two years ago and finished it only recently, assigns responsibility for the conflict to both sides. But his bottom-line sentiments are clear: The so-called road map for peace has failed, he writes, because "Israel has been able to use it as a delaying tactic with an endless series of preconditions that can never be met ... and the United States has been able to give the impression of positive engagement in a 'peace process' which President Bush has announced will not be fulfilled during his time in office."
Carter, who won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, has earned international praise for his post-presidential work; the Carter Center, which he founded after losing the 1980 presidential race to Ronald Reagan, has monitored elections and campaigned against disease in 65 nations. It would be easy for him to simply bask in goodwill, but several of his efforts to negotiate cease-fires have raised the hackles of sitting presidents. And he conceded that his push for a debate on his book tour might be hopelessly quixotic, given Israel's strong support here. It is "almost impossible" for politicians to criticize Israel, Carter noted, adding that media coverage of the issue is "abominable."
Not surprisingly, several prominent critics have attacked Carter's book. Martin Peretz, editor in chief of the New Republic, called it "a tendentious, dishonest and stupid book" in an online commentary; he was critical of the ex-president's "slightly goofy reliance" on his own religious faith as a way of judging Israeli society.
Alan Dershowitz, who said he has admired Carter's post-presidential work, commented online at the Huffington Post.
"This decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Dershowitz wrote. "I don't know why Jimmy Carter, who is generally a careful man, allowed so many errors and omissions to blemish his book."
Carter has gotten more favorable reviews, however. Booklist said his writing was "grounded in knowledge and wisdom" and "delivers a worthy game plan." Publishers Weekly called the book "informed and readable."
Simon & Schuster "accepts the fact that not everyone will agree with him on this issue," said Alice Mayhew, the veteran editor who worked with Carter.
"But we felt it was a topic that should be publicly addressed."
josh.getlin@latimes.com
President Carter will appear at Vroman's Bookstore at 695 E. Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena at 7 p.m. Dec. 11. Information: (626) 449-5320 or www.vromansbookstore.com.
http://www.calendarlive.com/books/cl-et-carter4dec04,0,2199238.story?coll=cl-books-util
"more MULTI-culturally aware"… isn't multi-culturism a harmful thing?
Are not Europe and Australia enacting legislature to put an end to this practice?
When defining culture I prefer the simple "to educate and refine the mind" (Webster’s dictionary) in which one would become "aware" of many cultures without having them imposed...
Am I reading you wrong?
Paule Walnuts
Alex wait....Midas please delete all my posts that contain any swear words.
It's a sign of an uneducated mind to swear, as it reveals the perpetrator has nothing else to offer.
And secondly but most importantly, we wouldn’t want any sense of impropriety from the other posters here.
I know you probably have better things to do, but Alex is pretty upset and you need to stop your life to appease him.
Sarcastic Paule Walnuts
midas98'....You probably deleted my posts too then?
Good, maybe it will raise the level of discourse on the board(not), as well as prompt me to find new and improved non-offensive ways to insult people ;)~
LOL
Paule Walnuts
I found it...ONEBGG taught me how to make these once. This recipe is not the same as in the books.
Harbor Light - Mixed Drink ~
Ingredients:
Kahlua
Matches (or Lighter)
Tequila
Rum, 151 proof
White Cream De'Mint
Directions:
1- In a Shot + glass poor a 1/3 shot each of the Kahlua, White Cream De’Mint and Tequila.
2- Now float a ¼ shot of 151 Rum on top of the drink, you can do this by pouring it over the backside of a spoon.
3- Very Carefully light the drink with a match or lighter, let it burn for just a couple of seconds so as to warm the drink, Very Carefully & Gently blow out the flame and slug down the drink in one shot.
Note: This drink tastes just like the Ande’s Cream De’Mint chocolate candies.
Don’t plan on driving after one of these, LOL!
Paule Walnuts
Susie924..
You did not understand my question, but did a good job attacking Bush.
Good girl. Here is your special liberal only dog biscuit.
Paule Walnuts
I don't care if flies are buzzing around her, if she was capable of protecting our language, borders and culture; that's good enough for me.
Symbolism over substance, where does image fit in?
Paule Walnuts
IxCimi...
"People have to decide what makes a civilization civilized"
We've already made that decision and are now currently tearing it apart.
I guess it’s the new and improved form of civilization that allows politicians to accept money so that others may have sex with 8-year old children.
Paule Walnuts
I am writing a little song. Wanna hear it, here it goes!
It’s all about the vote and if you can claim it,
It’s all about the vote no way you can shake it.
I am the vote how you will appease me,
I am the vote no way you can leave me.
Today is a play and I am the writer,
Today is my play because I fill the coffer.
Republican or Democrat it really doesn’t matter,
Your will bends to my money and power.
It’s all about the vote and if you can claim it,
It’s all about the vote no way you can shake it.
Gulfbreeze...
Would you at least clean up your own back yard? I mean geesh!..lol
My senator is currently stabbing us in the back appeasing every liberal here in Oregon he possibly can. Oh and he’s supposed to be a conservative.
The really sad thing is…its working. You should hear the very same people that malign him now venerate him holier than Thou.
Paule Walnuts
Koikaze..."Even then, many will proclaim that we've never had it so good."
I hope I understand the context in which you say this? Many people seem to equate quality of life, or prosperity to what you are saying...
Paule Walnuts
IxCimi Don't forget apathetic and complacent....
So far this is the best (conversation) I have seen on this board.
Thank You guys.
Paule Walnuts
You have to do it on your own buddy...
"This was the first of two workshops, which aimed to analyse the impact of recent and current economic reforms on corruption with a view to identifying the sources of corrupt incentives, as well as possible ways of addressing corruption – within the framework of either existing or alternative reform models. The thesis implicit in the title, is that globalisation together with market liberalisation policies have combined to produce a new political economy of corruption - i.e. a new set of interactions between political processes and economic policies that have given rise to new sources of, and conduits for, corruption.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:8d33CuUwMnwJ:www.againstcorruption.org/reports/2003-WS54ReportIA...
Paule Walnuts
Well said IxCimi...
"The idealism in youth should not be so readily crushed by the status quo..."
Paule Walnuts
Not with any children I hope.
Paule Walnuts
barryinla...
You have me confused with others here on this board. Preach to me after you've done some researching on my positions.
Paule Walnuts
Koikaze..
"and, if not you, then I'll just keep plugging along on my own)."
I applaud your effort. Eventually people will rally. I don't think we are anywhere close yet.
Paule Walnuts
This is very telling...
http://wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/foley-mania-is-running-wild-but-where.html
Wake up Black America
It's time to stop pulling the mule. This blog was created to expose the race hustlers both white and black that exploit blacks for their own personal gain. It was also created to show how liberal democrat policies have poisoned the black community in America for the last forty years. A race of people slavishly supporting one political party doesn't create political power for that race, it creates political slavery instead.
So you're in support of child molestation? WOW!
TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND...Carter to Leno: Treatment of Palestinians 'horrible'
Jimmy fails to mention onslaught of terrorist attacks against Israelis
December 12, 2006© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Without mentioning the onslaught of attacks by Palestinian terrorists, former President Jimmy Carter told a national audience watching the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" there is "horrible persecution" of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis, and he is urging a return to peace talks between the residents of the embattled region.
"In Palestinian territory, there is horrible persecution of the Palestinians who live on their own land," Carter said.
"A minority of Israelis want to have the land instead of peace. The majority of Israelis for the last 30 years have always said [they] will exchange their own land in exchange for peace. But a minority disagrees and they have occupied the land, they have confiscated it, they have colonized it, and they forced Palestinians away from their homes, away from their pastures, away from their fields, cut down the olive trees and severely persecuted the Palestinians."
The 82-year-old Carter was on Leno's show last night to promote his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
Leno said to the president who held office more than 25 years ago, "But when Israel gives something back, it doesn't seem like they get anything for it. It seems like it just moves some angry people closer to them."
"No, that's not true at all," responded Carter. "Israel hasn't really tried to give 'Palestine' back to the Palestinians. They did give up some of Gaza. And then they moved out, and the Palestinians captured one soldier and tried to swap [him] for 300 children – some as young as 12 years old – and 94 women, but the Israelis wouldn't swap. So then Israel reinvaded Gaza. But if Israel ever wants peace – and they do want peace – a majority of Israelis have always said, 'Let's get rid of the land, and let's have peace.' That's what we need to have."
As WND reported last month, the Palestinian terror group Hamas announced the only way to stop its regular rocket fire on Sderot, an Israeli city of about 20,000 nearly three miles from the Gaza Strip border, is for the Jewish state to evacuate the entire city.
Abu Abaida, spokesman for Hamas' so-called military wing, said his group is seeking to impose "a new equation in which the Zionists understand that for every incursion into Gaza, we will use our rockets to bombard your towns and cities until more and more are forced to evacuate. Our rockets have already improved, as Sderot residents know. We keep working on (the rockets) to improve deadliness, force and distance."
Carter has come under fire recently, including a highly publicized incident on C-SPAN2 last week when a caller said to him on a phone-in program:
Yes, uh, Mr. Carter, thank you for making me a Republican, because of your incompetence in handling the Iranians, the stagflation, and your cozying up with every dictator, thug and Islamic terrorist there is. And more importantly, I find you to be vile because of your black is heart. [sic] And it's heart [sic] because you're an anti-Semite. And let me explain why I think you're a bigot, a racist and an anti-Semite.
"That's a terrible epithet," Carter told Leno. "I negotiated a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in April of 1979 between [former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem] Begin and [former Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat. Not a word of that treaty has ever been violated. ... A major commitment of my life is to bring peace to Israel."
When asked what the U.S. needs to do now, Carter says he's hoping his book helps prompt peace talks to resume.
"There hasn't been a single day of negotiation for peace since Bill Clinton left office," Carter said. "In the last six years, not a single day of peace negotiations."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53337
These people should be court martialed...
Note the liberal-dominated mass media's softness on pedophilia. It is
the final step by the culture-wreckers to achieve a moral breakdown of
society and to create conditions in which the liberal thrives.
--------------------------------------
Liberals seek to legalize sex with children
Liberal-Led NAMBLA Continues Its Activities
The North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, is top heavy with
liberals. This "organization" boasts of its "holy liberal crusade"
(quote) to legalize sexual relations (translate: oral and anal sodomy)
with children as young as three-years old.
One of the NAMBLA Founders was The liberal "Poet" Alan Ginsburg who
actually wrote a special poem glorifying the rape of young boys which
was titled, "Sweet Boy Give Me Yr (sic) Ass". Amazingly, Ginsburg was
eulogized around the world a few years back when he passed, as the
nation's liberals grieved for this "wonderful novelist".
In Canada liberals have successfully lowered the legal age of consent
for sex to AGE FOURTEEN... I REPEAT, AGE 14. We have to do something
about these sick demented liberals who are determined to destroy the
political power of European Americans by destroying the moral values of
our children and turning our children against our conservative values.
With more research, liberals say, it may be only a matter of time
before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned
to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex. "Children are the last
bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for
this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science
at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
For detailed data regarding the network, please read: Brother Tony's
Boys by Mike Echols (The Largest Case of Liberal Child Prostitution in
U.S. History) by Prometheus Books, ISBN #1-57392-051-7. Warning! It is
not for the Faint Hearted. Remember, the liberal focused on in this
book raped nine hundred boys before he was finally caught and
"punished". Today, he's free again because of our liberal judges.
Defending the sexual molestation of children in the nation's leading
liberal gay magazine, Carl Maves wrote, "How many gay men, I wonder,
would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience, one that
initiated them into their sexuality, if it weren't for so-called
molestation?" (See the full article titled, "Getting Over It" in The
Advocate, May 5, 1992, page 85.)
The liberal slogan for NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love
Association, is "Sex by eight or it's too late," meaning not eight
p.m., but eight years old.
Time Magazine is always understanding of liberal homosexual crime. They
printed a puff image piece on Peter Melzer, the liberal editor of
NAMBLA's journal. In the article For the Love of Kids (Nov. 1, 93, page
51) the ACLU defended this liberal pervert arguing that if we condemn
"NAMBLA today, who is it tomorrow?" Melzer is also a Liberal New York
City public school teacher (surprised?). He published an article In
Praise of the Penises, on "how to make that special boy feel good." As
to a police report on Melzer's alleged sex with a Filipino boy,
according to Time, there is no hard evidence that he abused this "or
any other boy in the U.S." Yeah, right.
The liberal homosexuals chanted during their 1993 march on Washington,
"Ten percent is not enough! Recruit, recruit, recruit!" They want my
children. They want your children.
Examine the record of those who defend liberal homosexual adoption of
children. Jim Joy, the executive director of Colorado's ACLU, admitted
during a PBS televised debate that the written national policy of the
ACLU defends the right to distribute child pornography. As with many
leading voices, the ACLU's opposition of child abuse is hypocrisy.
Every such video sold of a thirteen- year- old sexually exploits the
child again. So the ACLU, known to tolerate child abuse, sells children
out again by advocating their adoption by liberal homosexuals.
Liberal homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex
abuse. A prominent liberal gay magazine, Out, quoted Damien Martin, the
head of New York's liberal homosexual Harvey Milk High School, as
saying, "No kid has ever been hurt by [oral sex]" in September, 1994 on
page 73. The leading liberal gay publication, The Advocate, in an
article titled Getting Over It pondered on May 5, 1992 about how many
boys "would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience - one
that initiated them into their sexuality - if it weren't for so-called
molestation?"
Time magazine also lacks zero tolerance for liberal homosexual child
abusers. They quoted the ACLU in defense of an aggressive advocate of
pedophilia. NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association exists
to promote liberal homosexual sex with young boys. Leading liberal
gay-pride organizers in New York and San Francisco allowed NAMBLA to
march undisguised in their parades repeatedly during the last two
decades.
The liberal media defends homosexuals who want to adopt children, but
it also supports liberal homosexuals who openly advocate sex with kids.
The national media warmly eulogized Alan Ginsburg this past spring
conveniently ignoring this homosexual poet's public endorsement of
NAMBLA. In Denver, a convicted liberal pedophile, who says today he
controls his longings, is running for Denver School Board with the
support of many in the homosexual community.
The nation's largest liberal gay publicist, Alyson Publications of
Boston, which distributes the book "Daddy's Roommate" and other liberal
homosexual books for kids, published "Pedophilia: The Radical
Case"--hundreds of pages of why and how seven year old boys should be
brought to climax.
Another Alyson book, "The Age Taboo," on page 144, insists:
"Boy-lovers... are not child molesters. The child abusers are ...
parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their
custody."
America's liberal newspapers are their silent partners. Those liberals
who are soft on child sex, or even those liberals boldly endorsing it,
have nothing to fear from the mainstream media.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
Liberals HATE America!
ABC News broke open the Foley case. ABC Entertainment distributes “Desperate Housewives.” During the last May sweeps, they pushed this plot: Bree, the red-headed Desperate Housewife, started seeing a man who was not only a drunk, but a sex addict. Bree’s children then started trying to seduce him, and ultimately their mother came home to find her gay teenage son Andrew in the bedroom with her new beau. For ABC, this was all a delicious plot twist, a naughty giggle. No one was outraged. No Democrat returned contributions from Disney.
The American Spectator reported that in a 2001 “gay pride” parade in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi was just three spots in the parade from radical gay advocate Harry Hay, who avidly spoke in favor of sex with teens and fiercely advocated for NAMBLA’s inclusion in gay-pride parades. Did Pelosi ever protest NAMBLA’s presence in parades?
Democrats on Sex and Children
by L. Brent Bozell III
October 12, 2006
After more than 100 stories on ABC, CBS, and NBC on the Mark Foley Internet-messaging scandal, it wouldn’t be hard for the average Joe to conclude the Democrats are now the Party of Moral Values.
Democrats are demanding that Republicans return the monies Foley gave their campaigns. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader who would very much like Denny Hastert’s job, is predictably fanning the flames. “We want to know,” she thunders, “why the Republicans chose to protect Mark Foley's political career rather than protect the children who were in our charge.”
To which I want to thunder back: Is there a muzzle large enough to fit a mouth such as Nancy Pelosi’s?
Unwind that soundbite. Since when have the Democrats really been the party to protect children from the sexual advances of adults? Let’s get to the point: Since when have Democrats like Nancy Pelosi cared, really cared, about men seeking out boys for sex?
There’s an organized lobby for this perversion: the National Man-Boy Love Association. In 1997, NAMBLA made national headlines when a 10-year-old Massachusetts boy named Jeffrey Curley was abducted by two men, choked on a gasoline-soaked rag when he wouldn’t consent to sex, was murdered, and then sexually assaulted.
Curley’s parents sued NAMBLA, since one of the killers said he was discouraged from following his fiendish desires until the organization encouraged him. The Curleys’ lawyer explained how the group instructed perverts on how to lure children into sex, citing a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."
What does this have to do with the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi? The ever-prescient Mark Levin connected the dots on his radio program. NAMBLA easily found lawyers to defend them against the parents of the murdered boy -- the American Civil Liberties Union. Democrats like Pelosi are demanding that every Republican return any dirty Foley contributions they received, but do you think a single one of them has ever returned a dime generated for their coffers by the ACLU?
The American Spectator reported that in a 2001 “gay pride” parade in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi was just three spots in the parade from radical gay advocate Harry Hay, who avidly spoke in favor of sex with teens and fiercely advocated for NAMBLA’s inclusion in gay-pride parades. Did Pelosi ever protest NAMBLA’s presence in parades?
But go back to Pelosi’s soundbite, because there’s something there that’s even more jarring: Since when do ultraliberals like San Fran Nan believe that a 17-year-old is a “child” anyway?
Consider the most sacred of sacred rights of liberals, abortion. When a teenage girl desires an abortion (or two, or three), do abortion-enabling liberals like Nancy Pelosi defend her as a “child”? Kansas pro-life attorney general Phill Kline fought last year to press abortion clinics to give him medical records of underage girls who sought abortions as part of an investigation into sexual abuse of minors. Liberals like Planned Parenthood fought for what they called the privacy of “women’s medical records.”
And if liberal Democrats think sex between adults and children is gravely wrong, why are they accepting massive donations from Hollywood? One odd twist in the news networks’ shock-and-awe Mark Foley bombing is that their entertainment network cousins relish the very same activity, for fun and laughter, on their sex-drenched dramas.
ABC News broke open the Foley case. ABC Entertainment distributes “Desperate Housewives.” During the last May sweeps, they pushed this plot: Bree, the red-headed Desperate Housewife, started seeing a man who was not only a drunk, but a sex addict. Bree’s children then started trying to seduce him, and ultimately their mother came home to find her gay teenage son Andrew in the bedroom with her new beau. For ABC, this was all a delicious plot twist, a naughty giggle. No one was outraged. No Democrat returned contributions from Disney.
No, liberal Democrats in Congress are not the standard-bearers for “child protection” when it comes to sex. And neither are the news networks that suddenly are outraged – outraged, we say! – about Mark Foley’s behavior.
ABC, CBS, and NBC provided exactly zero coverage of the Curley v. NAMBLA suit. (But they did briefly cover NAMBLA -- when allegations about it floated into the Catholic priest abuse scandal of monstrous Father Paul Shanley in Boston in 2002.) What of Planned Parenthood’s re-labeling of children as adults to ensure the privacy of their abortions? ABC, CBS, and NBC didn’t cover that controversy, either. Outrage over the glorification of man-boy sex in entertainment? Not a peep.
None of this is meant to minimize what is rightful outrage over Foley’s scummy behavior, and the actions (or inactions) of anyone covering them up. It is simply to demonstrate that some have a right to be outraged. And some don’t.
StephanieVanbryce...Get your own material babe. Original thinking and all that....
Paule Walnuts
"Dumb ass" was spoken out of compassion...Calling me an asshole was just plain mean...I'm going to the ACLU
ROFLMAO at you
Paule Walnuts
And here we have A prime example of what is destroying this country.
Americans pitted against Americans. Ideology doesn’t matter, progression of America and her people don't matter, and doing what is right for the country doesn't matter…Period!
All that matters to the plebian is that the Democrats beat the Republicans.
Paule Walnuts
ROFLMAO no wonder our education system is suffering
Now Susie this is anger lol
LOL at Alex
Paule Walnuts